Sub-group formation

[Timothy B]

This thread will describe what i hope to provide framework to create a workable stewardship sub-group.

i'll preface this write-up and endeavor by saying, this wasn't my intention when i first got started with the Summit Ridge group. In fact i clearly stated at the onset that my intention was get permission to perform trail work. Yet as things evolved my involvement grew with the realization of the opportunities available. It's the same trap that get's me everytime, i get close to something and recognize underutilized potential and feel compelled.

i certainly find myself in line with Brian Jones and i believe other local advocates of BBTC/Evergreen in terms of being selfish with the regard of creating sustainable infrastructure with the hope that it promotes enough momentum to continue forward without it's "framers", so eventually things are clicking on such a level i can focus on riding. That would be the ideal, at a certain point being a mt. bike advocate i would hope my ideas and endeavors pay forward a certain satisfaction towards my selfish intentions, or i will fastly decide someday to put myself in situations that keep me happily ignorant.

Anyways enough about me, this thread will be a test of a higher level of advocacy and transparency. Exploring ideas, reporting on the implementation, taking feedback and suggestions from those who read this, and helping to define the process.

[Timothy B]

Goals and Expectations

It's interesting to me the dynamics of volunteer groups and the expectations of those they represent. Often times the lines are blurred on what defines an action of a non-profit effort. There are certainly levels of effort and especially for grassroots every action or non-action is integral to whatever is trying to be accomplished.

Take for instance IMBA putting their stamp on the efforts of Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance concerning the Mountain Bike Skills Parks. Certainly with a concrete viewpoint, you can see why it's certainly difficult to see precisely how IMBA can put their stamp on the effort. i suppose the creation and mere existence of an International body could provide the groundwork for a group like Evergreen to not only form, but even possible to exist and possibly enjoy as much success as it has. Studying that viewpoint then there can be conflicts that arise concerning who get's credit, as it may very well undermine the hard work, sacrifice, and cheapen future prospects of future endeavors. Since i was a member of IMBA for perhaps half the time i worked at Colonnade, maybe that's enough to justify branding it an IMBA project? Maybe since some build standards were adopted for some of the park that this would then justify?

This can fastly become complicated, and really it's only importance are competition from revenue/donations, and political clout. These things are important, but when it comes to nuts and bolts on the ground level, to the typical rider who cares about their trails, it's pretty irrelevant.

i bring all of this up to tie into the entire idea of why sub-groups are important, and why i'm going to delve into the dynamics of them concerning the perception of how close or separate they are going to be with our local advocacy group. And what the relation can be, how that can be clearly defined, and why that is important to both the success of the sub-group effort, and to the health of Evergreen, and ultimately to the benefit of our user-group as a whole.

Because ultimately who get's the credit isn't has important as being free to provide and promote action towards caring for trails. And if the credit can be distributed where it's relevant at the time towards the best interests of mt. bikers, then it really doesn't matter. But the relationships and the reflections of actions also lend to the importance of clearly defining what the expectations are as they proceed.

In other words, in most all circumstance with this effort why not there be credit for Evergreen, yet why not maintain an independence with the group of that is what can provide success. Some trail systems are different than others, some would benefit and necessitate complete oversight and management of Evergreen. But to think that is possible for every trail system, well i believe every reasonable person understands that's not possible. So why not allow Evergreen to log the hours that this independent group works with, as per opportunity for other areas. Individual sub-groups really aren't in a position of needing to use them to validate anything, as for the sub-group they will merely be numbers to look at and manage accordingly when prepping for future work parties. But the value of using Evergreens infrastructure is invaluable and allows these sub-groups to function without having to worry about balancing the books, or many of the other mundane tasks that can overwhelm people who would rather just dig a little dirt and make the trails better.

So the goal is to provide a simple framework of organized sustainable effort that cares for an individual trail or specific trail system. Also i feel the goal should be to set a tone of education and relative transparency in regards to the active process, so as to promote sharing the assorted roles and activities, as well as ensuring a replenishing supply of future stewards who are now qualified to step into these roles.

[Timothy B]

NUTS AND BOLTS

THE CHAMPION

i won't delve too much into the "Champion" role. Really i don't think i'm quite as qualified to speak towards all that it entails. But to my understanding it's the person who is serving to represent the Land Manager to the User-Group as well as the User-Group to the Land Manager.

