The "Dying Museums" thread seems to have become broad enough that it deserves a new thread.

One sub-thread running through the discussion is the tension between profesisonal and volunteer governance and leadership. In my opinion you can have one or the other but not both, and they result in different types of organizations. One is not necessarily better than the other, but they are different.

If your goal is to maintain a complex physical plant (say a roundhosue or shops complex) with expensive heating needs, site security issues, and so an ad nausiam, I would submit that your future lies in professionalizing. You are simply too big to run as a club--otherwise you risk operating in an environment of constant capital scarcity, leading to underinvestment in your physical plant and collections, leading to slow but sure wastage of the assets you're out to preserve.

On the other hand, if you have a compact site, a smaller collection, and a more modest but achieveable goal, then all-volunteer governance might suit you to a tee.

There are of course examples which disprove the rule: IRM is perhaps the largest all volunteer museum, but one way it survives is through some very interesting mechanisms in its governing structure as I remember--something like "put up the hours before you can vote or run for office".

Some of the larger trolley museums have also gotten to a pretty high pitch of sophistication with all-volunteer governance--but then again, trolleys are still light railways by comparison, and all in all a simpler physical plant and technology.

So in my sense it's not a question of either professional or volunteer governance absolutely in all cases, but rather a question of which form of governance is best for achieving your mission and preserving your site and your collection. The trouble comes when the form of governance doesn't, or no longer, matches the collection and the mission.

eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

> One sub-thread running through the
> discussion is the tension between
> profesisonal and volunteer governance and
> leadership. In my opinion you can have one
> or the other but not both, and they result
> in different types of organizations. One is
> not necessarily better than the other, but
> they are different.

> If your goal is to maintain a complex
> physical plant (say a roundhosue or shops
> complex) with expensive heating needs, site
> security issues, and so an ad nausiam, I
> would submit that your future lies in
> professionalizing. You are simply too big to
> run as a club--otherwise you risk operating
> in an environment of constant capital
> scarcity, leading to underinvestment in your
> physical plant and collections, leading to
> slow but sure wastage of the assets you're
> out to preserve.

> On the other hand, if you have a compact
> site, a smaller collection, and a more
> modest but achieveable goal, then
> all-volunteer governance might suit you to a
> tee.

I agree with your assessment, although I would submit that there are (as always) exceptions. IRM is a good example of one. However, it seems to me that in many cases, the type of museum an organization becomes is dictated by whether it's privately or publicly funded - not the other way around. Perhaps this isn't as it should be, but in general it seems to have worked out okay. Most government funded museums aren't necessarily distinguished from private museums in terms of their collections or goals. They aren't the biggest museums, or the broadest-focused. Rather, they are the museums which are the most overdeveloped in terms of site sophistication. Rather than the collection dictating what the type of funding and/or government will be, the funding dictates how the collection will be handled. A place like the California State RR Museum spends money on massive displays and public relations items, something that a private museum in its position would generally not do. Most private museums would probably use that money to build barns to house their equipment, or use the money for restoration.

There definitely is room for different kinds of museums; I simply want to point out that (as I see it) the decision of which type of museum an organization is going to be is not as logical as it could be.

And there are badly run professional museums out there as well as well run volunteer groups. It is the orientation of the management that makes the difference.

Dave

lathro19@idt.net

> And there are badly run professional museums
> out there as well as well run volunteer
> groups. It is the orientation of the
> management that makes the difference.

> Dave

Erik, I guess that the non-profit/state agency combo we have at NCTM is about the best you can ask for. The state provides staffing, curatorial services and does a heck of a good job keeping the place going. At the same time, the non-profit is there to provide volunteers to restore and run the operating equipment, raise money and do whatever it takes to make it happen.
It's not always a perfect relationship, but when it does work, it sings, and we're always working to make it better.
Jim

http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

Greetings,

My Grandpa just got his hip replaced. While walking through the hospital today, I noticed one thing. Volunteers and paid staff coexisting to run a very fine hospital. How can these folks do it and some museums can't?

