Enzo, this is quite messy, if I may say so.
First, I think you said that the grant that funds the bike co-op belongs to the local bike coalition. Therefore, it’s up to the coalition to decide how to distribute the funds, including the terms (within the terms of the grant, of course). If they say the co-op needs to be run by their manager, the co-op can take it or leave it. Many entrepreneurial startups have
faced the same demand by venture capitalists. It’s part of business. Money rarely comes without strings.
Second, you say you were operating under their charter in order to have non-profit status. Of the many benefits you realized, this is probably the smallest. You were likely promoted through their publications, covered by their liability insurance and given credibility on the street and with grantors and donors because of your affiliation. This last part is especially important. An organization’s reputation is extremely valuable, especially in the nonprofit world. It sounds like the
coalition is concerned that the activities of the co-op is damaging their reputation.
Okay, now to the messy part. What was the reporting arrangement between the co-op and the coalition? Did the coalition have a member or two on the co-op’s board? On the management committee? How did the co-op keep their most important donor informed? This should have been addressed at the co-op’s creation.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the communication from the co-op to the coalition was so poor that the allegations raised by the former volunteer were perceived as credible. Even if they aren’t true, the fact that they are plausible is shocking. People at the coalition are realizing that the co-op was operating more independently than they thought.
Okay, so it’s decision time for the co-op. Will they turn their back on their support system and go it alone?
That’s the route to go to preserve the co-op’s autonomy, but it may destroy the co-op in the process. They could easily be stigmatized as enemies of the coalition. ‘Enemies’ isn’t the right word, but it’s the best I have. They’ll lose their money, their space, and their affiliation.
From what you’ve said, I believe the co-op has no bargaining power here. They should put their ego aside and listen to what the coalition has to say, and do their best to preserve their organization within the new framework.
My two cents, for what they’re worth.
Doug Franz, President
I respect your right to manage the amount of email you receive. If you want to be removed from this email list, please reply to ONLY ME, with "unsubscribe"
in the subject line.
I'd like to some info from those of you whose shop runs under the umbrella of a bike coalition or other advocacy group. How has this effected your ability to operate autonomously as a collective? I'm involved with a fledgling bike coop that was created as a biproduct of a grant that was managed by the local bike coalition. We were operating under their charter so as to have non-profit status. It was many of the volunteer's understanding that the bike coalition was only helping us manage our finances, helping us access grants, and generally helping us get ourselves established in the community. As soon as they heard complaints from a former volunteer they at first told us that they didn't acknowledge our decision making process (full consent) and told us that they wanted us to run under a manager that they hire. More recently (following more complaints and accusations from
potentially the same ex-volunteer) they went in and had the locks changed and shut the whole shop down. We will be meeting with them this week and trying to discuss how to get the place back open. Has anyone else been down this road? Have you hit walls because of a hierarchic organisation not having faith in the collective's ability to make decisions? Should we even go ahead with them if it means not having control of the direction or operation of the shop? What could we do to save the shop and our autonomy?
not speaking on behalf of the bikerowave but another org.