I am truly speechless. It turns out that Janel Sterbentz, one of the organizers of last Friday’s protest at the Fell/ Divisadero Arco station, and whose “Women who Ride” interview for the Bike NOPA blog was suppressed because she said that “cars leave destruction and unpleasantness in their path” has been forced to resign from her position as Bike to Work Day Coordinator at the Bay Area Bicycle Coalition (BABC), following SF Bicycle Coalition Program Manager Marc Caswell’s condemnation of her comments made on this blog as well as her role helping to organize Friday’s protest.
Many months ago, after being nearly knocked off her bike in front of the Arco station on Fell St., Janel asked the SFBC what was being done to improve safety along this critical thoroughfare. Marc told her that she should “take on a Fell street campaign because the SFBC ‘doesn’t have time’ to work on it.”
So she takes it on as a volunteer. After a year of rallying the neighborhood associations, speaking with the SFMTA and working with the SFBC, the city came up with a proposal and brought it before transportation engineers at a public hearing. Several residents in the neighborhood voiced their disapproval of removing a few parking spaces to make a left turn lane and the proposal was stalled. The SFMTA came back a month later with a watered down plan for a 7am to 7pm tow zone- a half measure that will not come close to fixing the dangerous condition at the Arco station.
Someone please explain to me why it is acceptable to sacrifice the safety of thousands of vulnerable road users every day so a handful of people can continue to enjoy city-subsidized free private vehicle storage along the public right of way. I just don’t get it.
So, seeing that the system had totally failed, Janel plans to help mobilize a protest last Friday that captures widespread media attention and galvanizes the support of motorists and cyclists alike to finally close the dangerous gas station entrances on Fell, and what does she get? Fired from her bicycle advocacy job. You heard me right.
The SFBC in earlier days engaged in direct action, guarding the crossing at Masonic and Fell
Now you might say- well the bicycle coalitions don’t want to be associated with a direct action protest. But hold on just a second. It wasn’t too long ago that the SFBC coordinated a series of direct actions in the Panhandle with their volunteer crossing guard program (started by yours truly when I was Program Director) that put pressure on the city and now- even though the intersection at Masonic and the Panhandle isn’t perfect- we do have a dedicated phase for non-motorized traffic. It seems that the new SFBC staff has a very short memory.
Now, I don’t expect the bike coalitions to participate in every protest (even though the public would never have known who Janel was employed by) but I do expect them not to undermine grassroots efforts by their members and off-duty employees to draw attention to one of the most dangerous stretches of roadway in the city for bicyclists.
As program director at the SFBC for almost three years, I understand the importance of public image. But this latest incident is a disturbing example of the coalition actually going against their base- acting in a way that undermines the very cause they are meant to be promoting. This is one of a series of recent events that is raising concern about the Coalition amongst longtime members.
Janel’s general comments several weeks ago on my blog about environmental organizations are absolutely right on:
“@onthelevel: I agree, a sentiment often develops that the organizations who speak for and represent the movement are on top of the issues and are working in our best interest. That they know what they are doing so we don’t need to get involved unless we are told what to do……”
These comments- made as a private individual- were seized upon by SFBC Program Manager Marc Caswell, who immediately sent an e-mail to Andrew Casteel, Executive Director of the BABC, essentially suggesting that Andrew reassess whether Janel should continue working at the BABC:
“As BABC Board, I’m a bit concerned by Janel’s public comments criticizing, ostensibly, the SFBC. While I can understand the frustration regarding not having comments published– and don’t really care to get involved in that discussion– the later blog comment by Janel is a direct criticism of not only an allied organization, but a member organization(!) of BABC.”
Marc goes on to say:
“Of course, anyone is free to say what they want– but, as a BABC staff person, comments and public statements criticizing allies isn’t a positive way to move the movement forward. And comments like this do, in fact, reflect upon the employer.”
Nowhere did Janel indicate that she was talking about any specific organization. But that didn’t stop Marc (who is also on the board of the BABC) from leaping to the conclusion that she was referring to the SFBC.