Thanks,
Gerald Kopiasz, President
Heartland Railroad Historical Society


Heartland Railroad Historical Society
hrrhs@aol.com

>Volunteers and paid staff coexisting to run a very fine hospital. How can these folks do it and some museums can't?

That is one of the most original ways of looking at the situation that I've run across in a long time. It's too bad that the system (hospital & volunteers) is so fundamentally different in its purposes and emotional appeal than our museums.

All of us in the technical museum movement, volunteer and paid, must realize that we are fighting some 2000 years of prejudice.

By "technical museum", I mean any museum which is dedicated to preserving technological history, whether it's stage coaches, trolleys, trains (of any kind), ships, airplanes, machine tools, etc.

By "2000 years of prejudice" I mean that the technical museums aren't preserving any of the Septivium, the "7 liberal arts", which only free Romans were permitted to pursue: the 7 branches of learing: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. With the renaissance, this has grown to include the sciences, philosophy, history, art, etc. The fields of endeavour which weren't included are the techincal trades: wagon making (now called carbuilding), road construction, etc. This is because in pre-industrial societies, slaves were used to perform these [onerous] tasks. Slaves aren't "liberated" ("manumitted"); they aren't "free men". Therefore, the trades which are their province are NOT worthy of the pursuit of Free Men.

This means all of us railroad museums, each one of us with our own special set of wagon making products, are merely "Dish and Plate Museums" to the museology world. No really self-respecting foundation gives money to dish and plate museums. You might be able to get a grant to catalogue your timetables and negatives but not to build the building to do the job in nor to restore the wagon [railroad car] of which you have several pictures operating in a few of the trains listed in some of your timetables.

Personally, I feel we should be proud of our volunteer systems and their rather stupendous achievements. We should get up on top of the mountain and shout it out for all to hear and realize. AND we should try our utmost to preserve the volunteer systems which built each and every one of our museums and show due respect to and consideration for the voulnteers who willingly do all the hard work.

These people labor for free, and if you drive them off, where're you going to get the money to pay people to do the work you used to get done at no cost??

Remember, the B&O, Ford, and Cal State RR museums are the exceptions to the rule, and NONE of them are flush with money. Contrary to popular assumptions, the Cal State RR Museum receives not much more than enough funding from the State of California for the electricity bill and to pay the daily staff who keep the place open. If the place really was awash in ca$h, and feasting at the trough like the highway lobbies, all those "almost gone-to-dust" diesels and steam engines of the Santa Fe collection would have been indoors years ago.

It's been pointed out to me back channel that some of my remarks at the top of this thread may have been not totall accurate--to wit I'm told IRM has some paid staff. I was going on my memories of IRM's giverning structure as described in an old L&RP article. I'd be interested to hear from someone currently invovled with Union about how governance works these days--I recall that it was formerly an interesting system.

eledbetter@mail.rypn.org

Concerning paid staff at IRM: Building & Grounds; Office Manager/Cashier; Seasonal help, ie. dog stand, book store, gift shop (and a supervisor for these workers). Curators are volunteers; restoration is done by volunteers; publicity and fundraising are done by volunteers. Board Members are volunteers. It's a struggle; there is always a great deal to do for everyone who is willing to work! I work in three areas and spend the equivalent of 4 days per week at IRM [main Campus and Library] or on Museum business [publicity and fundraising]--it's called "retirement"! [and I enjoy it!]

beast@mc.net

Gerald,
Doesn't a "replacement hip" destroy the fabric of the artifact? Tell your Grandfather I wish him a speedy recovery but there is no way he can be considered a "museum piece" without all of his original equipment.
Don C.



old_fxrs@msn.com

Greetings,

He he, I'll be sure to tell him that. Well, since he is in revenue service, I think this will pass. Not to mention, this is merely a modification. Titanium is better than bone, plus he should be able to get more mileage out of it. Nonetheless, I'll keep a spot open in my roundhouse if he wants it. Any other other old locos out there that has had a broken driver or two in their life?

