Meeting 1, Thu 31 Aug:

The first meeting was largely concerned with clearing a lot of the proposals currently before the IFBMA, which had remained unratified for nearly 2 years. The most disucssion was around the acceptance of the By-laws, with specific objections to a few issues:

First, there was talk concerning the $100 proposal fee for making the preliminary bid for CMWC, at the 2 year mark., and whether or not it is fair and reasonable, or even necessary. It was argued that the reasoning behind the fee was to lend an air of seriousness to a proposal ­ to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, to encourage people not to drop out. Objections were mainly centered around the fear of the CMWC/IFBMA becoming a money machine, and where the money went. It was then proposed that the fee become a refundable to those cities who did not succeed in getting the CMWC at the 1-year vote mark, and that the IFBMA keeps the $100 from the winner. This was approved as an amendment to the By-laws, and it was decided that proposal fees from this years bidders (those bidding for 2002) should be collected within the month after CMWC 2000.

There was then more debate concerning monetary issues, and fears by some attendees that perhaps the IFBMA would become a big business machine, and specific objections to a $5 membership fee ­ that it had been free in the past, and should remain so. It was raised in support that the membership fee goes towards securing the future of the race. Is the membership fee admission to the open forum? A way of saying the organization belongs to its members? Has the IFBMA even demonstrated how it will use the money? What about a fee for proxy votes? The majority of attendees did not approve of the fee, and it was suggested that instead, it be a voluntary donation at the open forum. This was approved, and we went on to approve the By-laws in their revised entirety.

The remainder of the current proposals were approved without much debate.

The next issue was that of voting by proxy, which we quickly resolved by decided that proxy votes would only be available to those who attended the first of the 2 open forum meetings, but were unable to attend the second, and only then in writing. No decision was reached on the availability of proxy votes to those members who were unable to attend CMWC.

Discussion then moved on to quick presentations from the 2 cities proposing for CMWC 2001.

Budapest was first to speak, and they spoke of having already gotten the mayorıs signed letter of approval, the approval of the island in the middle of the river where they intend to hold the race and have the group camping site, and of reaching out to the Eastern Europeans, who have not turned out to CMWC previously, and where there is a growing messenger community.

Paris then gave its presentation. Officials of the 18th district have voiced their interest in having the event in their district. France as a country is keen on cycling, but Parisı messenger community is young and small ­ the CMWC could be a much-needed boost for the community. There were some concerns about the area suggested for the race being too small for the event.

Damon Votour (SF) then spoke briefly concerning the SFBMAıs recent efforts and success in unionizing SF messenger companies, and where they plan to go from there.

Meeting 2, Tue 05 Sep:

The second meeting was substantially shorter, and began with short speeches from Ethan Dale (Seattle) concerning the recent death of Yianni Phillipedes, and from Damon and Howard of the SFBMA regarding recent union activity in SF.

The floor was then opened for cities proposing for CMWC 2002, and draft proposals were put forward by Houston, Seattle, Calgary, New York and Copenhagen. Bidding for CMWC 2002 is now officially closed, and the decision shall be taken in Budapest at CMWC 2001.

Finally, there were short bits from the cities bidding for 2001, and the issue came to a decision, which was that the host city for CMWC 2001 is Budapest, Hungary.