Marc also took issue with the fact that Janel helped organize the successful protest last Friday. Note that the SFBC has not breathed a word about the oil spill or why people should ride a bike in response to it in almost two months. A month ago, a number of people (including Marc) were invited by e-mail to take part in planning this protest. However, the SFBC refused to take part, instead choosing to target Janel for her role in organizing peaceful action at a location where cyclists’ lives are daily put at risk and only half-measures have been supported by the Board of Supervisors.
Marc continues in his e-mail to Andrew:
“Beyond that smaller concern, I’ve been CC’ed on the email threads about the Fell Street Arco station protest in the coming month—and I’ve noticed that Janel is the *creator* of the event on Facebook…. as a Board member of the organization, my top job is to ‘ensure the health’ of the organization– and I think these recent public actions are undermining that. I’m not sure what we can do to fix it– but I want to at least express my concern as BABC Board with you both as staff. I’d welcome any further discussion on this topic and am available if you need me.“
Andrew’s response to Marc was:
“Janel has not run any of those blog posts or events by me for approval”
As if he controls every activity a part-time employee engages in outside of work. I’m sorry but that is the logic of the corporation, not of a grassroots bicycle advocacy organization.
So to try and put all of this into some perspective, you have Janel Sterbentz- a passionate and productive employee of the BABC– forced to resign because:
a) She made a general comment about the state of environmental organizations on a blog.
b) She helped to organize a protest against the Gulf Oil Spill, the worst environmental disaster in US history and against the continued obstruction of one of the most important bike lanes in San Francisco.
c) She made a (very reasonable and timely) documentary about the need for a bike path on the west span of the Bay Bridge and gave it to Senator Boxer’s aid at the National Bike Summit as an individual constituent and got flack from her boss who said it was not appropriate to share the video without approval from her superiors in the California Bicycle Delegation.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when a committed activist such as Sterbentz is terminated from her official role in bicycle advocacy for speaking out against car culture. And all that much worse because it came from a fellow colleague. This is not what I pay my membership dues for. And though I don’t relish criticizing my friends at the SFBC, I do strongly suggest that if people are disturbed by this series of events, that they express their discontent to the acting ED Renee Rivera and the Bay Area Bicycle Coalition Board.
The region’s bicycle coalitions need to seriously check themselves about this incident. There’s a real world out here and people are getting hurt by car dependence. Silence is no longer an option.
On the Level: Car Free Blog 
At a minimum BABC needs to disclose the written policies that led to Sterbentz’s dismissal. If no such policies exist, it is time for them to be established.
There has long been tension between some of the more centrist folks in the SFBC and the more radical anti-car, anti-oil side of the movement. Even at the outset, Jongle Jon Poschman said the SFBC was basically a sellout organization because it didn’t include anti-car language in its mission. He always bartered for his dues, unwilling to support such wimps with his scarce cash.
For years, that kind of tension was productive. Many SFBC staff and board members, including me, took part in anti-car movements without stamping them with the SFBC rubric. Most of the people who started Critical Mass were SFBC members and even board members. Auto-free Bay Area, Bay Area Bicycle Action, Reclaim the Streets, the various guerrilla efforts to paint bike lanes, “death monsters ahead” stencils or sharrows — I think all have included SFBC members, and most have included SFBC staff and/or board members.
We conceived of the SFBC in 1991-3 as the moderate, mainstream organization, under the assumption that there would also be radicals demanding the whole enchilada, giving the SFBC room to maneuver.
I haven’t heard Marc Caswell’s side of this, and maybe there is more backstory here than what I’ve read here and heard from Janel on the night she was fired. But if this is close to the whole story, it is a sad testimony to where the SFBC, its board, and maybe even its membership is.
One clarification: Janel was canned well before Friday’s action. So it wasn’t even for organizing a peaceful action, but rather for organizing something that hadn’t happened yet. Even the cops don’t try and pin you with conspiracy until a crime has been committed. The SFBC should be preparing to defend its members and allies from bosses pulling this kind of crap, not doing it themselves.
If you don’t like the direction of the organization, I recommend you run for the board. (I’m in South America now which makes it tough for me to make it to meetings.) Who knows, maybe this incident can spark a bit of awareness of exactly what Janel was saying in her initial blog comment: that you have to do more than wait for an enviro group to invite you to a protest or to write a letter. The world is up to all of us to create, and we all have a right to be full citizens, no matter who we work for.