What my perception of what exists is that this person by default or design usually winds up holding a vast majority of the responsibilities. It's the go-to-guy, the heavy, the teacher, the voice, the martyr, the ambassador, the holy crap is this guy crazy? If the champion isn't crazy at first it seems as if they would be crazy when they step away from the role, looking at the status quo in some places...

i think if a sub-group is going to be successful and sustainable there needs to be a distribution of various tasks, to support the effort and the Champion. Otherwise we're looking at the corner of Frustration Avenue and Burnout Street.

So i would entrust other people would provide more insight to the process if they would be so kind as to provide a template of success. But i believe it would be best served if the Land Manager Representative as i would prefer to call the Champion, if they were well supported, but were also understood well the various task and will always look for opportunities to groom and to delegate.

Essentially if a sub-group effort is running like a well oiled machine, the future Land Manager Representative will have fulfilled enough tasks to become qualified to take over the reigns. That would be the ideal.

[Timothy B]

COMMUNICATIONS

Getting the word out for various work-party's, event, and notifications are integral. The creation of this website was created primarily from that understanding. Using media resources as the internet is an extremely effective way of getting information out, and actually drawing feedback in as well. But the old style method of using word of mouth, creating pamphlets and flyers, posting information on kiosks, as well as distributing flyers at bike stores, is equally important.

Continuous effort in this regard is relatively simple in some ways, but is time consuming. If someone has a knack for taking photographs, writing reports it can go a long way for promotion. But regardless, there are people who would like to be involved, so finding ways of reaching volunteers is half the battle.

Highlighting the importance of this, if a group effort and the scope of work is large enough, it certainly warrants a person(s) investing energy towards the stream of information. Creating or using existing specific web pages on social sites, drafting up newsletters, or submitting articles for local publication are all opportunities that can be managed. As well as creating a database of volunteers who wish to receive information, the simple act of making courtesy calls and giving thanks can go a long way.

[Timothy B]

COORDINATOR

This task relates to assisting in coordinating events. For a trail system that runs multiple events, be for fund-raising purposes, racing events, fun events, adventure races... A person who can help facilitate and run events for the trails system specifically or assist in providing information for organizers.

Every trail system is going to be different. A South Seatac for example is a trail system that was built primarily by XC racers, and hosts many events. It would stand to logic that this task would be converted to a role as the importance of holding events is of higher importance.

Trails systems that are appropriate to hold events should have an inventory of trails that are acceptable for the various impacts of racing. Some may be inventoried for seasonal racing use, with the premise that many trails can be brought up to a standard where racing can be made appropriate. Some trails might be excluded for safety concerns, as well as considering user-conflict. The goal should be to provide more opportunities for everyone without degrading the overall recreation experience. The other tangent of helping provide for programs like Evergreens Boot Camp should be considered. If a trail system is large enough, and dynamic enough then it should be made to accommodate more variety of users.

It's my own opinion that places to host races and events are extremely limited, efforts to remedy this are important.

[Timothy B]

TRAIL OVERSIGHT

This task will be given to provide advisement on quality and safety. Trails that receive heavy use are always going to require maintenance of varying degree. When performing tasks that require more advanced trail building construction techniques it's best to have a qualified person to serve as a guide to making sure jobs from volunteer parties are managed effectively, trail building practices are up to snuff, and risk management issues are properly addressed.

As a role person(s) can and should provide advice also on preparation for work parties. This would be ensuring there would be enough tools, making certain the crew leaders are prepared in understanding safe work conditions and practices, and also encourage a positive work experience is provided. To achieve this it pays to train crew leaders to have a full comprehensive plan of tasks, an understanding how to achieve them, and placing an equal value in educating volunteers during the work party and providing a positive experience. This way the final product is of a high standard as well as the positive experience will lend volunteers to return and gain experience.

[Timothy B]

USER GROUP REPRESENTATIVE

Having and maintaining positive relations with user groups is important. A reciprocal relationship with well defined expectations would benefit both the club/org and the stewardship sub-group. Of course each trail system is different, and the dynamics of what level of support will vary, as will it vary at a specific trail system as time goes on and changes inevitably develop. Obviously with groups that are being managed with more of a complete oversight by a club/org won't require much if any effort in this regard.

