> Many a museum, chapter,club or 503 have been
> effectively ruined by persons not knowing or
> not caring what the original reasons for
> existance was and changing policy and focus.
> Changing the focus just for the sake of
> change or for personal agenda (and that also
> goes for voting in cronies to impart ones
> will) is very detrimental and as countless
> groups ( scores of museum cases to support
> this intentionally left blank) have been
> left with dwindling ridership, attendance in
> general , general memberships and core
> volunteerism.
> Any thoughts ?

Right on target ... get yourself in a position where you have the board convinced the operation will cease if you and your "buddies" quit and you can do anything your heart desires. Don't need no steenkin' volunteers. As a matter of fact you can ignore the board, they will fall in line. The downside is that the organization will wither and probably deserves to die because the personal obsession of the king can't really hold any kind of
organization together.


lamontdc@adelphia.net

Very interesting discussion and reflects the discussion currently underway at the Age of Steam Museum in Dallas, Texas. The board is currently elected by the membership, but a proposal approved in concept by the board is to move to a mostly self-perpetrating board with a limited number of board members still elected by the membership. All the reasons advanced in prior posts for eliminating the elected board have been stated as well as all the reasons to abolish the membership elected board have been stated in sometimes heated discussions. I'm not sure a combination will work, but only time will tell
Tom Cox
Director
Age of Steam Museum
Dallas, Texas


tcox@parknet.pmh.org

> And it is good to have you back, my friend.

> Dave

Thanks...I'll try not to stir things up too much.

--Malcolm


malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

>>However, it does not necessarily follow that money is not available to these groups. As long as they keep their accounting and overall practices in order, grant monies are available.<<

Having sound (and verifiable) accounting practices (including a yearly audit) along with a mission statement, code of ethics, collections policy, etc. certainly helps.

And yes, there is money out there. Your main clue, when you get ready to apply, about how your board may figure into the equation is the statement on the application form: "List board members and their associations."

The fact that Bob works as a software engineer at J.D. Edwards and that Bill is a crack mechanic at the local Ford dealership are not the kinds of associations the funding groups have in mind, no matter how talented and valuable these folks are in the hands-on world of the museum.

--Malcolm

malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

Before one shifts from an elected board to an appointed board, a lot of homework needs to be done. Some of this produces documents that outline just what the organization is about and what it is supposed to be going for the public.

Personally, I don't think it hurts to have a few elected board members on an otherwise self perpetuating board of appointed movers and shakers.

However, if the board, the executive director, and the staff do their jobs right, the board can get their informed input in other ways.

Malcolm

malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

> As a practical matter, if I belonged to an organization that abridged my right to vote for the individuals who set policy, why should I belong? I'm going to contribute time, talent and treasure and somebody's going to tell me I have no right to vote-let alone be on the board? I don't think so.

Secondly, I'm pretty certain in most states it is a matter of law that corporations must hold an annual meeting of shareholders and members to elect their board.

There's a very unfortunate tone in this thread that somehow an autocratic board will be something of an improvement.

Personally, I doubt it. I believe that Churchill once said something on the order of :m democracy is the worst form of government, except for any other that has been tried.

Superheater@beer.com

I agree with Superheater. If you are a contributing museum member and a working volunteer, your voice should count--and count strongly. I detect a tone among those advocating the dilution of influence of the paying members and worker bees that smacks of "we know better than you how to run things."
My personal experience has been that those advocating such 1) don't know how to manage and harness the invaluable efforts of the volunteers properly and 2) really don't know what's going on at the museum as well as the involved worker types.
In truth, there is certainly room for compromise on board composition and selection. I think the fallacy is that all railroad preservation needs is a number of monied and influential dilettantes and pliable members who just pay, stay away (until we need you), and obey.
*****



denmeg_hogan@msn.com

I have considered this when applying for grants, but we have received awards and our board is not packed with those in "professional" occupations. Could more prestigious sounding vocations help? Maybe, but I doubt that could ever be verified.

> Your main clue, when you get ready to apply, > about how
> your board may figure into the equation is
> the statement on the application form:
> "List board members and their
> associations."

> The fact that Bob works as a software
> engineer at J.D. Edwards and that Bill is a
> crack mechanic at the local Ford dealership
> are not the kinds of associations the
> funding groups have in mind, no matter how
> talented and valuable these folks are in the
> hands-on world of the museum.