Good luck!
Steven Bodzin
We are moving forward, join us every Friday 5:30 at Fell and Divis and join our facebook group to ensure the Arco entrance is closed for good! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116352815076692
Amounts to suppression of free speech, surely against your constitution? Not from these parts, not even American, but a true Brit with empathy for Janel’s predicament and a passionate, life-long hatred of bullies! Whether a cylist,environmental campaigner or not, neither of which I am by the way, this sort of thing is so outragelously wrong as to merit solidarity. The only way bullies stop being bullies is to give them some reason to be afraid for themselves. Was it one of your folks that once said something on the lines of “it takes only good men to s tand by and do nothing for evil t o triumph(?)” or something that translates into contemperary language much the same?
It’s no different over here, presumably why so many Brits left for the USA a while back and why we’re still FUBAR.
I love it that cyclists and sustainable city advocates on both sides of the Atlantic can compare notes and strategize here. Thanks to all the brits for following me even though I’ve abandoned you for California!
Pingback: Tweets that mention A Sad Chapter in Bay Area Bicycle Advocacy « On the Level: Car Free Blog -- Topsy.com
There is a curious pattern of censorship on the part of the SFBC that has deeply radicalized my opposition to its status quo. I say “censorship” — yes, I do think that we are dealing with an intolerant, censorious organization, and it is, again, a pattern, deeply ingrained in the organizational culture.
What’s frustrating to me is that the SFBC is otherwise so motivated, so hard working, and in terms of Bike-to-Work Day, extending car-free days in the park, they do important work that has made life in the city better.
Yet, their censorious outlook has sabotaged the rest of the organization’s efforts, across the board. I stopped paying dues to the SFBC more than a year ago, when it became clear to me how deep that pattern of intolerance ran.
I will never, ever support an organization that does not have a 100% open policy about public information and constituent dialogue. There are plenty of “joiners” out there — go right ahead and join. That makes it all the more important for other to not join, and tell the SFBC how badly they are mismanaging their social capital and civic mandate.
Here’s my understanding of that pattern of censorship so far:
1) Obviously, we have the issue of Janel Sterbenz first having her comments denatured in a policy blog operated by a local SFBC activist. Since this blog is not, ostensibly, publicly managed, I can’t call it censorship, but I sure can call the blog censorious.
2) Then, apparently, Sterbenz, an SFBC member and volunteer in good standing, gets railroaded off the BABC for organizing a protest at a gas station in a dangerous intersection. I find this particularly offensive because the SFBC gleefully lists Critical Mass in its events calendar, but then does everything it can to not actually live up to the principles and methods of this open-source civic activity. Like they want the promotional opportunity but none of the heat and actual responsibility that participation entails.
3) Last winter, when it was time to for the SFBC Board elections, I came to understand that the election process is something of a hollow gesture. There are no public debates. There’s no Q&A of candidates. Last year, in fact, and many other years, as I recall, there were exactly the same number of candidates as there were board positions open. In the past I remember not thinking much of it, and not bothering to vote. Now I have come to recognize that as an important and deeply false ritual that gives the appearance of public participation and living up to the organizational bylaws, when in fact it does neither. There is no real public participation when there’s no debate and no competition for the board. I’m told that the SFBC may have actually violated its own bylaws by extending the voting deadline last year rather calling an entirely new vote, though that’s a little technical and I can’t saw whether it’s actually the case.
4) Finally, there’s my own, personal gripe. I first notice the censorious turn the SFBC has taken when the former Executive Director decided to prevent her membership from learning about a Stop-Roll meeting the MTA was holding. Leah refused to put the event in the newsletter, and I took her to task for this — I was angry. Rather than engage in constituent management, such as telling me that they were engaged in a dialogue with the SFPD about the very topic of stop-sign enforcement, what followed was a bit more than a year of furious refusal to engage, sullen denial of all attempts I made to outreach, and even complaints about my comments to my friends and admonitions to the organizational staff to avoid engaging with me on the issues.