This being a mt. bike site and many of the trails sub-groups will be mt. bike driven, it's a given locally we're speaking of mt. bikers. But per trail user specification it would behoove the sub-group to be inclusive to the level of what the trail system calls for. So having for instance a representative from a Horse group (as an example) be tied into conversations and clued into planning with expectations of support, and a transparency that resolves conflict well before it festers.

i also think the benefit of having an independent group is you can promote the stewardship group to not necessarily be undefined as a mt. biker group, but promoted to be more trail specific. Having a certain ambiguity can help promote neighborhood trail runners, walkers helping nurture community support, as well as promote mt. biking.

As a role a designated person would of course come by approval of both the club/org and the volunteer group. This job will require a certain level of flexibility, patience, and long term vision as roles of the job will be of a middle-man, or an ambassador, or a lobbyist. Rightfully if a supporting club/org lends it's name and reputation through endorsement, expectations should be clearly defined and a Representative can work to ensure actions of the sub-group are in line with those expectations. As well as providing a person with relationships with staff and board, holding enough sway to promote focus towards the trail system they also represent.

If things are really clicking this task/role is to be a bridge. So many times we see issues that develop into crisis, and how many stories do we see of effort being too little, too late. As now the weight of the issue has created insurmountable effort to steer toward a better outcome. In my opinion the blame can get divvied around depending on who you talk to. But ultimately i think the formation of sub-groups is integral in eliminating this scenario, and this task/role is key in providing sustainable function within the effort. Keeping things on track so to speak.

[Timothy B]

FUNDRAISING

Ok so who's going to pay for all of this?

It takes a certain amount of money to keep operations moving forward. A requirement of every group to enable and manage goals to enhance the trail system, and simply just covering cost of maintenance will require effort and sometimes creativity.

As a role, a person would have to work with all members of the core group to identify what the needs are as well as helping establish the path to achieve goals. The person should be willing to identify and reach out to every stakeholder, user-groups, businesses, org/clubs to best serve the drive. Also persons who establish connections should be accessible and tapped to assist endeavors where the benefit is supporting an outside cause through the trail system.

Confined within reasonable ambition most grassroots efforts can thrive on the lowest of budgets.

Sub-groups should always proceed responsibly with fund-raising efforts with the understanding it to be a resource that is not limitless, and a sympathy for other efforts at other trail systems and endeavors outside the trail system. This is also tempered with the understanding that there will be ample local support that is under-utilized to offset this fact. In other words, running into scenarios where your competing for donations is not the ideal.

[Timothy B]

TRAIL REPRESENTATIVE

Simply put this is an individual that can represent a group that built and/or maintains a trail, line, track, section. This role is not so much a task, as it is a qualification that the work provided necessitates a seat at the table be provided.

Often times as is the case with specialized trails, such as with most Skills Park Trails, a team or group of people work on a trail that provides a specific experience. In order to best preserve that, a representative should be provided with information and support. The core-group could provide this role be set up for whomever they deem qualifies with the amount of work, and expertise they have of the trails.

To keep things manageable, a skills park has many groups or teams that build. A seat for every single team might be a bit redundant. If a person is chosen to represent a conglomerate of groups that would be more manageable. Really the goal is to keep the flow of information up to date, so the core-group and volunteers are in sync.

It should be encouraged that when appropriate Trail Rep(s) participate in other core-group tasks. They should look to identify volunteers who might be well qualified to handle the core-group tasks so perhaps they will be provided a role and be promoted to take a seat themselves.

It should be encouraged for Trail Representatives to lend advice according to their knowledge provided by surplus involvement from creating and/or working so much on the trail. As well as keeping an eye out for talent that could provide a higher level of support.

[Timothy B]

Volunteer Representative

Every organized endeavor should have apprentices waiting in the wing. Replenishing the effort, as well as taking the opportunity to groom volunteers to higher levels of support. This role of course is all dependent on how the sub-group want's to play this out, tailored to their existing needs. But if someone provides enough energy providing a person with various tasks to eventually fill a specific role, using this role to capture this energy is great.

An added task of this role is to provide insight on the pulse of the community as things evolve, and eventually their vision on how to best serve the trail can helped be filled by that fresh perspective.

If a trail system is large enough and accrues a vast amount of volunteer support, a Core-group should be actively looking to create and utilize this role.

[Timothy B]

GUIDEBOOK

These are the tasks that i believe provides a framework of success when managing a specific trail system. If we are going to encourage sub-groups to form it's critical that they form only where it is accepted by the land manager. IMBA rule number one, have permission is absolute. Likewise as an independent group that doesn't "really" have any interest other than to volunteer for the trail, it is formless and retains the ability to quickly dissolve or cease efforts if a strong Southerly wind starts blowing.

