How would you rate the work of the SAS?
- squamish climber
- Site Admin
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Location: Bowen Island
How would you rate the work of the SAS?
I thought I would follow up mypostfrom the AGM meeting of the Squamish Access Society with a poll and a place for climbers to offer their feedback. I think the climbing community has made big gains in getting its position and goals heard at local and provincial level. This is due in a big part to the work of the SAS.
And I get a sense that over the next couple of years the opportunity is there to accomplish a lot more, such as securing access to the Lower Malamute, improved roads to Mt Habrich and perhaps most importantly the privelage to regulate ourselves when it comes to new routing and climbing guidelines.
But let's hear from you. What do you think of the work the SAS is doing?
What are they doing right?
What are they doing wrong?
What do you think they should be focusing on?
And I get a sense that over the next couple of years the opportunity is there to accomplish a lot more, such as securing access to the Lower Malamute, improved roads to Mt Habrich and perhaps most importantly the privelage to regulate ourselves when it comes to new routing and climbing guidelines.
But let's hear from you. What do you think of the work the SAS is doing?
What are they doing right?
What are they doing wrong?
What do you think they should be focusing on?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Thanks, Dave.
What criteria do you want us to use in assessing the performance, and what hard information is available on how it is organized and what it has done? Also, should the assessment be an overall one, or broken out?
When looking at non-profits, I consider two main areas, starting with governance, finance, and administration:
1. Legal compliance and reporting - essentials. Filing annual report, etc.
2. Membership - credible, inclusive, meets democratic norms (dues, annual renewal), includes reasonable proportion of community that is purportedly represented.
3. Directors - reasonable stability and reasonable turnover, reasonably representative.
4. Communication - regular and reliable communication with members, public, funders and others, reasonably objective.
5. Finances - annual financial statements, records, growing resources.
6. Donations - steady and increasing donations from members, corporate supporters, and others.
7. Partnerships - mature, co-operative relationships with other players.
What criteria do you want us to use in assessing the performance, and what hard information is available on how it is organized and what it has done? Also, should the assessment be an overall one, or broken out?
When looking at non-profits, I consider two main areas, starting with governance, finance, and administration:
1. Legal compliance and reporting - essentials. Filing annual report, etc.
2. Membership - credible, inclusive, meets democratic norms (dues, annual renewal), includes reasonable proportion of community that is purportedly represented.
3. Directors - reasonable stability and reasonable turnover, reasonably representative.
4. Communication - regular and reliable communication with members, public, funders and others, reasonably objective.
5. Finances - annual financial statements, records, growing resources.
6. Donations - steady and increasing donations from members, corporate supporters, and others.
7. Partnerships - mature, co-operative relationships with other players.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
The second half of an assessment is programs and services, which are the more visible part of what a non-profit does. An honest self-appraisal can be difficult, given the tendency of non-profits to overstate their accomplishments for promotional and other reasons, and even rivalry between groups. Can you objectively list the accomplishments of the Squamish Access Society over the 3 - 4 years since it started, and successes and failures? Also, its partners, given that most successes are shared? That would help in assessing its performance.
To take an example, the 'SAS' can take some credit for the recent success at the upper Malamute. However, much of the work occurred before the 'SAS' was formed, there were several key partners (MEC, The Access Society, TLC, and on and on), and The Access Society may overall have contributed as much or more, certainly at the start. Conversely, the 'SAS', supposedly with an ear to the local ground, may have been caught asleep at the switch when the upper Malamute was logged a few years ago. It seems a somewhat mixed and certainly shared success.
Adopt-a-Crags are of course a long-standing program of The Access Society (and the Access Fund), now shared. And so on.
Another example is membership. I don't know if the 'SAS' represents only climbers living at Squamish, or some larger group, or if its membership is limited in any way. The Squamish climbing community includes all climbers living in the Whistler-Chilliwack-Bellingham-Nanaimo quadrangle, and some farther away (e.g. Peter Croft and Ed Cooper, in California). To my mind, a group representing that community must be fully inclusive of them all. Local knowledge and input is important, but the issues and challenges aren't just local. Does the 'SAS' truly include all those it claims to represent?
I am not a member of the 'SAS' (I live in a southern suburb of greater Squamish), and indeed have not been active in access matters for several years. Local climber organizations are important to the climbing community, as are broader groups like The Access Society, and its important to recognize the contributions of all volunteers. The local groups provide a narrower but perhaps more intense focus, regional groups a broader perspectives, resources, and so on. It can be a difficult balancing act in terms of the needs, goals and activities of the various parties.