Now, I’m a loudmouth and very pushy, so whatever, but, if an organization in the civic arena is not willing to engage constituents on the issues, and has its feelings hurt when people disagree — why the heck are they in the civic arena in the first place?
There’s nothing worse than technocrats getting in bed with activists and excluding the public — because they think they know better than the public, because they think they need a lot of happy faces at rallies rather than a lot of engaged citizens discussing issues and organizational direction.
The most pathetic part about this is that the City and the MTA itself are doing SUCH a good job of actually outreaching to citizens and engaging them on the issues.
I was at the “Fix Masonic” Meeting last night, and it was a study in contrasts to how the SFBC manages its constituents.
It was held in a public school auditorium. An open call for participation was circulated. Presentations were made. This was followed by BREAKOUT GROUPS in which members of the public sat down around road maps and identified issues and potential solutions.
The SFBC played a great role in supporting the MTA in this effort, including getting people to turn out. I personally want to thank Marc Caswell for emailing me about the issue. I met Marc last night, briefly, and he seemed like a nice chap, in fact, and I’m trying to reconcile this open, engaged person with his apparently censorious flip side I’ve been reading about here, and on the SFBike list.
But the fact is, the SFBC is playing little brother to the MTA here, and an apparently spoiled little brother at that. It’s not leading, it’s hitching its wagon to the big issues it can’t deny, playing the good citizen opportunistically, and otherwise furiously tamping down dissent and dismay amongst its ranks.
I’m NOT rejoining. But I am interested in possibly running for the board, to showcase was a farce the whole process is, and to advocate for a more open, discursive and engaged organization.
May I suggest? A “reform” slate of a half-dozen individuals runs for the SFBC board, calls for a series of public discussions/debates prior to the election … and let’s see what happens.
I believe the SFBC stopped listing Critical Mass in its calendar more than a year ago- I was out of the country at the time though- others may know more. I think it’s very positive if people get more involved in the bicycle coalition and run a slate of reform candidates for the board. The membership need to stay engaged and ensure that the organization is representing their needs. That is healthy.
Is the SFBC splitting into two factions?
I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it like that. It’s more that the SFBC has begun to forget its base in the quest for political power, and that this is a natural reaction to people’s voices not being heard and people’s needs not being represented. I think the best outcome would be for the SFBC to become more transparent and democratic- remembering their roots, AND for another organization to form that will work on these issues from outside the system. That is something that has been discussed for a while. Perhaps this is the time?
11,000 (more) members? 90% pay their dues and believe that the SFBC makes things happen that they don’t personally have time to be involved in. The people who would be “splitting” the SFBC consist of 10% or less of the SFBC.
Certainly the sfbike mailing list has maybe 100 active contributors.
Yeah, too true. Here’s the thing. The 11,000 members are going to not pay any attention AT ALL to the SFBC as long as the SFBC isn’t too outrageous in its undemocratic activities, and as long as it does palpably good things, such as Bike to Work Day.
However, people DO pay attention when the SFBC fucks shit up. Like, remember those traffic circles in the Western Addition? Those just appeared, no public process, they didn’t work, and got smacked down.
Assuming the SFBC’s primary agenda of bike lanes go through, it’ll be a palliative of sorts to overall public concern on biking issues. It’ll get some more people on the road. But the limits of that system will rapidly become clear. Not enough room in the lanes, too proscriptive, poor maintenance, still a lot of cars on the street.
Also, it’ll continue to suppress participation and discourse. This will irk more and more people over time.
Throughout that whole process, which will occur over the next two to five years, there will be “tender moments” when the vulnerability of the organization will be more widely perceived.
This will be especially true with the ongoing trend towards more open government and civic process that the Net Utopians are advancing.
Those tender moments need to be used opportunely. The upcoming board elections are one such moment.
The outcome? Probably not significant in terms of “splitting” the SFBC. Possibly the bulk of the 11,000 current members won’t even notice.
But the minority that is — and wants to be — more fully engaged, will notice, and more conscientious policy will start to emerge, and questions about “what’s the point of it all” will become more pointed and astute.
Personally, I think the moment is right now to begin a broader campaign for real reform of transportation policy.
