I'll take the liberty of paraphrasing Mr. Buffett from the Web link below. I think his words ring true on how some railroad museums are operated today---whether by professionals or amateurs. My twist of wording is inserted in brackets:

"Buffett also has choice words on {museum] governance, that is, the role [museum] boards play in supervising the actions of managers. Citing his 1993 letter, Buffett writes, "If able but greedy managers over-reach and try to dip too deeply into the [members'and donors'] pockets, directors must slap their hands." Since first writing that, Buffett says, "over-reaching has become common but few hands have been slapped."

Buffett blames the "boardroom atmosphere" in which collegiality wins out over [members' and the donor's] interests.

Buffett offers suggestions for [museum members]. First, beware of weak accounting. Watch out for museums that don't [openly] expense [everything] and those that make aggressive projections on [revenue and costs]. Those are just two measures, but as Buffett writes, 'when [museum] managers take the low road in aspects that are visible, it is likely they are following a similar path behind the scenes. There is seldom just one cockroach in the kitchen.'

Finally, watch out [for museums] with managers that make much of projections and [don't deliver on accomplishing goals]. 'Managers that always promise to 'make the numbers' will at some point be tempted to make up the numbers.'"


http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/08/markets/buffett/index.htm

> Yes, and taking a few more liberties in applying Mr. Buffet's words, it shows that the directorate is supposed to be actively involved, informed and educated.

There have been numerous threads on here where some take the position that Boards are supposed be passive and uninvolved, confining themselves to fundraising and ambassadorial duties.

I rather think that the uninvolved board, way to cozy with senior management and basically rubber stamping everything they do has been the norm in both the for and non profit sectors. The results speaking for themselves- from the issues related relief organizations failing to honor donor intent after 9/11 to the scandals of 2002.

Nine times out of ten, Buffet gets it right.


Superheater@rrmail.com

From what I've observed, I'd settle for a board that was competent at fundraising and the glad handling stuff:-)

> There have been numerous threads on here
> where some take the position that Boards are
> supposed be passive and uninvolved,
> confining themselves to fundraising and
> ambassadorial duties.

> I rather think that the uninvolved board,
> way to cozy with senior management and
> basically rubber stamping everything they do
> has been the norm in both the for and non
> profit sectors. The results speaking for
> themselves- from the issues related relief
> organizations failing to honor donor intent
> after 9/11 to the scandals of 2002.

> Nine times out of ten, Buffet gets it right.


vze46wzm@verizon.net

> From what I've observed, I'd settle for a
> board that was competent at fundraising and
> the glad handling stuff:-)

Lots of them out there, global crossing, Enron, et al. A few may be looking for new gigs too


superheater@rrmail.com