When speaking of this contingency it comes with the fact that if things are moving well, it's hard to see this happening. But what this does do is safeguard the effort so it cannot be manipulated. There is an on/off switch that can be used by either the land manager or the core-group.

Beyond this "in case of fire break glass", tangent, to implement the tasks a guidebook could be created. Pretty much what i've done here, but there needs to be agreement by key advocates in mt. biking that this is workable. But by simply creating a guidebook that defines these tasks, all of which are hats that are worn when managing an efficient effort. This shows that in most all situations that one person wearing all of these hats is simply overburdening. As well as a fashion faux pau. So many times you have a competent volunteer eager to help, but does not understand what role to fill. This clearly defines the tasks and provides understandable roles to fill.

Each trail will provide different challenges in regards to the scope of work depending on how big the trails system is, what are it's intended uses, what are the goals. By providing this general format it should be flexible enough to make sense and be implemented for trail systems where there will be enough interest to support and sustain.

Each sub-group should form their own mission statement, but it's my recommendation that it focuses primarily (or only) on their specific trail region, of which they are approved. As this sub-group is concerned it's endeavors are confined as it is assigned as the groups energy will be directed in it's own designated area. Also recommended would be the groups focus to work to enrich the community by supporting their will on a reasonable level, ensuring the trails are maintained/created providing a rich recreational experience per the will of land manager and the community, and focus energy towards nurturing volunteers, affording them a fulfilling and educative experience at every possible junction.

What defines an acceptable template so that the sub-group is protected, and the path is clearly delineated so the group itself does not itself corrupt, stagnate, or become irrelevant.

[Timothy B]

-Expectations.

What should the groups expect from Evergreen? ’


aahh i like it...

At this point the benefit of Evergreen would be to have a larger voice when needed. If there is a problem Evergreen can be called on to identify a solution. Evergreen can be like the "Calvary" in so many ways.
The tasks within the guidebook within their own right will actually serve to teach a person how to use Evergreen effectively in my opinion. And as the sub-groups function Evergreen should also evolve a bit in being able to better serve these groups as they go. For instance an ED is contacted by a sub-group Quality Control, because they've never really built a switchback. ED patches them into another trail system sub-group where they've built many.
The role of Communication... That person will be reaching out to Evergreen because they are having an MS fundraising bike event. That person will ask it to be on the Evergreen newsletter and home page, to ask for an assist in promotion.
The opportunity of a skills park to be built comes up, the User Group Representative actively lobbies the Board for support.

Should the groups be held to specific commitments around trailwork?

i don't think so. If anything this should fall under expectations. For instance in the guidebook if you have a trail system where wooden structures have degraded, trails that are overgrown, well then you have a sub-group that is not functioning. That will become apparent so the search for a new Champion for the area to assemble a fresh team would be the thing to do i suppose.

Who decides what can/should be build in a particular area? ie: my idea of a reasonable and sane feature may be quite different than yours. How do we minimize conflict and all work from the same ‘playbook?’

Great question, we can focus more energy to come up with definitions. What i would say would be a great solution to that would be this... In the guidebook when talking about doing trail inventories. You have a green trail. You provide a link to a page in the Wiki. That trail will provide a standard, and since it's on the Wiki it can be revised as years go by to include any new wacky circus thing our community creates.

[Timothy B]

ROLES/TASKS

-Term. You mention burnout and I think that is a very real issue when dealing with volunteer roles. How do we define these roles in such a way that each member knows they are on point for a specific task for a specific period of time?

i think this is something that each trail group can hammer out amongst themselves. The tasks and amount of people involved will change from group to group. The decision to assign roles, how many, and for how long i think will be sorted out by the core-group that assembles.

What we could do is add another layer of information that describes different scenarios and makes suggestions towards that end. But really the program needs to be simply layered with a small pamphlet with this information. Your group identifies persons who qualify for a core-group at the trail system. The recommendation of the pamphlet direct persons assembled to share tasks. The core-group again refers to the manual, and selects and specifies roles they will accept responsibility for. Everything is laid out in front, is consistent, if there is a need found within the group for a specific task they put the word out, or 2 or 3 core-group members share one task.

