General Meeting February 21, 2016

Introductions

11 present

Setting Procedures

BikeLoud has been around long enough that we need a structure.

The board: specialists that make the decisions. The minor ones, day-to-day, referring most decisions to the general membership.

Voting membership vs. general membership

Most controversial but arguably least important. Criticism for being too complicated. Currently informal, and maybe that's best.

Obvious thing first. We have a limited amount of time.


Board of directors.

Action item: Membership based on location

We overwhelmingly liked the idea of reserving seats for east of 205 and living/commuting in SW but did not formally approve.

Thoughts: add one for North Portland? Suggested prerequisite: North of Killingsworth or commutes via St. John's bridge.

Status at meeting close: undecided


Action item: Decide number of board members

Suggestion: determine structure and procedures, move elections to March.

Consider retooling google group.

Decided: 7-9, and that it's ok to have a range.


Action item: Quorum

Decided: Simple majority


Action item: super-majority

All votes are super-majority.

Try for consensus among the board members. If it has to be voted, we need to decide what percent will carry the motion.

Concrete example: Say we have 7 board members. 5 of them attend a meeting and encounter an issue with which they are unable to arrive at consensus. At 60% super-majority they would need 3/5 to decide the meeting. At 75% they would need 4.

The question is should the super-majority be 2/3 or 60%.

Vote! overwhelmingly 2/3.

Decided: 2/3 it is.


Action item: how to add members to the board (easy case)

What percent of voters to add a member to the board?

Decided: 75%


Action item: how to remove members from the board?

2/3 vs. 75?

Decided: 75%


Action item: does the board have the authority to manage BikeLoud?

Currently co-chairs can decide.

Terry is looking to meet the language we need to describe the authority of the board.

Undecided, vaguely tabled.


Transparency

Decision item: Meeting facilitation

Membership, as currently defined, is those present at a meeting, which has weaknesses we know but can't solve at present.

Some guidelines for facilitators:

  • Meeting posted with 14 days.
  • Meeting topics can be given to the facilitator.
  • 7 day limits for agenda items. Slight exception given for supplemental materials.

We want transparent rules to follow, but don't want to get bogged down in procedure.

Decided: strong recommended practice only.


Q: are board meetings open to general membership?

Yes.

Q. Can non-board members be required to remain silent at the board?

It depends on what authority the board has. (Undecided)

Returning to powers/responsibilities the board might have:

(The following is discussion, not decision)

The board would implement what the general membership decides.

For something bigger, the board puts out a call to action to general membership.

The goal is for things to go both ways where the board is not making the decisions for the organization.

Concrete example. A board member is considering going before city council to speak on an issue on behalf of BikeLoud. What can she say?

The goal is to decide things, organizationally, only once. If a letter has already been written or position already established, they might not need to get approval from general membership.

Differing view: the board is to answer questions definitively, to make decisions. If someone comes to the board with a proposal or request: Can you support this, can you look into writing a letter?

The board makes the decision whether to look into further, to refer the question to general membership, etc.

Still undecided at close of Structure Building section.


Brief break and chat

An interesting fragment from this time I'm including under my own discretion as notetaker:

The recognition of board member status indicates confidence that the member should have the wisdom to know when they are appropriately speaking for bikeloud and when to refrain from speaking officially. If someone feels that they have not shown this wisdom on a particular instance, that can be a matter for discussion on the mailing list or at a general meeting.


Topical Meeting

13 present

3:00 Using Vehicles As Weapons

Gerald is not here, Soren needs time to pull up letter. We move to...

Terry: Springwater

Article from Maus on homelessness. Everything blew up. Terry strategized a lunch with Robert McCullough.

This is on the agenda because we have to deal with this or it's going to affect the bike community and infrastructure. NIMBY: "I don't want a MUP near me, it'll bring the homeless!" ODOT does the sweeps on the homeless at 205. Troublemakers disperse into the Springwater; the Springwater community had been living there 5-7 years fairly peacefully.

Terry proposes a round robin. What are your experiences with the Springwater? Have you been to the Hazelnut location?

Facilities for showers and toilets?

  • Are those facilities to be for the camps or for the public?
  • Just don't want them camping on the trail.
  • How can cyclists be productive in the conversation instead of seeming like "get the hell off my path so I can get home."
  • Terry: Bicycling community is very much like gay activism in the 90s; it crosscuts many identities.

Terry suggests we think over: do we want to work towards or endorse a bond coming up possibly in November covering houselessness in Multnomah County. (Not touching Clackamas yet.)

Goals of a civic organization is to interface with other civic organizations. We could have standing or representation at meta-organizations.

General consensus is that we should generally support but not get involved too directly.

Returning to Using Vehicles As Weapons

Soren: In response to the BikePortland piece on Road rage assault.

Video shows the car circling around trying to hit Jason K. Gerald, Soren, and Emily worked on a letter sent to Mayor Hales.

Demanded that the city take harassment of VRU very seriously and that the mayor and police chief have a zero tolerance policy towards harassment.

Interacting with enforcement for safety: specifically modeled after the BTA action of a few years ago on stoplight enforcement issues; focus on danger and not trivial violations. Even though this is illegal and could be prosecuted, it is not, due to an institutional bias.

Real huge example of inherent sympathy for the person in the motor vehicle.

Referencing Mark Angeles: even when there is a body; tremendous amonut of bias applied.

Example for police training: training for mental health issues. If someone is a VRU and has had road rage and is afraid for their life, that should mean something.

There has been recent success with bike theft training.

Next step: decide that this is a position BikeLoud supports and find further actions we can take.

