And looking back from the perspective of a hired wrench.......

Funding organizations want a reliable estimate and proposal based on supported data. A proposal that is a volunteer committee effort with little professional but plenty of emotional content is not impressive from their POV and in fact raises Red Flags. Note that the estimate you prepare and proposal you write is usually also your bid - so it is in your best interest to make it as comprehensive and explicit as possible.

The most well managed clients I had the honor to work for were a joy - completely rational, decisive, communicated well, had a common comprehension of goals, standards, and expectations. They got the most bang for the buck because they knew what they wanted and how to get there and based goals and expectations on reality, and generally got more than was agreed upon.

The least professionally structured and managed, more democratic and political the decision making process, the least clear, most amorphous the common comprehension and most difficult client experience. They got the least bang for the buck because definitions of goals and standards and priorities constantly shifted in the political winds, and realities were based on different individuals perceptions rather than common professional understanding. Getting any semblance of a job "finished" let alone providing any extra service was difficult at best, occasionally impossible. "Finished" was one of those shifting goals.

Note that "bang for the buck" has NOTHING to do with the price quoted, just results per expenditure.

The worst was a structured corporate political nightmare, the best a membership based group with a strong, supported director.

Working for individuals entirely dependent on the rational perspective of the client. Few private individuals get grants for preservation projects and don't fit into the focus of this thread, so we'll leave that aside.


I think we can safely leave aside as facetious any argument that hiring contractors to execute projects funded by granting bodies was in any way improper in concept.

The originator of this thread wants, it appears, to speak as the voice of the membership and act as a force to return to a common set of goals and plans. If the membership shared that vision, it wouldn't be necessary. If the membership doesn't share that vision, his perspective is moot, no matter how "unfairly" he believes himself to have been treated, and "righteous" his ideas. Life isn't fair, and everybody believes himself to be right.

If his view has merit, and the organization is doomed to failure with the blessing and approval of the membership, his best option may be to prepare to pick up the pieces down the line when that happens, and rebuilt it in his image. If it doesn't happen, he may wish to reconsider his perspective based on practical reality.

So, kind of interesting as a one sided case study, but essentially irrelevant.

dave

Here is the background about the "President for Life" statement. Early on, the president and all board members were elected by the voting members. However, this proved to be more a popularity contest rather than a merit and qualifications contest. Thus, the bylaws were changed in 2000 to allow the board to elect the president and the board to appoint 9 of the 12 board members. The bylaws clearly stated the nominees should leaders in the railroad, museum, and industry businesses. The current president slowly filled vacancies with his cronies by interpreting the qualifications of candidates as he pleased and disallows opposition candidates. In the mid-2000s, the bylaws were again changed to eliminate any term limits for officers and board members, thus solidifying his ownership of the organization. One of the organizers of recent bylaws changes intended to increase the number of board members elected by members was disqualified as a candidate because of his volunteer work on steam locomoitve SOO No. 1003, which the president interpreted as a conflict of interest. Is this really a conflict of interest? Yet, one of the president's cronies also works in the engine house for the Riverside and Great Northern, a small scale tourist railroad only 12 miles from Mid-Continent and has served on the board from the beginning. Is this not an even greater conflict of interest?

I have no idea who Glen Beck is/was and I am not him.

The first mortgage agreement signed was the Community First Bank contract, which was signed on May 13, 2008 and recorded May 19, 2008. This contract establishes CFB as the primary lien holder. The first mortgage document by Small Business Administration was signed on January 3 and again on March 20, 2009. I am sure the SBA representative pointed out to the representatives from Mid-Continent the covanant on the contract that there can be no other lien holders for thie properties listed as collateral. It would appear to me, based on these assumptions, that the MC representatives may have lied. It also appears to me that the SBA people did not do their due diligence by checking if there were other liens against the property.

Regarding Libel, I fully know the meaning and was very careful not to commit libel, nor did I make any allegations against any individual. I am not aware of any federal, state, or local laws prohibiting anyone from expressing personal opinions about anything.

Dave, you seem to misunderstand my intentions. I do not wish to speak for the membership of this organization because I am no longer a Life Member. I wish to speak to and for all of those who care about preservation of and education about our rich railroad history. I will now communicate some hypothetical situations to someone who appears to be a lawyer by asking the following questions.