That means more than making it easy to bike in the city. That means more than making it harder to drive a car in the city. That means giving people real alternatives to driving.
That’s way, way, higher level than bike lanes. It’s a big conversation. If that conversation is not happening, then all the SFBC is doing is putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.
Josh, I think that the issues that lead to a dysfunctional and unjust transportation system are very deeply rooted, and connected to so many other things. Any attempt to seriously change things must go to the root if it is to be successful. We need to admit to ourselves, and get the rest of the population to understand that this culture we live in is actually in the process of killing the planet. Part of the way that our lack of respect for life manifests itself is a neglect of vulnerable road users. The pollution we’re dumping into streams that is killing frogs and the danger we inflict on each other comes from the same place. We can’t simply reform the current system and hope things will work out. We’re too far down the road for that. Green bike lanes might be pretty, but they’re not going to do anyone any good if they are underwater. If the SFBC is going to truly stand up for cyclists’ rights, then they need to take on the dominance of the car on our public streets. And particularly since I’ve been back in this country, I’ve seen not only an unwillingness to take this on, but a strong aversion to it. Perhaps during her break in Amsterdam, Leah will pick up on the fact that the reason that bicycling is so popular in the Netherlands is that they’ve put the car in its place. It’s time we do the same.
Yet this is not a dialogue that the SFBC is permitting anyone in its ranks or sphere of influence to have. The pity of it all is that the organization CAN be truly transparent and inclusive, and STILL pursue its primary agenda of green-painted bike lanes. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Yet the behavior of the organization is downright Stalinist in its effort to suppress dialogue of any sort.
Yes, I think a “Squeaky Wheel Slate” of board candidates for the SFBC would help break the ice on that, though it would have to be entirely in good faith and focused, indeed, on the SFBC’s health. That means eschewing to whatever degree possible the bitterness and resentment that has characterized the situation so far. It would require great patience on the part of the Squeaky Wheels, and an unwillingness to take or throw out any flame bait.
At the same time, any new entity to work on the issue from “the outside” would be wonderful. The issue is … who will take the helm and lead the charge on that?
Sounds similar to the Sustrans scenario, doesn’t it Josh. http://bit.ly/9xJFYr
There are similarities and differences, WW. For one, the SFBC has an elected board, so the membership can organize and change the direction of the organization. Sustrans “supporters” are stuck with an unelected board. Taxation without representation if you will. Also, Sustrans is much further down the road of corporate control and co-mingling with government. SFBC has been drifting in this direction for a while, but I don’t think it’s too late to pull it back from the brink.
Well, guys, look who the SFBC’s biggest donor is, Warren Hellman — their so-called “bike deity”> They call him that because they’ve learned their organization can’t survive without him. Hellman isn’t stupid — he didn’t get to be one of the world’s biggest billionaire’s without learning to use his noggin. How has he not figured out that throwing a few tens of thousands of dollars at all the city’s left-leaning organizations (the SFBC, the Women’s Building, etc.) will be chump change for him, but will keep them in line as good Germans whenever anything seriously threatens to upend the status quo his billions depend on? If the SFBC was truly interested in being a force for change and good in the world, independent of influence by money, power, and the corporate pro-car establishment they (we) were supposedly formed to subvert, then #1 on their agenda should be “Accept no further money from Warren Hellman and the Hellman family”. To me, this is just a great big DUH. But, as my Mom used to always say, “They know which side their bread is buttered on.” This is a very cozy arrangement for the SFBC and the huge network of people and businesses who depend on them to survive. I don’t see them in any hurry whatsoever to end this incestuous relationship.
Or to help government become functional enough that a “little brother” nonprofit like themselves isn’t really needed anymore to make the city safe for bicyclists. In the end, the only entity that can actually implement infrastructural changes such as bike lanes and racks, or changes to city ordinances or the state vehicle code is the government, not the SFBC. But you wouldn’t know that by their promotional literature, where they seem perfectly happy to take credit for pretty much everything. In a functioning society, nonprofit groups such as the SFBC would be completely redundant. But then they would have legislated their way out of resistance. It is only human nature NOT to want this to happen, when the status quo is feathering your own nest so efficiently. I hate to say it, but I find inherent this conflict of interest inherent in these types of arrangements. It is why I have been at best a half-hearted SFBC supporter for quite a long time, even though, like Steve Bodzin, I was one of the original members in the early ’90s, before they incorporated. And why I am saddened, but not at all shocked, at their treatment of Janel Sterbentz.
