This is distressing:

http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/articles/2009/08/17/news/doc4a896542210de967165137.txt


EDIT on 8/26/09: In another thread an objection has been made to the title of this post. I don't want to send the original title down the memory hole but I will clarify my meaning, which is simply:

"File under: 'Events that can't be considered helpful to the public image of railway preservation.'"

By events, I mean the only event on the public record--the arrest itself. I make no presumption about whether the charges in this case will be sustained, and I recognize and stipulate that all suspects in criminal matters are considered innocent until convicted in a court of law. I am simply making the observation--which I imagine will be hard to dispute--that having a museum director charged with a felony is not good publicity for the field.

We do have to live by the important words: "innocent until proven guilty". Since it sounds like only two people were in the building together a lot may depend on those surveillance cameras.

Aside from that the article makes it sound like the museum is a one man operation or at least is highly dependent on this one individual. Is this true? If so this is another example of why you need structure, succession plans, and a healthy supply of new members coming in to your organization.

Erik,

It is nice to see you posting here again; it has been a long time since we have seen your name here.

It is good to have someone with you background talking about this kind of preservation topics.

Ted Miles

We don't need this, no matter what the real story is. Hopefully the video will be helpful, and ideally it would prove he's innocent.

But in any case, consider the likely outcome no matter what. The allegations make front page news. The trial drags on for a long time, and finally a conclusion is reached. Should the accused be found innocent, that will be printed on page C12, in small type, and about a paragraph long.

Guilty or not, many more folks will recall the allegation than will hear about the final outcome, presuming it's not something considered newsworthy, and being acquitted usually isn't, unless your name is OJ.

How can museums deal with this? I doubt there are any good answers, though several organizations I work with require background checks, so at least they can be aware of prior convictions. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.

Edit: (I'm not implying there were any prior convictions in this case that would have come up, I'm only stating that it's a way to try and reduce potential problems. Besides, in this case he apparently owned the place, so what was he going to do, run a background check on himself and fire himself if he found an issue? Typically musuems are not privately owned, so it's more of a realistic option.)

I've heard of a museum having a policy that a member is not allowed to give tours or escort guests to a location unless there are at least 3 people present.

I've also heard of museums demanding background checks of volunteers... yeah... that'll happen right after the drug test.

How about background checks of visitors? :) Who is to say that the volunteer is in the wrong and the accuser is right?

If the article was just a little more specific on what this "sexual assault" was. We all know that can mean anything these days. He could have made an off color joke to a militant feminist and the next thing you know its a "sexual assault".

Very true. A friend that worked at a planetarium had to work under this rule.

--
Will

Unfortunately it says "was charged with first-degree sexual abuse, a class D felony"

Now I'm no lawyer, but a quick Googling of that term indicates that it's something more serious than "Did you hear the one about the..." It appears, from my very brief research, that the allegations would involve actual physical contact by force and/or threats. Note that rape would be a different offense.

If you do a bit of research, you'll find the charge is pretty well defined.



Again, as others have pointed out, these are ALLEGATIONS, and he has not been proven guilty of anything.

Must be nice to have that many people available!



It already is happening. As I mentioned, I've had two separate locations require background checks to volunteer there. One was a large museum, the other a zoo.

It's becoming very common where you're working with children, especially in places where school groups visit. The checks are quite quick and easy to do, much simpler than administering a drug testing program.

Not 3 members. 3 people total, including members and guests. One of each must be present for the rule to even apply... so what it prohibits is exactly one of each.

Which, if you notice, is exactly the situation that got the fellow in trouble.

This is quite a shocker. I know Marty, have dealt with him many times. He really was the backbone of the museum. He is still a driving force behind the group, but I don't think as much as he used to be, with a board and volunteers to help him out. They acquired a pair of NYC E units, along with some x-CNR coaches and stuff out of Ontario. It is unfortunate this has come out, regardless of which way it goes. We'll have to wait and see.

I apologize in advance for my bluntness, but this kind of statement is a good example of how far our field has to go before it consistently meets basic professional standards--not museum standards, but basic business standards--concerning customers, and attitudes toward customers.

Anonymous poster reads a press account of a criminal filing involving a museum director and a visitor--clearly a serious matter which raises interesting policy questions completely aside from the guilt or innocence of the person charged by the authorities--and advances the discussion by going off on "militant feminists" overreacting to (presumably harmless in the eyes of the poster) "off color jokes"--something visitors are just expected to put up with, I guess--comes with the territory, you know. Nice.

Our coming commercial shakeout as a field will be no one's fault more than our own, and richly deserved. I'll be surprised if 10% of our operations are left standing in 50 years, and I can assure you it won't be the ones that tolerate or excuse this kind of "boys will be boys" attitude.

Ok, I mis-read your original post. That makes sense, and it seems like it would be fairly easy to comply with in most situations.

Funny how this thread fits with the background investigation comment in the thread on volunteer training.

Bob H

The Northwest Railway Museum does background checks and it is not always something warmly embraced by prospective volunteers. It is prudent and appropriate, particularly when working with children, and is a different issue than drug testing. And no one dislikes them more than the people performing them however I have to say you would be amazed what has been uncovered. And I know some of the people who have been disallowed have gone on to volunteer at other museums and tourist railroads, but before your write to ask - or complain if you are one of them - under the program we participate in we are prohibited from identifying those individuals or the nature of their convictions.

Can you imagine an accusation of the magnitude discussed here met by a report in the media that museum volunteer John Doe had a prior conviction for sexual assault? How about domestic violence? Manslaugher? Even drunk driving? Just how would your museum respond to that?

--Richard