What would you recommend a member and former board member of a not-for-profit organization do if this member believed that another member and board member had used his influence to bring about member-approved bylaws changes, use these bylaws changes to load the board of directors with unqualified members who supported his views, and manipulated the board into approving his views of changing the physical property and assets of the organization from a museum to a tourist railroad? By doing so, the visitor numbers, income, and membership drastically declined. Now, let me propose that this president, with help of a contracted manager, cooked the books to make the organization look successful and the manager published a blog that he and the president used as a propaganda tool to expound on how their leadership is leading the organization into a successful future. Now, let me propose the new business and declining income were actually resulting in the need to borrow more money to stay afloat and one loan was not enough to stay solvent. Now, let me propose that this president and contracted manager conspired to take out two loans and use the same parcels of land as collateral. Would you go to the state agencies, the banks, the members, the IRS, or the rail enthusiast? Now, let me propose that this member wanted to go to the voting membership but was denied the contact information. And let me propose that this member went to the state agency responsible not-for-profit organizations and their decision was to tell the member this was a member problem. Dave, what would you do?

I have more questions. When the sheriff padlocks all the buildings, who would you blame for the failure of a prominent railroad museum? Would you blame the founders and early leaders who were too busy growing the physical plant to establish and publish their purpose, mission, and strategic plans? Would you blame those members who were too busy restoring wooden railroad equipment? Would you blame those members who were too operating the trains? Would you blame the new president and board for following a personal agenda? Or would you blame the rail enthusiast community that was too enthralled by fantasy to see what was going on? Personally speaking, I would blame all the afore mentioned groups.

I'm not Dave (though he is a friend of mine), but my answer is simple: shrug your shoulders and leave. Apply your talents during this finite time we have on earth to another organization, one poised for success. There is no shortage of deserving collections to be worked with, stories to be told. Life's too short to try to fix the unfixable.

After the situation at the old place goes south, you may be in a position to help provide a new start. Until then, you will have spent your time going good instead of banging your head into a wall.

Not an attorney, just a believer in deductive reasoning and acceptance of hard realities as a starting point, not an end.

Blame doesn't matter. Neither do we. Everything eventually dies, railroad museusms, tourist railroads, and including us. Why beat yourself up when you can simply move along to do something that rewards you?

The failure of one organizational model or structure to survive results in opportunity to try others with the best of the stuff the first one didn't use properly. If stuff is what you want, encourage the demise while setting up the resources to step in and "save it" at the right time.

Let's assume you "win", whatever that might mean. With the same membership and structure, the vistory will be pyrrhic at best, and might - if moderately lucky - forstall the inevitable for however long it takes for the liens to come due. Now, suppose instead of fighting this war, you devoted your efforts to positioning a new organization to be ready to step in as receivers. Now your victory has something to possible to achieve as a result.

Up to you, but just suggesting it might make your personal universe a happier and more productive one.

dave

I can't speak for him, but I can tell you what I think might be the answer.

He was previously a life member. Obviously he's got a lot of time, money and effort involved in the operation. Given that, it's very likely that it's something he strongly believes in, and want to see it continue to grow and prosper. Aside from a select few, we don't do this for the money. That means we're emotionally invested in the operations.

It's different than working in a widget factory, and when Acme Widgets moves their operation to China since the workers get 3 cents an hour, you simply head down to Beta Bearings and get a job there.

For most of us, this is more than a job. It's a part of our life, something we believe in, and something we think should continue as long as possible. Simply walking away from that isn't easy.

My guess is that while he obviously has no use for the current managment, he has a strong connection to the museum itself, and is trying to fix what he sees as a problem.

Mr. Mitchell,
You are, indeed, a very perceptive person. While your first observation is somewhat true, your second point is spot on. The poster has so fouled his own nest and thereby so poisoned his own message that to my observation, fewer and fewer seem to pay any heed. To my personal knowledge, the fourth is not even a consideration as we have much better things to spend sparse monies on.
I am put in mind of a fitting quote even though I can't remember the attribution : "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth are remove all doubt."

MLD

To whom do you refer?