> --Malcolm


wyld@sbcglobal.net

> Having sound (and verifiable) accounting
> practices (including a yearly audit) along
> with a mission statement, code of ethics,
> collections policy, etc. certainly helps.

> And yes, there is money out there. Your main
> clue, when you get ready to apply, about how
> your board may figure into the equation is
> the statement on the application form:
> "List board members and their
> associations."

> The fact that Bob works as a software
> engineer at J.D. Edwards and that Bill is a
> crack mechanic at the local Ford dealership
> are not the kinds of associations the
> funding groups have in mind, no matter how
> talented and valuable these folks are in the
> hands-on world of the museum.

> --Malcolm

How about a helicopter pilot, small restaurant owner, retired Eletrical Engineer, State Highway employee, local machinist, retired Air Force Sargent, a truck driver, a construction salvage equipment operator, a small town newspaper publisher for example? Our board may not sound too impressive, but we do get money.

I believe what counts, and seems to be working is: Is your organization real and reliable? Are the Board and members dedicated and dependable? Is there longevity? (Our organization is 27 years old). Can we show past results of grant money being put to good use as forcasted?

You sound disgruntled Malcolm. Don't know what your problem is, but it is not universal. Non-profits probably never get all the monies they can use, or want, but we seem to do pretty well.

dan


svry@attbi.com

> Before one shifts from an elected board to
> an appointed board, a lot of homework needs
> to be done. Some of this produces documents
> that outline just what the organization is
> about and what it is supposed to be going
> for the public.

> Personally, I don't think it hurts to have a
> few elected board members on an otherwise
> self perpetuating board of appointed movers
> and shakers.

> However, if the board, the executive
> director, and the staff do their jobs right,
> the board can get their informed input in
> other ways.

Malcolm and others:

You make a very good point here. Homework and thought needs to be done. And once the core of the organziation decides to make the change it needs to sell it to the general membership.

One group that has done this is West Coast Ry Association out of Vancouver BC. If I recall correctly, they now have not only elected board members but also appointed businessmen out of the Vancouver area and out of the Squamish (museum site) area. It happens that at least one of the appointed businessmen has in the past served as elected board members (that one is the general mananger of the Vancouver convention center). I have also heard that a board committee out of the three groups was appointed to review the museum's finances. Maybe, we can get a first hand report?

Elsewhere in this thread there was mention about changing Executive Directors as the needs of the museum changes. I have heard of this happening in several musuems. One when from an fund raiser to a exhibit orientated one to a PR related one. Another went from a collector to one dedicated to creating permanence of care and facilities. Many museum Executive Directors will seek new and better positions every few years; this will allow the museum to reevaluate its needs.

Any museum hiring its first Executive Director-like person will have to be careful in defining what it desires and what it can afford. An ill defined job description or expectations can lead to problems. Here again is where the homework needs to be done.

Brian Norden


bnorden49@earthlink.net

I was on a board that was self-perpetuating. Everything was fine until two of the board members suddenly got jobs working for our largest benefactor. Then two other board members started to provide contractor services to this benefactor. Less than 3 months later we were having 4-3 votes to "help" out the benefactor by letting them use our equipment, run excursions, provide free labor, etc. There was no way for the organization or the still untouched directors to right the situation. My only solution was to resign and cancel my membership.

Erie Lackawanna Dining Car Preservation Society
tstuy@eldcps.org

> I have considered this when applying for
> grants, but we have received awards and our
> board is not packed with those in
> "professional" occupations. Could
> more prestigious sounding vocations help?
> Maybe, but I doubt that could ever be
> verified.

If you're getting the money you need, you must be doing something right.

Naturally, the foundations are looking for the names and titles of high rollers more than nice-sounding vocations.

That is to say, how well connected are these people? Do they have money themselves. Do they know other people who have money. And do they know how to make things happen in the community.

If nobody in the community has ever heard of anyone on your board, you're probably getting less money than you deserve.

--Malcolm


malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

> I believe what counts, and seems to be
> working is: Is your organization real and
> reliable? Are the Board and members
> dedicated and dependable? Is there
> longevity? (Our organization is 27 years
> old). Can we show past results of grant
> money being put to good use as forcasted?

> You sound disgruntled Malcolm. Don't know
> what your problem is, but it is not
> universal. Non-profits probably never get
> all the monies they can use, or want, but we
> seem to do pretty well.

