Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS

I saw an article in today's Union Tribune by Phil Diehl, about two Ecke YMCA board members being forced off the board.  The story is quite interesting.  Two members of the Ecke family (Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers) whose family donated the land, and funded the construction of the Encinitas YMCA were opposed to a dramatic change in the YMCA membership and participation fees that were being forced upon them by the San Diego regional YMCA director.  Instead of allowing children to join or take classes for a cost of $100 or less, they now require payment of $1000 per year as a "family membership."   Ecke and Ayers have set up a website with additional info and their side of the story: http://www.ynowsd.com/. They also have a facebook page

I did find that there has been a LOT of information about it and a lot of discussion online.  First I found this KPBS posting:

Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS

There was an article on San Diego Sun Times,



I understand the concern of  Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers.  The YMCA's primary goal in my mind is to serve the children in the area who don't have access to other, higher cost, facilities and supervision. They apparently now serve 2400 children in the area.   Families who can afford to pay $1000 to obtain a membership don't seem to be the ones in the "target" demographic.  If a family can afford to pay $1000, they can afford to send their kids to private coaches and facilities.  Why would the public be willing to donate funds to support that group?  Why would the Ecke family have donated their land and money for construction of a facility to support that group.  If the YMCA wants more adult memberships, the $1000 membership cost also seems high in comparison with the much more modest cost of gyms such as 24 Hr Fitness, LA Fitness etc which also have beautiful facilities.

The article pointed out that Herdelin Doherty, the San Diego County YMCA Executive Director was hired in 2010 with a salary of $400,000.  He is apparently pulling funds from all of the local YMCA's --apparently to help give himself a raise!  I do understand that managing such a large regional organization is a lot of responsibility.  It does have to be run like a business to make sure that it meets its organizational goals while also keeping the financial books balanced.  The Executive Director job does require some skill at management as well as fund raising.   However, I'm not sure that the position should be one that pays such a high salary.  It would seem to me that there are plenty of retired, highly skilled executives who would "volunteer" their time for a much lower amount of compensation.

I have served on boards, and I don't think this is the correct dynamics for a board.  If members of a board have a minority opinion, the board, or management shouldn't try to kick them off the board.  A board should allow, and encourage all members to speak freely.  Otherwise why have a board that just says "yes" to everything that management proposes?

I am very surprised that if Herdelin Doherty has not responded publicly, nor has any of the other YMCA board members to explain their side and rationale for making the changes they are proposing.  This sort of controversy is clearly a "black eye" to the YMCA and could affect future donations.  If Doherty is truly a leader, as he was hired to be, he should be out managing the news, explaining his side etc.

I can see how the YMCA might want to offer family memberships, and then offer discounted rates, priority or early registration for classes to family members.  Non-members could then sign up for space-available in the more over-subscribed classes.  I think it would also be good for the community if a certain number of "slots" were set aside in each class for non-members.  I agree that requiring families to apply for "financial assistance" when signing up for classes is somewhat demeaning, and would keep children who really need this type of activity from being able to take advantage of it.

It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.

Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile

The California Coastal Commission is trying to prevent Encinitas oceanfront homeowners from protecting their home by building a sea wall.  They also want to prevent those owners from being able to access the beach with their staircase.  Even if they issue a permit to allow coastal owners to rebuild their seawalls or staircases, they try to limit the "permit" to 20 years.  That way, after 20 years, the Commission can try again to extract additional concessions from the owners.  There are many individual homeowners along the coastline. There are also many condominium complexes with homeowner associations who are also struggling to protect their properties from rising seas and find they have to fight the Coastal Commission to do so.

This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission)  has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile:  Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals.  A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this.  It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.

I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians.  I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline.  Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for  the part-time commissioners to change.

It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access.  The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive.  Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day.  Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would  need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.

The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public.  It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.