To take an example, the 'SAS' can take some credit for the recent success at the upper Malamute. However, much of the work occurred before the 'SAS' was formed, there were several key partners (MEC, The Access Society, TLC, and on and on), and The Access Society may overall have contributed as much or more, certainly at the start. Conversely, the 'SAS', supposedly with an ear to the local ground, may have been caught asleep at the switch when the upper Malamute was logged a few years ago. It seems a somewhat mixed and certainly shared success.
Adopt-a-Crags are of course a long-standing program of The Access Society (and the Access Fund), now shared. And so on.
Another example is membership. I don't know if the 'SAS' represents only climbers living at Squamish, or some larger group, or if its membership is limited in any way. The Squamish climbing community includes all climbers living in the Whistler-Chilliwack-Bellingham-Nanaimo quadrangle, and some farther away (e.g. Peter Croft and Ed Cooper, in California). To my mind, a group representing that community must be fully inclusive of them all. Local knowledge and input is important, but the issues and challenges aren't just local. Does the 'SAS' truly include all those it claims to represent?
I am not a member of the 'SAS' (I live in a southern suburb of greater Squamish), and indeed have not been active in access matters for several years. Local climber organizations are important to the climbing community, as are broader groups like The Access Society, and its important to recognize the contributions of all volunteers. The local groups provide a narrower but perhaps more intense focus, regional groups a broader perspectives, resources, and so on. It can be a difficult balancing act in terms of the needs, goals and activities of the various parties.
- squamish climber
- Site Admin
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Location: Bowen Island
Anders,
Thanks for your comments and analysis. It sounds like you know what you are talking about when it comes to assessing a non-profit or community group. Do you work in this field?
I guess I was proposing a less rigourus appraisal in this post, more like people's observation. Although I quickly see the usefulness of drilling down and applying some objective criteria.
I arrived late to the AGM so I only caught the tail end of the financial report. I gathered their financial outlook was quite good and that the Squamish Mountain Festival is a big boost to their coffers. I imagine the financial statements are availabe if you ask for them.
You're correct also to point out that the SAS was not the only group active in perserving and expanding climbers access in Squamish, such as the Malamute.
The Climbers Access Society of BC is also heavily involved in Squamish issues. To me the distinction between the CASBC and the SAS sometimes seems blurred. Climbers hold positions in both organizations. Which raises the question if they sometimes work at cross purposes.
I can see the benefits of a local and regional Access organization. I also took out a membership with CASBC. Climbing is a relatively low-cost recreational sport, so paying low-membership fees to two organizations working on the same issues is not a big deal.
I believe everybody that climbs at Squamish or has climbed at Squamish and values what is should take out a membership in the SAS and CASBC. One of the goals of the SAS is to sign up more members from Vancouver so I don't see it as a Squamish resident only organization.
Good comments so far. Anybody else want to chip in their thoughts?
Thanks for your comments and analysis. It sounds like you know what you are talking about when it comes to assessing a non-profit or community group. Do you work in this field?
I guess I was proposing a less rigourus appraisal in this post, more like people's observation. Although I quickly see the usefulness of drilling down and applying some objective criteria.
I arrived late to the AGM so I only caught the tail end of the financial report. I gathered their financial outlook was quite good and that the Squamish Mountain Festival is a big boost to their coffers. I imagine the financial statements are availabe if you ask for them.
You're correct also to point out that the SAS was not the only group active in perserving and expanding climbers access in Squamish, such as the Malamute.
The Climbers Access Society of BC is also heavily involved in Squamish issues. To me the distinction between the CASBC and the SAS sometimes seems blurred. Climbers hold positions in both organizations. Which raises the question if they sometimes work at cross purposes.
I can see the benefits of a local and regional Access organization. I also took out a membership with CASBC. Climbing is a relatively low-cost recreational sport, so paying low-membership fees to two organizations working on the same issues is not a big deal.
I believe everybody that climbs at Squamish or has climbed at Squamish and values what is should take out a membership in the SAS and CASBC. One of the goals of the SAS is to sign up more members from Vancouver so I don't see it as a Squamish resident only organization.
Good comments so far. Anybody else want to chip in their thoughts?
Dave Jones - site admin
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
- squamish climber
- Site Admin
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Location: Bowen Island
It slipped my mind he was president and executive director of the CASBC, but I do recall most of his tenure. See http://www.squamishclimbing.com/squamis ... php?t=1965
Anders resigned in 2008. During his term there were a lot of accomplishments including leading the campaign to stop the gondola development and leading the fundraising for the purchase of Skaha.
He probably has a good idea of how to assess the SAS and the CASBC on that alone. I also remember hearing or reading somewhere that Ander's consults with non profits.
Anders resigned in 2008. During his term there were a lot of accomplishments including leading the campaign to stop the gondola development and leading the fundraising for the purchase of Skaha.
