ACA Board Recommendation on USAC situation

From the ACA Website

Board Recommendation on USAC situation

September 29, 2011

Based on feedback from our clubs, the ACA Board of Directors recommends that the ACA does not pursue reintegration with USAC at this time.

The ACA and USAC have very different ideas about how a local organization should function. The ACA believes that its members are best served by paid staff who are focused on continual improvement, and that this work is fundamental to the high quality of racing in Colorado. USAC's Local Association model relies on volunteers at the local level. USAC wants the ACA to join the national organization, but to date has not provided a solution to the approximately $100,000 annual income shortfall that this reintegration would cost the ACA. Our members, which include individuals, families, clubs, promoters, officials and mechanics, are our most important asset, and the ACA board believes that this financial shortfall would cripple the ACA's ability to function in the manner that our members deserve. The ACA continues to explore new sources of funding, but the Board cannot risk the organization's survival by making a decision without first securing the necessary financial security.

The ACA has more than 3,000 members, industry-leading insurance, reasonable license fees, a comprehensive Junior Development Program, professional staff, widespread support from the local cycling community, and a strong commitment to grow and improve competitive cycling in Colorado and southeast Wyoming. Under the current agreement model, the bulk of our membership would see higher membership fees with no direct benefit from rejoining USAC.


Results of Club Vote See more vote results

For the last decade, the ACA has had a strong commitment to the development of young and new bicycle racers, and one of the best Junior Development Programs in the country. The ACA spends approximately $40,000 per year on our juniors. We are very proud of our 350+ junior members, Junior Road and Cross Camps, Juniors Ride Free, Colorado Mini Classic, and 1st Bike Programs. We had 97 juniors at a local cross race, and more than 100 juniors will attend this year's Junior Cross Camp. The program works. We are very proud of the role we have played in the success of many American professional racers, and also of the number of young people who enjoy leading healthier lives through cycling. In addition to the juniors, the ACA works with our member clubs to host developmental clinics and mentoring opportunities for beginning adult racers.

In order to protect the interests of those Colorado racers and promoters who have ambitions beyond the state, the ACA has been working to:

1- create opportunities for ACA members to gain exposure to USAC's new call-up procedure for cross nationals.

2- create a dual-permitted model for select 2012 time trials, road races, criteriums, and hill climbs, so that UCI-registered professionals can once again compete in Colorado.

3- fully cooperate with USAC to help ACA members achieve category upgrades.

4- fully cooperate with promoters who have significant national ambitions for their events, such as the North Boulder Criterium, the Fort Collins Cycling Festival, the USGP in Fort Collins, the Boulder Cup, and the Colorado Cross Cup.

It should be noted that the ACA has never instituted a rule that prohibits specific racers from competing in our events. We welcome racers of all abilities, experience and nationalities to our races. It is our goal to offer the best racing opportunities for everyone.

Please click here to see the Results of the Club Survey

The response rate from the club survey was significant, as 62% of clubs responded. The primary issue, as identified by our clubs and discussed by the Board of Directors, is the change in funding that the ACA would experience as a Local Association of USAC. Until this issue is adequately addressed, the ACA Board of Directors recommends that we do not pursue reintegration with USAC at this time.

Please direct questions to:

Bill Barr, President, ACA Board of Directors 303-355-9914

Chris McGee, Executive Director, ACA 303-458-5538

News Item: 

32 Comments

The Survey Seems to indicate an opposite view than the board

Looking at the results of the survey, in question one "Please
indicate whether the following benefits are important enough to your club membership to merit the associated financial and organizational trade-offs with 1 being “not
important to my club” and 5 being “very important to my club", it seems like the clubs agreed that it would be very important. So that seems to indicate that most clubs would like to have the four things listed knowing that their would be a trade off in organization and finacial aspects. But the Board of Director does not agree. Seems like the Board of Directors is out of touch with what the clubs want to do.
Am I reading this wrong?

I just read all of this and

I just read all of this and I have to say I agree with you.

I was surprised with the results of the club survey. It is pretty interesting that the 5 "pro USAC" questions on the top of page 3 all had 4.4 or higher, very positive, responses. Also the question below that, where 87% of the membership said we should go back if we could do it without cuts. I am not sure how much more of a clear message the clubs could send to the board. But yet the board comes to a different conclusion?

Stop putting out statements against this and spend your time working to figure out how to make this work, without cuts. It is not realistic for 2012, but lets get this ready to go for 2013. Clearly that is what close to 90% of the clubs want. Maybe we need more sponsorship. Maybe we need to USAC to kick in. Maybe we need to use the $300,000 cash stock pile the ACA already has. Maybe we need to transfer some of our programs to USAC and get some economies of scale? Maybe something else?

The first line of the

The first line of the statement says recommendation. Doesn't mean the clubs have to agree with it, means they need to think about it and decide whether to vote on it or not.

The 87% message was clear: Go back if you can do it without cuts.

Seems like the major issue is money. Anybody got $100K laying around to permanently fund the shortfall? Then the Board could recommend ACA go back to USAC. It would still be a recommendation, and clubs would still be free to disagree and vote not to do it. How'd they come up with that number anyway?

USAC's not going to put more $ in: that's what that $10 rebate per license is for that the other associations use to not have a chip system and not support juniors and not have a race kit for promoters and not give race numbers to promoters and have inferior insurance. And their riders have paid more for their license to not have those things than we do to have them.

Anybody want to volunteer for one of those paid staff positions? You'd have to convince everyone you could commit to doing a better job for no pay for your skills.

The last line of the statement says it's not financially feasible to rejoin USAC at this time. It doesn't say never.

Survey sends a MIXED message to the Board

Clubs basically said those 5 benefits were worth the associated financial and organizational trade-offs, then 87% turned right around and told the Board to do it without cuts to programs or staff!

Seems like most clubs ignored the "associated financial and organizational trade-off" part and only indicated how important those 5 benefits were to their members.

Yes, you are reading it

Yes, you are reading it wrong. The five questions are simply asking if these topics should be discussed further, perhaps at meeting. If a club thinks a topic should be talked about more it doesn't mean they are for or against that particular issue. However, since the five questions do suggest the clubs want to further discuss these topics, I find it a bit curious this discussion seems to be closed for the time being.

I've been adamant about my support for the ACA to stay independent. But I must say, this survey and Bill's response needs some work.

I don't get it........

It all about the money! People don't like to give up.....I think the ACA is great, but it's only getting in the way real growth. The ACA is getting Geograhy smaller, Why aren't other states look to join? Why don't western CO races move to the ACA? Why don't we have an NRC race?

Pages