Thanks,
Gerald Kopiasz, President
Heartland Railroad Historical Society

> Gerald,
> Doesn't a "replacement hip"
> destroy the fabric of the artifact? Tell
> your Grandfather I wish him a speedy
> recovery but there is no way he can be
> considered a "museum piece"
> without all of his original equipment.
> Don C.


Heartland Railroad Historical Society
hrrhs@aol.com

Paid and volunteer staff can coexist. The question is: will both sides decide to get along?

Another dimesion is the "professional" aspect. In my book that has more to do with how the product is offered - rides, exibits, tours, appearance, deportment of the crew and staff, etc. Are these things put forth with the intent of selling these "products" and having happy customers, or is it based on "my" idea of what "I" think they should get? I was in a board meeting one time and one person said we needed to raise our fares because another musuem (static, non-rail)in the area was getting "X" amount. It was a rather unreasonable concept beacuse of the differences in product and appearence. Remember, nobody has a gun to their head to visit your museum or whatever it may be. It's a luxury, not a life or death expence. Keeping the paying public happy is job security. Maybe even dare to set up a suggestion box..... and even take those suggestions seriously.

> The "Dying Museums" thread seems
> to have become broad enough that it deserves
> a new thread.

> One sub-thread running through the
> discussion is the tension between
> profesisonal and volunteer governance and
> leadership. In my opinion you can have one
> or the other but not both, and they result
> in different types of organizations. One is
> not necessarily better than the other, but
> they are different.

> If your goal is to maintain a complex
> physical plant (say a roundhosue or shops
> complex) with expensive heating needs, site
> security issues, and so an ad nausiam, I
> would submit that your future lies in
> professionalizing. You are simply too big to
> run as a club--otherwise you risk operating
> in an environment of constant capital
> scarcity, leading to underinvestment in your
> physical plant and collections, leading to
> slow but sure wastage of the assets you're
> out to preserve.

> On the other hand, if you have a compact
> site, a smaller collection, and a more
> modest but achieveable goal, then
> all-volunteer governance might suit you to a
> tee.

> There are of course examples which disprove
> the rule: IRM is perhaps the largest all
> volunteer museum, but one way it survives is
> through some very interesting mechanisms in
> its governing structure as I
> remember--something like "put up the
> hours before you can vote or run for
> office".

> Some of the larger trolley museums have also
> gotten to a pretty high pitch of
> sophistication with all-volunteer
> governance--but then again, trolleys are
> still light railways by comparison, and all
> in all a simpler physical plant and
> technology.

> So in my sense it's not a question of either
> professional or volunteer governance
> absolutely in all cases, but rather a
> question of which form of governance is best
> for achieving your mission and preserving
> your site and your collection. The trouble
> comes when the form of governance doesn't,
> or no longer, matches the collection and the
> mission.

From a hypothetical standpoint, the statement aforementioned is true. However, to put it in practice would be almost impossible. Look at all of the locomotives that are preserved in museums or historic operation groups and take the locomotives "apart" piece by piece and by date of repairs and overhauls. When you get right down to it, probably less than fifty percent of the present locomotive is original. An excellent case in point can be made of the pre-Civil War locomotive General. The locomotive was rebuilt no less than four times: 1864-65, 1892 (when it was placed on display in Chattanooga), 1924 and 1961. Most if not all of the boiler was replaced (tubes, flues, miscelleneous valves, fittings, etc. and most likely some shell sections). Photographs of the locomotive taken prior to her rebuild in 1864 or 65 show that the locomotive's boiler configuration was noticably different than when it was placed back in service. It is probable that the only original parts of the locomotive left are the locomotive frame, possibly the cylinder saddle and locomotive wheels and assemblies and perhaps some parts of the tender. Is she original? For the most part, no. Does she belong in a museum or warrent preservation? Certainly!

envlink@voyageronline.net