He probably has a good idea of how to assess the SAS and the CASBC on that alone. I also remember hearing or reading somewhere that Ander's consults with non profits.
Dave Jones - site admin
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
When you reach the top, keep climbing -- Zen proverb
...and as such he will have an inherent bias toward CASBC over the newcomer of SAS. I find his use of quotes around SAS as in 'SAS' interesting: does this mean it isn't legitimate in his opinion...or ? Perhaps you can enlighten us Anders.Dru wrote:
I guess you haven't been climbing long enough to remember that Anders was the first president of CASBC?
If you are wondering at the source of Anders somewhat technical list in his first post, its probably worth knowing that Anders is a lawyer with a professional specialization in non-profits, BC socities and charities: http://www.donaldgolobconsulting.ca/ito ... g=Seminars.
I also expect that the list in Anders first post may not be all that relevant in evaluating the SAS (or any other society) to those without a professional interest in the legal side of life for a society. I hope that people may have more to say about what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done. Any feedback here or on our web-site (http://squamishaccess.ca/) is very much desired and appreciated.
Probably worth repeating that all are welcome in the SAS, we don't care about your postal code. Peter Croft is an SAS member.
Todd
I also expect that the list in Anders first post may not be all that relevant in evaluating the SAS (or any other society) to those without a professional interest in the legal side of life for a society. I hope that people may have more to say about what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done. Any feedback here or on our web-site (http://squamishaccess.ca/) is very much desired and appreciated.
Probably worth repeating that all are welcome in the SAS, we don't care about your postal code. Peter Croft is an SAS member.
Todd
Whoops - here is the correct link:
http://www.donaldgolobconsulting.ca/ito ... Associates
http://www.donaldgolobconsulting.ca/ito ... Associates
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 10:38 am
Guilty as charged. My work as a lawyer is to do with societies, charities and other non-profits. In my experience, sound legal, financial and governance foundations (not just legalities) are essential to the health of non-profits, however unexciting they might seem. Non-profits (in fact, all of us) have difficulty with objective self-appraisals of strengths and weaknesses, and I wanted to note the importance of foundations (not just accomplishments) in assessing performance. Outside partners are often concerned with these things - number of members, financial and organizational stability, credibility, leadership, legal status, and so on. These are things I emphasized while with The Access Society, as part of the process of climbers maturing, being better organized, and better representing their own interests.
The 'SAS' chose a name - Squamish Access Society - which is rather similar to that of the Climbers' Access Society of British Columbia, particularly as the latter has long used the abbreviation "The Access Society". So I use 'SAS' for clarity. (There's also a British military organization with those initials, although it might be a stretch to confuse the two.) I also confess that I've never much liked acronyms.
I was a director of The Access Society from 1995 - 2005, and then (very) part-time executive director from 2005 - 08. Apart from helping with filings and paperwork, and still being a member (I hope), I haven't been involved with it since spring 2008. It was time to move on, both for me and it.
Experience suggests that healthy, credible local and regional climbers' access organizations are both needed, and that both should be supported. In the case of Squamish, there was no local organization from the early 1990s until 2005 or 2006. The Access Society ably filled the gap, and more. I believe it has ceded some of its leadership at Squamish to the 'SAS', but still has a significant role, which makes sense given that the future and management of climbing at Squamish are much more than local concerns, and The Access Society brings useful resources and experience. There will of course always be local-regional tensions; we live in Canada, after all. And climbers by nature can be territorial.
As I seem to be climbing, or at least cleaning, a bit more lately, maybe sometime I'll get around to joining the 'SAS'.
The 'SAS' chose a name - Squamish Access Society - which is rather similar to that of the Climbers' Access Society of British Columbia, particularly as the latter has long used the abbreviation "The Access Society". So I use 'SAS' for clarity. (There's also a British military organization with those initials, although it might be a stretch to confuse the two.) I also confess that I've never much liked acronyms.
I was a director of The Access Society from 1995 - 2005, and then (very) part-time executive director from 2005 - 08. Apart from helping with filings and paperwork, and still being a member (I hope), I haven't been involved with it since spring 2008. It was time to move on, both for me and it.
Experience suggests that healthy, credible local and regional climbers' access organizations are both needed, and that both should be supported. In the case of Squamish, there was no local organization from the early 1990s until 2005 or 2006. The Access Society ably filled the gap, and more. I believe it has ceded some of its leadership at Squamish to the 'SAS', but still has a significant role, which makes sense given that the future and management of climbing at Squamish are much more than local concerns, and The Access Society brings useful resources and experience. There will of course always be local-regional tensions; we live in Canada, after all. And climbers by nature can be territorial.
As I seem to be climbing, or at least cleaning, a bit more lately, maybe sometime I'll get around to joining the 'SAS'.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests