You mentioned asking questions. I asked a rather basic question over in the other thread that I have not yet seen a reply to.

There was a comment about the "President for Life", to which I replied asking whether that comment was made in jest (i.e. He has a group of cronies who will always vote for him, assuring he can't be replaced) or if it was serious. I'd also asked for a brief run-down of the organization in general.

It's hard to know if they're playing by the rules, when some of us don't even know what rules they're supposed to be playing by. Is it a non-profit? How is the president elected? Do the members vote on projects etc? Are their finances audited? If not, why not? Etc...

Post deleted by author.

Actually, it's more like listening to the (now-departed-from-TV,-thank-the-Lord) Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck shows. At least Rush Limbaugh welcomes callers that wish to debate his viewpoints. (No, really.)

Friends,

As Randy stated, threads about management of preservation are just fine here. The moderators are watching this topic and others related to Mid-Continent with a close eye. There is a real value to discussing how things happened and where money is spent. The objects in the possession of our railroad museums are often priceless and irreplaceable. There is a value to learning how things happen, what works, and what does not work. I am keeping in mind that Brian may not be presenting the most objective painting of the picture and everyone out there should as well. Please try to keep follow-up posts within the guidelines.

All of the negative comments regarding this thread speak volumes about many of the issues in this industry. They speak of why hack contractors with no positive track record continue to get work. They speak of why certain organizations are carried in the highest regard while reality is drastically different than reality.
Our world, not to mention our industry, is not all peaches and ice cream. If there is in fact an issue people should want more info even if it means seeking it out on their own. Rather, people are assuming it is all untrue...not a good approach.
I am not stating any one opinion, rather I am saying that perhaps everyone should take a breath and look into things a bit rather than going on perception.

Jason, I think what I'm reading is a lot of us trying to read between the lines to find out what the facts might be - not possible given there is only one source offering one version of them with nothing like cited reliable sources to back them up. I don't see anybody accepting any claims here at face value, just trying to get a sense of what reality might lead to the offered viewpoints that no official source seems interested in refuting. If you know more specifics and can back up your knowledge, please contribute it if you want to clear any misconceptions up.

dave

Again, I am not taking sides or voicing an opinion on this specific thread. Though I will say that all of the numbers are from publicly available material. That has been stated clearly. My commentary is in regards to all of those that IMMEDIATELY took the position of there being no possible ground for truth based on the fact that they believe otherwise simply because they choose to. Not because they have any knowledge or information to form an actual opinion on.

Having read Don Meyer's blog on the MCRM web site every week, and noting that much of what he said made good sense, this thread presents an alternate view. I have no involvement with the museum and have no idea how much of either side is true. The truth is probably somewhere between the two.

So often, I see a knee-jerk reaction by volunteer members of railway museums (the paint brush army) against efforts to make museum operations more professional and- dare I say- sustainable. A museum can be business-like and generate sufficient revenue to not only survive, but thrive without putting ridiculous demands on its volunteers. Could this be a similar situation, where viewpoints are different and no common ground can be found?

Whatever the truth of the situation, I find it very sad that so much time and energy is wasted in internal politics and haggling. This time could be better used improving the museum's situation.

There may be lessons to be learned, but it always bothers me to see people hanging their dirty laundry in public where it is unlikely to do anything but damage the very institution they claim to care about.

Steve Hunter

Our Museum has been contracting major restoration work for at least 25 years. There are tasks we simply cannot do in-house within the skillset of our volunteer corps. If anything, use of contracts enhances our mission by moving restoration projects along sooner for the benefit of our visitors' experience. In so doing we remain faithful to our mission. Several other railway museums are also turning to use of contract help for major projects, so our museum is not alone in this regard.

Wesley

There's also apparently a mindset out there among many potential contributors and patrons that "professional" is the way to go, and that good results can only come from throwing lots of money at folks who charge lots of money. I've seen many such projects where donors and foundations who never paid an iota of attention or dollar of donation suddenly offer up a five- or six-figure check to cover the costs of a full restoration (or whatever--this isn't restricted to rail preservation), but with the condition that the work be done "professionally" (in some cases, adding shipping costs and more than doubling the "in-house" estimates).

There are arguments to be made both ways about such situations, of course. I'm sure that if someone stepped up with a million-dollar check to "rebuild" the East Broad Top shops and keep them from collapsing, no one's going to argue (except maybe the accountants--it's a gift to a privately-held company, after all). And "professional" restoration has helped many an asset (the PRR doodlebug at the Wilmington & Western, for example) and could have helped many more (*coughcough*1361*COUGH*). But it does seem, at times, to show a lack of credit or faith in the volunteers--just because they don't charge big bucks doesn't mean it's worthless.......

Having both applied for grants, and been an administrator for grant-funded programs, I have a different take.

Most private foundations are founded by people who have money---lots of it. Even if the founder is long gone they are also managed by people who have money. Money, to them, is not a scarce resource. What is scarce to them is time.

Many foundations are more than happy to pay for and even demand professional oversight if because:

--it improves the odds that the quarterly and annual financials will be correct and arrive on time
--it improves the odds that the work will be done within the performance period of the grant
--it improves the odds that expenses will be managed in accordance with foundation policies and any applicable laws and regulations
--it saves them from getting dragged into some godawful internal dispute within a membership club.

In short, they don't exist to get the absolute maximum work for their money regardless of time and irritation; they exist to get the work they want done on the timetable they desire with as little overhead and supervision as is consistent with due diligence. Specifying professional management and labor lets them achieve their goal in a brisk, timely fashion, close the project file and the accounting line, report out in their own annual report, and move on to the next grant.

The efficiency expert in me, and the guy in me that hates to see dragged-out, moribund projects discredit our field, applauds.

The penny-pinching Scot in me howls with righteous indignation.

It's like watching your worst enemy drive your new car off a cliff...........

For a time in the late 1990s, the State of Maryland allowed us to match ISTEA funds with an equivalent value of volunteer labor. In this case we matched the contract work on JTCo 352 with the volunteer efforts to restore TARS 678. It was a matter of the available skills needed for the job the job on each car. Sadly this kind of match is no longer an option for funds received in the Enhancement Program.

Wesley

Two things I have carried in mind during the 35+ years I've messed with this stuff:

"Time and money are interchangable" (to an extent)

and

"Fast, cheap, good. Pick any TWO."

Howard P.
Lost Horizon, NY