A history lesson
Hi ... I'd heard this was coming. It is a terrible idea.
A little history. The SDCBC was started aa a group of clubs, similar to what the council of clubs is today. As it grew, it was agreed that broadening it's membership made sense, and the original group of clubs agreed to this with the proviso that ex officio (club denoted board member) board members equaled the number of at large elected directors. This is how it was constituted when I joined, and got involved in the great "rewrite" of the bylaws.
After much debate and pressure from a small group of non-club board members complaining that the clubs had an "unfair" advantage and an outsized influence, the clubs agreed to striking the "1 club appointed director for every elected director." provision. All agreed that with that concession, all parties were satisfied and a new set of bylaws (improved in many respects over the older outdated document) was finalized, presented to the membership, voted upon and passed. The clubs did not oppose the new bylaws because they were satisfied they had preserved significant club influence (clubs determine "what is a club, and any club can appoint a director).
Tension arose almost immediately. Clubs are by and large made up of skilled riders who are comfortable in traffic, and who ride the entire county. Their perspective is different for the most part from the "other" elected directors who never saw a bollard / concrete barrier they didn't like. If it makes the average rider "feel" safer, then it's good and must be supported regardless if it is "actually" safer or even (as in many instances) it makes riding more difficult for more experienced riders.
What the Coalition has done well is open up an income stream by partnering with the City of San Diego and other cities in the county to secure grants. These grants are used for education (good use of the money) and advocacy (not always good use of the money.) Clubs have objected to several of the "projects" officially supported by the Coalition. So now, the group that two years ago wanted to expand the board for the sake of "diversity" now wants to shrink it for the sake of "efficiency." Pure hypocrisy in my opinion. What they really want is a tight knit board free from the meddling of the clubs, I've been part of these debates while still on the board. Believe me it is ONLY the clubs that are looking out for club riders, and really for all riders. The others are looking to protect their income stream and have become, again in my opinion, a propaganda machine for the various governmental agencies as they push a not always sane or safe set of infrastructure projects.
The change in the bylaws that is being proposed is NOT coming from the clubs, it is coming from those who want the clubs' voices silenced.
My two cents. That plus 6 bucks will get you a gallon of gas. 😮
Pierre