I don’t personally agree with censuring employees based on what they say or do on their own time.
But, it seems that your logic is that the SFBC and BAC were wrong to fire Janel because they are trying to maintain their donor base. But, there would have been no money to provide Janel a salary without donor money.
If the SFBC and BAC are truly in the pockets of big money donors, and the big money donors demanded the firing of outspoken employees like Janel, under pain of cutting of financial backing, then the SFBC and BAC have two choices: fire the employees, or lose their funding and lay of the employees. Either way, employees like Janel would be in the same position.
You can’t have it both ways — giving the finger to those who donate money to bike activists and providing paying jobs for bike activists. Nobody is stopping Janel from volunteer activism. If you don’t want to be part of more centrist organizations, then move on, and participate part-time volunteer activism.
But recognize that the centrist organizations play an important role in bridging the culture between the truly mainstream status quo and the more radical visionaries.
First, be careful not to confuse the BABC- Bay Area Bicycle Coalition with the BAC- the SF Bicycle Advisory Committee. Definitely not the same thing.
I have absolutely no evidence that ‘big money donors’ threatened to cut their donations if Janel wasn’t censured for her actions. I actually very much doubt that this was the case, at least directly. The problem is that the mores and values of wealthy establishment donors can quickly infiltrate the visionary base of an organization. Clearly- aside from not embracing the tactics of direct action, the SFBC has grown uncomfortable pointing out the problems with car dependence. As 2 million gallons of oil a day continue to gush into the gulf, this omission becomes increasingly glaring and divorced from reality.
I absolutely recognize that centrist organizations like the SFBC ‘bridge the gap’ between the mainstream and the visionaries. The problem is- increasingly they are siding with the mainstream and marginalizing the visionaries. And that is something that as an ex employee and bicyclist in San Francisco I am very concerned about.
Sorry — I meant, “legislated themselves out of existence.” Should always proof-read 1st.
but he puts on such great bluegrass festivals in the park Kathy….surely he can’t be all bad 😉
Josh — I’ll take that with the rather large grain of salt with which I’m sure it was intended. (Plus, even Willie Brown thinks Hellman is a sucky bluegrass musician — in a recent column in the Comicle, he said, & I quote, “I love Warren….But next time, Warren – leave the bluegrass in the park.”)
But anyway, Josh, I think your “lobbying” comment was incredibly apt. The SFBC is a lobbying organization, no more, no less. If we think lobbying from the right is wrong (& I don’t think anyone who reads this blog would disagree with that), then we have to admit that two wrongs don’t make a right. We need to come up with a different model for “subverting dominant paradigms” than trying to shout louder than the people we’re arrayed against. Otherwise, we are just as morally bankrupt as the system we’re trying to correct.
I’d suggest that Marc Caswell should be reprimanded … and Janel Sterbentz be reinstated with a sincere written and verbal public apology from Marc!
Come on, make it happen!
Marc says “my top job is to ‘ensure the health’ of the organization”
At the cost of a few member’s lives. Now that’s healthy
“and I think these recent public actions are undermining that”
What is the point of keeping an org alive that has failed to protect its constituency from the gassholes who see abusing bike lanes as an entitlement thanks to the silent approval of the SFBC and SFMTA et al.
Let ’em stick to bike parking and wavy Wednesday’s
Katherine’s comment “We need to come up with a different model for “subverting dominant paradigms” than trying to shout louder than the people we’re arrayed against” is absolutely bang-on. Fight smart.
The sfbc has been an out of control corporation for a long time. The Bike plan lawsuit is an excellent example of the results of such abuses.
Pingback: A Categorical Mistake? « Cycling Unbound
This whole sequence is yet one more reason why I am not an advocate. From EITHER wing of same. It smacks of the Bolsheviks versus the Mensheviks circa 1907…