Some thoughts:

  • Want to keep the police as allies.
  • Put a call out to people with video evidence they can submit. A collection of video that we can provide as teaching material.
  • Go to the mayor directly to set up a meeting to see what options are available. Speak at City Hall.
  • It directly contradicts Vision Zero policy to be aware of this behavior, have video evidence of this behavior, and do nothing about it.

Send the letter to the media? No. But it should go on the website.

Does the police have vision zero training? Apparently they're working on it, that and anything safety training might fall into vision zero training.

Interactions with police need to be collected.


Dirty 30: Options for activism during an up and coming paving project

2 spots flagged to PBOT in a communication from Scott to Jessica Horning; really bad curve, lots of gravel, perma-puddle.

After a bit of back and forth, she asked if there were any other spots.

Scott spent time with a camera documenting conditions between Portland and the Sauvie Island bridge as of a few weeks ago, posted them publicly, sent them back to Jessica Horning. She's out of the office until next month.

He's gathered 80+ pictures.

What are some ways BikeLoudPDX can help that might not go as far as insisting on a separated bike lane to Astoria (said with a hint of a wink)?

They're repaving 30. Does it trigger the bike bill?

There are a lot of actionable projects. And a lot of potential issues here for BikeLoud to be involved with.

There are bike lanes. North of Linton it's not technically considered a bike lane, but a breakdown shoulder. Extend the bike lane out to Sauvie Island definitionally.

Getting separation/two-way cycle track are great, but asking a lot. Limit the scope to what might reasonably be accomplished (that is, not a separated bike lane to Astoria).

Lots of non-vehicular use, diverse groups of users. Trimet route; people walking to the Trimet stop. Performance cyclists.

200-page maintenance agreement that covers what Portland is supposed to do. If you ask to get a pothole fixed; is it ODOT or PBOT? Most of what we might want to fix would be under ODOT.

When they restripe they should not be past 11-foot lanes. That space should be given to the bike or the buffer.

The bike lane is less than 3 feet wide; this is in the area officially considered a bike lane.

Goal: Get some pressure on Basil Christopher and Jessica Horning.

Possible strategic goal is to get it into ODOT's mind that this is actually heavily used by bicycles.

How is the bikeway going to be protected during the paving project? Drafting some temporary closure policies.

We note that a full repaving does trigger bike bill.

Full vote endorsing support for this endeavor.

---

82nd BRT SEUL bikeway response

SEUL voted 16 to 0 to support a BRT project with no bike lanes on 82nd.

Conditions:

  • 70s bikeway
  • easy crossings across 82nd

Idea is that this is binding on SEUL to get support for bicycle network on the record.

Counterpoint: This is a bike bill issue. The bike bill is loosely interpreted sometimes, and this only weakens it.

No one has given financial obligation. Where is the money that is going to go towards these improvements? Without the money commitment, this is nothing.


20s Bikeway

Terry presents a timeline of events for the Greenway network. I tried my best as a typist at first but this actually sounds like it should be a document we should create outside of these notes. Skipping the timeline, here are some general conclusion:

City hall is not standing up to the engineers. The engineers do not want diversion. Everyone (in the biking populace) wants diversion.

PBOT has on every level given insult to the community on every level: at neighborhood level, at activist level. Robert McCullough has called Steve Novick and is trying to set up a meeting with all three of them.

How do we respond?

We agree with SEUL and add that it is unacceptable/dismissive/a slap in the face?

Confirm whether R. Geller is going to be at an upcoming SEUL meeting.

All SEUL meetings are open to the public. Get people to show up! Monday starting at 7pm. It is just one item on this agenda.

General agreement: protest is not too much.

"Why are you trying to kill me?'

Consensus that we need to write a really aggressive letter. At minimum.

Top 3 things, top 3 asks:

  • Greenway on Eastmoreland should run on Reed College Place instead of 32nd.
  • Reopen conversation about shared use on 28th.
  • Include diverter requests of Concordia

Make these demands, not requests.

Finished product of the 20s was done in an insulting way that did not listen to community feedback.

DAC come up with a plan. Move to that now!

Soren as DAC coordinator

Possible action:

Public event where relevant officials are involved, make some noise!

BikeLoudPDX was formed in response to a 20s petition.

Two policy recommendations:

  • New greenways, do not put them on a bus line. If it is on a bus line there should be physical separation
  • Diversion for greenways at arterials as a matter of urban form, as the default.

If it was straightforward as a policy, the drivers would like it because police hear it's confusing from those who turn illegally.

Proposed additional recommendation: Every greenway crossing: has the right of way, a way to be given right of way, or a 4 way stop.

(You can sometimes email saferportland to get stop signs added)

Three policy recommendations voted approval.

Delegated to a committee for exact wording.

Terry proposes diversion event.

Reach out to Concordia to 'rouse the troops' for this event. It's a 19-0 vote in Concordia in support of diversion, people are aware.

Reach out to business association for 28th.

Reach out to the people on the streets where diversion may be an option.

New petition?


Active Transportation Conference is mid March.

Lifesaver's conference. Greg Raceman national award. Get some people in DC to get some signs for the event...

Schedule a ride. 70s or the 20s.

As part of Safer Powell: A Powell ride! All the way up and down Powell. Soren will make sure it happens. Sunday March 6th (tentative)!

15th/Ankeny diverter

Has been promised. Clinton group got a little louder and PBOT/City Council (Novick) decided to prioritize Clinton. Ankeny put on the back burner. Recently PBOT hired someone specifically to tkae care of small capital improvement projects. She is (Sheila Parrott) giving presentation to Buckman community association March 10th presenting on the diverter, the installation of speed bumps, the reconfiguration of speed bumps.

Massive increase in traffic recently in this area.

Safer Ankeny, modeled after Safer Clinton. There will be backlash.