Another inherent issue here is that by its very nature, we participate in a hobby that clings to what was. The past is the apple of our eye. How many times have you heard someone say...if only I were born in x year or things were so much better during x decade. The kind of transition that is necessary for the organization to survive is one that asks those involved to work against their own wiring. Even in times of celebration of new achievement, there are the voices who wish it were like it once was. Look at the green paint crowd or the why is their a dismal behind the steam engine types.

Bob,
I don't dispute that that information is available now. However, that information was not available as quickly as it should have been. I know this, because I have specifically searched for it over the past couple of years. It is not simply that the data be made available, but that it be made available in a timely fashion that is a requirement for good governance. I realize that compiling this information does take time, but it should not take 6 months to determine how much money was in the accounts at the end of 2013, as long as there was reasonable, on-going effort to know what was going on in the accounts throughout the year.

Part of the duties of the Board of Directors of any organization should be knowing what is going on with the financial and physical resources of that organization. We not only track our funds throughout the year in the Roanoke Chapter (including an annual independent review), but separate members of the Board also audit the accounts that are maintained by the Treasurer periodically throughout the year. While a single Chapter may not be directly comparable to a national organization, in our case we are dealing with significant finances and complex accounting. That makes it even more critical that there be oversight and regular monitoring practices in place.

It also does not help that there is no actual announcement to the general membership when these data become available, or where the information can be found. I spent considerable effort searching the national website to locate what was there and it was not easy to find (I say this being a professional software architect and web designer).



Steve,
The methodology of this reorganization and the time frame that is occurring over is what I find concerning. If this is the culmination of a 5 year effort, why is so much of it occurring at the very end of the process rather than incrementally over time? While it may not be the intention, it gives the impression of an attempt to get this reorganization done quickly while the current board is still in place, thus avoiding the need to seat the incoming Board members by rearranging the structure of the organization. The method by which these proposed changes are communicated to the membership will be critical, since it could very easily become even more adversarial and antagonistic than Chapter / National relationships have been in the past. If that gets ugly, quite a few organizations and Chapters will forgo "affiliating" with national simply because of how that process is handled. That could result in even lower cash flow into National than is received currently from membership dues and make the overall financial outlook even worse than after the dues increase of last year.

While this "database of donors who have historically been supporters of rail preservation" is a nice idea, I would like to see the details thereof and the ability to actually make use of it before I would vote for becoming an affiliate. Depending on what the cost of affiliation with the proposed new National NRHS is, there will need to be significant, tangible benefits before there will be many organizations that will subscribe.

I simply feel that radically changing the structure of the organization and how individuals can be members needs to be approached with deliberation and open discourse. It would be a disservice to those longstanding members of the NRHS who have put time and effort and money into the organization for many years to do otherwise.

D. Lewis Foster

From an outsider's perspective:

Membership-operated organizations like the NRHS should consider radical changes to their corporate governance with deliberation. Whether the proposed changes have benefits or not, can be undercut by a perception that the changes are a thinly-disguised power grab. No, not everyone will be embracing change, but any attempt to ramrod through the process only adds to the onus of illegitimacy.

Steve, why do you view the "social club model" viewed as a negative?

I ask because Meetup.com (wikipedia), a website founded in 2002, has become so popular that the word "meetup" was added to the Oxford Dictionary! Perhaps the NRHS could rebrand/restructure its "social club model" instead of throwing it out entirely?

"Perhaps the most important point to make right now is the New Business Model gives the NRHS a reason for existing in the 21st century. "

Based upon what I heard tonight, whatever the original intent, the present "reorganization" strikes back at the membership for daring to remove an incumbent.

It is as a prior post indicated, a poison pill-the annulment of a valid election but worse it is designed not only to protect entrenched interests, but to fundamentally transform (to borrow a phrase) the organization to preclude any future threat to entrenched bureaucracy.

A couple of things at work here. First, as John Hankey pointed out in one of his recent blog posts, maintaining membership records in a non-profit as big as the NRHS costs more than people are willing to pay. Second, meetup is something based on social networking, and our current membership is, to a large extent, social networking challenged. And for youngsters that might be interested in something like that, there is already a massive online infrastructure in place with Facebook, Trainorders, Railpictures, etc., that has already captured that market.

The "new" NRHS instead removes everything mandatory about being a member and makes it all voluntary. You can join your local club and not be required to join national. If you are in national only to get the Bulletin, you can do that cheaper under the new model by subscribing. And if you really like rail preservation but only have $10 to donate instead of $50, hey, that's okay, too. And if you hate NRHS and want to leave, we wish you well. Please give to the charity of your choice.

Steve Barry

http://nrhs.com/news/nrhs-reveals-detai ... ness-model

Where are the full details?

Steve Barry FTW!

This quote should be the TL;DR for this entire thread.

I see no reason for further comment and suggest the mods close this thread on a high note. :-)

Rob

I see no terms of service violation. As a mod on the Railfan board, I'm unlocking this threat. This is a big issue, and I think vigorous debate, as long as it is civil is okay.

I would like to learn how this "donor-driven" business plan for the NRHS is going to work and be funded. Their description on the NRHS website includes repeated use of the word "funding", so I would expect they are looking to act as the financial conduit between donors and recipients. So do they "earn" a share by skimming the financial traffic, and what is the purpose of retaining the publications? To let the world know who the elites are contributing to, or to publicize what a great job the NRHS and its officers are doing?

Finally, if this is what the NRHS leadership wants to do, why don't start your own non-profit that is not member-run from the onset and do that?

Trying to change a member-operated, member-elected leadership with one that is not, can be viewed, especially in light of timing, as a power grab by sore loosers. S

Or, as they say on Wall St., a "hostile takeover."

David, my suggestion of locking the thread was a joke. Steve's summation of the problem was spot-on - and at least to me - quite funny.

I responded in social networking language and sarcasm, which apparently was misunderstood so I will clarify.

Steve Barry FTW (for the win) means Steve wrote something better than most other comments.

TL;DR (too long; don't read) means in a post or thread that drones on, just read this one lind and you will know all you need to. Steve's comment is a good TL;DR as they usually are humorous.

My suggestion to close the thread was sarcastic, but really Steve's post was so good that it would have been a great point to end on. Instead I am sure this topic will get beat into the ground RYPN-style by the usual suspects.


Rob

My comment about the grant program is the fact they make so many small grants to projects with large budgets. Why not focus the grant dollars on fewer projects and have a larger impact?

Wesley

NRHS awards grants based on a well documented written application process.... of course, if an organization doesn't apply for a grant, it has zero chance of getting one !

Also, the maximum grant is $5,000.

Bob H