IMHO it should be remembered that the job of a Board is GOVERNANCE not day-to-day operations. We have what has been described here as an "outside" board in Altoona. You could call it "blended" but a real emphasis on the "outside".

The job of running the organization should not fall to the Board - it is the responsibility of staff (making the assumption you have any). The operational details should be handled by staff, volunteers, and to some extent the members of your standing committees and, yes, our committees are chaired by Board members.

Too often, Board meetings drag on for hours because work details that should have been part of a committee meeting are discussed in too much detail at Board meetings. Not to say your Board members cant get their hands dirty of they want, but it is not the primary function of a Board.

Our Board members are asked to join the Museum at whatever level they are comfortable with. In addition to the dues, they give to the cause in other ways - time, expertise, etc. We have no required level of giving - just that all participate financially at whatever level they wish.

Requiring donations from trustees is a function of an organizations governance structure. Indeed, there is a great difference in fund-raising abilities that flow directly from the way an organization’s board is elected.

Large institutions tend to have many board members in order to expand fund raising horizons. Most decision making is delegated to a smaller executive committee. Board membership requests are solicited and vetted by the development/executive staff, with inclusion based upon board vote. Corporate bi-laws effectively make this a self-perpetuating board. In contrast, many rail fan organizations are membership organizations, with trustees periodicly elected into office by large community of voting members. Note: my definitions may or may-not correspond to the inside-outside definition used in prior posts.

Required donations by board members are a fact of life for most civic organizations. Of particular importance is that the gift usually must be for unrestricted operating purposes. Additionally, when capital campaigns are mounted, board members are expected to make lead gifts. At that time, they are required to directly solicit contributions from their counterparts in the corporate community, often with a stipulated target for dollar or number of asks. Capital campaigns usually raise half of their target in this “silent phase,” AKA the “top of the giving pyramid,” before they are made public.

Membership organizations command a loyal following of worker bees, but there is typically little honey in the hive. Members donate labor and may collectively donate large sums. Their largess, however, is often targeted toward their pet project. By contrast, a properly constituted, a well-connected, self-perpetuating board attracts successful professionals. These people may not have free time to come down to the depot, but they can do things from their office. They ma raise large sums for projects, but only when there is a consensus on a plan. Ad hoc restricted gifts tend to be rare. Thus, they usually supply a steadier stream of unrestricted operating support than a comparable membership organization.

In my experience, it is not effective to impose giving requirements upon the board of a membership organization. If there is a collective desire for trustees to contribute financially, the membership can enforce it's will through periodic elections. A better alternative may be to establish a separate “Friends of” organization of the self-perpetuating variety.

As I said in my previous post, I think Inside and Outside governance boards each have advantages and disadvantages. The big advantage of an Inside Board is, since the Board members are democratically elected from among the members, the level of volunteer "sweat-equity" is likely to be much higher. If there just isn't a lot of traditional financial or community support for a rail museum in a given area, having a strong volunteer support base that feels empowered by the Museum's democratic structure may be more important than opting for an outside Board hoping to raise big bucks, and settling for far less volunteer effort. I think the proof is in the pudding, and there are good (and probably not-so-good) examples of each type of governance, although I know of relatively few larger railway museums with traditional outside Boards.

Note that several of the larger, better-funded Museums are in a different category altogether. These are the public-sector museums that are a direct part of government. They include Steamtown, California State Railroad Museum, Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, Travel Town (Los Angeles) and the Museum of Transportation (St. Louis). They have no dedicated governing Board looking out specifically for their interests. Ultimately the governance is by elected legislatures at the federal, state, or local level as the case may be. These legislative bodies exercise their governance responsibility by adopting an annual budget for their entire jurisdiction, which may (or may not) include continuing funding for the public institution in question.

With respect, I think (based on experience) that most volunteers burn out and leave due to the sort of small minded political and personal BS allowed to evolve in organizations with boards based on popularity contests micro-mangling the day to day operation without even considering long range big picture visions capable of generating a continuous flow towards goals capable of engendering wide support.

I'd sure like to know, as a volunteer, that really smart people with much more power and influence than I or the other grunts can muster are pulling together the kind of resources and community respoect that will make my efforts worthwhile. I'd sure rather have them doing that successfully than having a bunch of people as dumb and uninfluential as myself failing at it. Otherwise, why bother?

Not everybody's opinions are worthy of equal consideration, no matter how popular they may be among the membership. Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter how many votes are behind either.

dave