If you are getting all of the money and publicity you need (or have time to handle), then you probably don't need to change.

But, assuming that "I have a problem" because I strongly support self perpetuating boards over elected boards doesn't really help this discussion.



malcolmrcampbell@cs.com

> But, assuming that "I have a
> problem" because I strongly support
> self perpetuating boards over elected boards
> doesn't really help this discussion.

This thread made an interesting detour--started as a question about board responsibilities, it shifted to a forum on governance. To my mind, part of this confusion stems from a blurry distinction between cultural/educational entities and membership organizations. If a museum's charter stipulates that it is the former (and it has 501-c-3 status), then is exists to serve the public. The responsibility of the board is to serve the greater good, even if that conflicts with the wishes of "members"--in fact, even the need to have "members" is optional. If chartered as a membership organization (or having 501-c-6 tax status), the wishes of that group are the paramount responsibility. If the majority of an organization's revenues are derived from members or the majority of its benefits are deliverred to a small group, it should correctly be considerred a membership group, rather than an educational /cultural organization.

Few foundations, savy un-affiliated individuals or corporations willingly make donations to membership groups--you wouldn't see the local Moose lodge as the beneficiary of many gifts, even if the gift received the same tax treatment. Donors are often confused, however, by the fact that a member-driven grant applicant has 501-c-3 status or a charter that doesn't recognize its true reason for being.

As to governance, the issues becomes confusing. Self-perpetuating boards that are primarily elected for development purposes often behave like membership organizations. For fund raising, it is not just the "quality" of the board members that's important, but quantity. Better to have ninty sugar daddies than nine. That makes for unwieldy governance,however, so an executive committee is appointed by the (board) members. This process is no less democratic than a direct vote of "members," but a different group is enfranchised. Note that the typical cultural institution is able to mobilize far more volunteers that the average railroad museum. Docents are often enfranchised by have a separate "volunteer board" that may send a representative to the Board of Trustees -- a concept that falls short of absolute representation, but seems to work. There may, in fact, be several auxillary boards and various other types of stake holders represented on the Board of Trustees.

Both "member-elected" and the "self-perpetuating" boards, in their basic forms, are rather one-dimensional models. Either model can accomodate wealthy and influential individuals who can bring in funds. More robust organizations have found ways to enfranchise a variety of constiuancies. A more germain problem is that many boards, particualy member-elected boards, deal with so many pressing operational issues (or are so involved in micro-management) that there little or no time remains for development issues. Every board meetng should specifically discuss fund raising and at least quarterly, every board member should be required to identify several potential donors and to write each a solicitation letter. Progress should be publicly reported. Member-elected or self-perpetuating, a good public whipping of those board members that don't even try to raise funds can be very beneficial.

fred_ash@bankone.com

>>If a museum's charter stipulates that it is the former and it has 501-c-3 status), then is exists
to serve the public. The responsibility of
the board is to serve the greater good, even
if that conflicts with the wishes of
"members"--in fact, even the need to have "members" is optional.<<

Rail museums, such as those that are operated by chapters of the NRHS, often have a 501 (c) 3 status. They also have members.

Naturally, the members of the chapter will set up a board of directors, officers, and bylaws. For a while, things are great. Then, possibly, a challenge begins to arise here as the organization works to establish public activities and keep them separate private activities for the membership.

The board (of decent and knowledgeable railfans) realizes after a while that its museum is having trouble in the community competing with other organizations for tourist dollars, publicity, grant monies, and for recognition/validation from government and regional development, historical and tourism groups.

If one stands up and suggests board members could give up their seats for a self-perpetuating board of community leaders, historians, railroad VPs, corporate leaders and others, the reasonable response you will hear is, "why should we hand over our club and our museum to people who aren't even members of the group, most of whom don't know a heavyweight from a lightweight or a diesel from a diesel-electric."

That is a fair question. The answer to that question, and the evolving response of the membership over time, will probably determine whether the museum limps along as a club activity that's open a few days a week, becomes a major player in the local tourism scene, or goes bankrupt one way or another.

Governance and fund-raising are hard to separate because: (a) if you don't have mainstream governance, you will have a harder time raising funds, (b) if you don't look viable enough to raise funds, you won't attract the kind of community leaders required for mainstream governance.

It's often a puzzlement, making sense of it all.

--Malcolm

malcolmrcampbell@cs.com