The ‘formal’ process of establishing a sub-group. This will clearly vary depending on whether it is an established group tending to an established area, a new group, or a new trail. There are some cases where Evergreen is searching for a group to take on this sort of responsibility (Middle Fork as an example,) and others where locals are looking for plenty of autonomy with some connection to Evergreen to assist in furthering their cause (Summit.)
Its just not clear to me how we evaluate each opportunity, team etc.

Creating the guidebook and attempting to standardize. Providing consistent elements that are universal, that are flexible enough to translate different trails and situations.

The formal description would be the sub-groups that are under the immediate direction of Evergreen, and those that are endorsed. Currently it would look like this, Evergreen has commitment with land managers on Duthie, Colonnade, Tiger, Middle Fork Snoqualmie, South Fork Snoqualmie, and Paradise? Instead of Evergreen being in the business of collecting commitments now it can manage a program. The implementation of the program on the trails that Evergreen has commitments on will now provide a showcase of the dynamics of the sub-groups. What this does is helps minimize the resource suck from focusing energy on so many places. Evergreen simply cannot be in all areas at one time and effectively do it's business. But if it has a group that is providing support under the guidebook, Evergreen will be called on to handle issues and since it won't be tied up in commitment, it can have the capacity to effectively solve problems. People who have before seen Evergreen stumble will now appreciate it, they kick down a few bucks, so on so forth, everybody wins...

(FOCF-Capitol Forest, WMBC-Galbraith, Padden, Chuckanut) they are effective because they are dealing with what's in front of them, AND they are not having to deal with the State and Federal issues that Evergreen deals with. And they are not running Education programs to my knowledge.

sorry a bit of babble there...

Make 2 groups and name them, but they are using the same template. The sub-group that is running with direct oversight is called the (fill in blanks)sub-group, and the sub-group that is running without is called an (Endorsed?) sub-group.

[Timothy B]

THE PROGRAM

Management of the program. Who develops the program and manages the groups?

It will vary. i think we've identified 2 tiers of groups. One with complete oversight, and ones that are independent. The ones with complete oversight will be more in-house so the Board and Staff should provide the direction.

The task of the User-Group Representative is critical for "endorsement" from Evergreen. Be that a person who fills this role, or is the Land Manager Rep, whoever is vetted and acceptable to all parties.

The fail-safe will be a direct line from the ED to the Land Manager. In an ideal if you have a Land Manager Representative who is vetted by the Land Manager, and you have a User-Group Rep who is vetted by Evergreen you are going to have a steady flow of information. Let's consider if things now are moving to the dissatisfaction of either side, there is a buffer of these 2 core-group members. The Land Manager Rep and the User Group Rep. Worst case scenario, Land Manager/User Group contact each other, tries resolution. If that fails Land Manager opts out of the program, group shuts down. Or User Group pulls endorsement. If the Sub-Group continues it will now move forward without the endorsement of Evergreen.

The reasons for this happening would be if the group start moving out of the scope of work they were directed for. This can be generally defined within the Guidebook. If there is an issue that goes beyond the "simple" scope of what the sub-group is directed to do, then that issue is brought before the Land Manager Rep and the User Group Rep, where the issue is sent up the chain.

The directive should be simple, the tasks are straight forward, the guidebook should work for anywhere. If there is not a program running for a trail system and people wonder why, it will be simply that there is a glitch somewhere along the line with people. In all likelihood there is going to be places where the program will be functioning and the mutual benefits will be apparent.

If there is deviation from the guidebook then the sub-group is no longer working within the scope of the program. If it's an individual, then that person is subtracted. The sub-groups should be self-policed in this regard.

The simpler the protocol the better. The goal is for it to run itself.

If we promote the sub-groups to stay within the simple task of stewardship for trails, the easier it will be for everybody and it will run itself for the most part.

So that is my circuitous way of running through worst case scenario, now let's go back down to the question/answer. The answer is the groups will self-manage. The Land-Manager Representative will be "The Heavy" concerning in-house issues.

The guidebook with enough forethought can provide a template of acceptable standards. The complex thing is creating the guidebook where we've covered all the bases and still keep it simple. That can be done by providing general standards (IMBA, but with common sense revisions) and illuminating expectations.

[Timothy B]

Tools
What kind of tools do we need to help these teams function properly. I’m thinking more in terms of administrative stuff here, not McLeods. Do we need to provide each group with their own webpage, calendar etc? What would it take to make this really sing?

That's a damn good question.

It goes into alot of database ideas i'm having, let me chew on it some more.