Hi All ,


"You should do this" or "You should do that" or "WE should do," meaning that the person stating the idea has already done all of their contributions and the rest is up to everyone else. These are some of the most frustrating comments I see and read all too often. Really? YOU feel it is so important for someone else to do something and yet can not be bothered to give any of your time or money to solve it. When you realize your vision for what someone else should do and it does not happen, you can then spend enormous amounts time to ridicule those who chose not to follow your divine directions. Instead of just telling people what to do I suggest you try to become involved. By involved I do not mean the latest dictator. Organizations need people who spend time understanding the issues. They need people who can enter a discussion that includes many views of an issue. By getting involved you may find issues you never considered and may or may not find areas where your expertise might help. Alas this can only happen if everyone’s eyes are open and not blinded by their ignorance and stupidity.

Many years ago, Cornelius W. Hauck wrote Bob Richardson about saving the D&RGW 318. Mr. Richardson’s response was classic about if he wanted to save it then do it himself. By Mr. Hauck’s willingness to put actions behind his words a great partnership was formed. Their willingness to do instead of talk saved a great many treasures not only at the Colorado Railway Museum but also had influences on many other organizations such as the R&LHS.

If all one chooses to accomplish is a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking without even trying to know the facts then the only thing that gets done is a lot of manure spreading that winds up suffocating possibilities instead of cultivating them. In some cases you only drive a wedge between you and others. So the next time you see you should do this or that I ask you to ask yourself is that said because someone has dealt with that issue before and is trying to give direction; or, is that person using criticism of others just trying to make them self appear so important and deflecting the focus away from their own lack of activity or efforts to help the preservation effort?

Respectfully

Robby Peartree

I remember high school we would be put into a group and be a think tank.

This is an important spot to centralize communications among the preservation groups and your all over the country/world, have an idea share it, read an idea, use it.

Can I get an amen?

I think the internet has made this type of behavior worse. Before the internet, you'd get the people that'd show up at the museum on Saturday saying "you should do this..." It was always interesting to engage them in conversation. Usually, I'd offer to have them join in whatever we were working on. They usually declined.

The internet, coupled with the rise of forums such as this, and other places, has created the phenomenon of the "Internet volunteer" a person who feels that they can dictate ideas from behind a keyboard, without doing any of the other work. Along with what I call, "armchair collections management" the drone can get tiring after a while.

Ok, I'm rolling my soapboax away.....

David Wilkins
Rostrum, Utah

AMEN, brother, testify!

This isn't limited to RR stuff, sadly. Go to any good aviation preservation forum, or worse, a marine preservation forum (you know, giant ships which 'someone should save' and are hauled somewhere with no plan or way to care for the ship, which slowly turns to floating rust), you'll see exactly the same, "someone (other than the poster, of course) should do something" posts.

I recently posted the standard sequence of events leading up to such postings, I have referred to is as a record player playing a cracked recording of, "Deja Vu's greatest hits":
-A very large and immobile item.
-Single owner.
-Owner doesn't own the ground the item sits on.
-Gotta move. As in, yesterday, or maybe the bulldozers are coming.
-No apparent plan to move said item.
-Nobody is stepping up with a truck and/or a piece of property (and even if they do, start this cycle again in a few more years).
-Internet slowly filling bandwidth with, "Someone should do something" messages from someone other than the owner.

Amen. Just ask Pam in Bowie....

Wesley

That being said, a we should do something approach can be beneficial to your museum.

Does your board do a board retreat? How about heads of the various departments and other interested members? Such outings can be good to refocus the organization and its goals.

I think the Western Railway Museum at Rio Vista had one such session a number of years ago. What resulted was a focus on electric traction, fundraising and barn building.

I also think the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum had such a session, which resulted in hiring an Executive Director, and their wonderful expansion.

A variation on this theme is a person who is not a member of a museum group telling the museum what it should do. "You must save..............."

A reality is that way more railroad equipment has been saved today than possibly ever can be preserved. If something new is to be saved, that means something already saved will have to be scrapped in the future. I don't recall ever seeing "You should save X and scrap Y."

At National Capital Trolley Museum we retreated over 10 years ago. The resulting strategic plan has been updated twice. It keeps us focused and looking ahead. The 2009 campus is Exhibit #1 of how well the retreat worked for us.

Wesley

At the RMNE they're known as the "Alls you got to do" folks.

Hal R.
MP30 Hudson Div.

Board retreats can be a way to conduct Board business without an audience.

The variationsto this that bothers me most are when the didn't-do-squat crowd shows up after the money has been spent and the labor has been expended, to tell you what you did wrong, or what you should have done instead of whatever you did.

Another problem when an outsider asks why something wasn't done that was unpopular with management is that he may really be willing and able to donate, but only for his supported purpose.
[Disclaimer: I'm one of those guilty of donating to projects that I favor, instead of what the Officers or Board want.]

There's nothing wrong with supporting a project you'd like to see made a higher priority. I've seen projects made high priorities just because somebody was willing to pay to get them done. Any BOD that has any stuff hanging around that doesn't help carry out the mission isn't doing their job.....and if somebody wants to support a job that does contribute to the mission, even if it's not the current priority, it would be foolish not to take advantage of the interest.

dave

+1. That's what you're SUPPOSED to do as a donor.

A donor who simply does what the Board wants isn't a donor, he's an ATM machine, and he leads the Board down a bad path when he does it. A mission of a board is fundraising. Fundraising is convincing people to give money, and you do that by developing Projects, because it's hard to fundraise to pay the electric bill. To sell a Project to donors, you have to show a track record of having completed past Projects.

Your expectation that your money furthers particular projects is part of the process.

As for OP:

Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt