There are probably some good non-profit management and media communication lessions that could be learned here:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6-investigators/call-6-feds-state-investigating-indiana-transportation-museum

Nothing like a good old "housecleaning" to fix everything!

If the whistle blowers are right, hopefully after the dust clears, they can come back and take over operation of the museum after the current BoD is shown the door by the feds.

There are two sides to every story and there's now some information from the other side at:

http://itm.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/ ... 3Jun16.pdf.

The tip off that their financial condition is not good is the mention in this release of the use of a line of credit and the fact they had some debts that were paid off, but no specific details are provided in the release.

They file a 990 (which has to be made public) and the most recent one (as posted on Guidestar) for 2013 shows they lost money in 2012, but were in the black the next year. It also shows they received about $100,000 in temporary restricted donations in 2013.

The unknown, here, is whether that money was used for other than the intended purposes in 2014 or 2015. Such use would be inconsistent with the accounting standards related to the use of restricted funds.

There also should have been audited financial reports that would have been made available to the board and the CPAs should have spotted any misuse of restricted funds.

Also, the FRA inspection has nothing to do with the use of temporary restricted funds, so there an inconsistency/possible error in the TV report. I see nothing wrong in having an FRA inspector take a look at the property and tell them what, if anything, needs to be improved

Personal note -- I'm not involved with the museum and have never even been on their property.

Bob H

Except record keeping. Quote from the article:

"It was after the letter that the HHPA decided to call in the Federal Railroad Administration to review the museum's operations, specifically because of one point on the letter. The HHPA says because of the allegations of failing to maintain records on the train's operations forced them to suspend ITM from using the tracks."

Lack of record keeping could mask Hours of Service violations, so the FRA would want to have a look. Producing records to satisfy the FRA might than bring to light records that would be of interest in the financial probe.

I personally think it is never best practice for an organization to comment on such matters, even when they come up to the media. A simple "We deny the allegations and intend to fully cooperate with the investigation(s)." was all that was needed by ITM's board. Calling it a "housecleaning" when it appears the organization had whistle blower protections that it likely did not follow, does nothing to soothe concerns. The optics just doesn't make the action look good, or well-reasoned.

Also, why remove the people completely from volunteering? I can understand during restructuring removing people from supervisory or leadership roles, but to outright ban them from the property and from having any role in the organization? It seems rather draconian and heavy-handed. Finally, a telling quote from the ITM letter:



I find this to be a poor understanding of what a fiduciary duty is. Museums exist in a trust to educate the public, and ITM, as a non-profit is no exception. Disagreeing with expanding a money-making activity is not necessarily a violation of the fiduciary duty. Your role as a director is to look at more than the bottom line, such as preservation of the museum's mission and educational function. Sometimes, commercial, or money making endeavors conflict with that role. I can see no valid explanation for opposing a policy decision and making that a "violation" of a "duty" owed the museum. A board of directors is a policy-making body. It seems to me that the cabal in charge at ITM has set up a system to purge all those deemed to be non-believers form any decision-making role. No room for dissent, if you disagree, we will remove you.

Also, written pledges? Do any other museums require such loyalty oaths from officers, managers, and directors? At the end of the day, I would argue that such steps are not comforting to potential donors, especially institutional ones. Non profits should be transparent. Ideally, you want a structure in place, with protections for "whistleblowers" so that wrongdoing can come to light. If you make everyone sign loyalty oaths and kick people out for violating a "fiduciary duty" when they may just have competing visions for the organization, you are not enabling a transparent structure. Forcing everyone involved, at the point of a bayonet, to march in lockstep not only looks bad, but it is quite the opposite of transparency.

A railroad museum is an educational institution, not a Stalinist cult of personality.

Regardless of how this turns out, it will also affect the public perception of the museum. Negative publicity could affect near term fundraising efforts and will place the museum under the increased scrutiny of the various governmental agencies for a while. If there is any suspicion of wrongdoing that rises to the criminal level, rest assured that the investigating agency will take possession of the records to preserve the evidence.

Transparency and foresight go a long way. We have just taken possession of a new shop facility and it was mentioned at our last meeting of the Board of Directors that following our on site OSHA forklift training class, the officer in charge of the class asked the OSHA inspector (a friend of his) if she would be so kind as to make a walk through of the building and let us know where we were compliant and what needed to be addressed. She had time and obliged his request. We now have a list of items that we can address and if a workplace safety complaint should arise in the future, we can use that fact to dispel any notion that we would willingly create an unsafe workplace.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is not proper to discuss internal issues in public unless it is quite evident that no resolution is possible otherwise. As a director of our museum and fiduciary agent, I find it much more productive to discuss issues that I have questions or reservations about in private with the individuals involved.

Your moderators have locked this thread, and deleted several posts which made inappropriate allegations. The user who made those allegations has been warned. Several additional posts questioning the allegations were removed as well. Those posts were not in violation of our guide lines, but since they included quotes from the inappropriate posts they were removed.

Randy Hees, Moderator RYPN