I believe that the unfortunate incident Mr. Bumgarner refers to is summarized in this news article:

http://www.auburn-reporter.com/news/164289106.html#

If this is indeed the subject of the litigation mentioned previously then a combination of factors, such as whether or not impaired driving was involved, what the extent of the injury is to the otherwise (assumed) healthy young male and what amount of monetary damages are assessed for his injury, whether or not the organization is held liable for the injury, and whether the insurance company ultimately pays out, could possibly significantly alter the financial condition of the national and so, as a 501(C)(3), I believe that the organization may eventually be in a situation where it has no choice but to disclose.

The take away from all this is, if you are running a 501(c)(3), transparency should be your guidepost, whether it involves a tragedy such as this or donor money not wisely spent because of missteps taken in the management of a large restoration project. Be open with people, give them a clear (as possible) assessment of the financial impact, tell them what corrective actions you have taken to prevent a recurrence, and move forward.

Via Trains Newswire:



http://nrhs.com/news/nrhs-reveals-detai ... ness-model

Further details have been discussed by our National "Representative" at tonight's NRHS Chapter meeting. Among them was removing input from the National Representatives' Advisory Council from the Board of Directors, and leaving the "lame duck" and the BOD to control things as he sees fit. Suffice it to say that the details presented were not greeted warmly; at least one officer openly described what was related as "a poison pill meant to destroy the National organization in the wake of Molloy's removal from office." The Chapter membership was most strongly urged to reject any proposed changes that would come via an additional ballot (mailed, presumably, at corporation expense).

Frankly, this is it for me. I support individual chapters, but I will not be renewing any National membership. Hel-LOOOOOO, R&LHS......

John Hankey, Part Two:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archiv ... nyway.aspx

I'm sorry to see the work of the New Business Model committee is being framed this way. This work is the culmination of a five-year plan that was approved by the NRHS board (the one with 160 members) five years ago -- but in typical NRHS board fashion, real change is given lip service until such a time that change needs to be implemented, at which time the board has consistently tried to kick the can as far down the road as possible. The board did not act on the five-year plan they approved five years ago, unanimously gave the New Business Model committee 90 days to finish the work, and now that the work is nearly done, the board is getting cold feet again.

Perhaps the most important point to make right now is the New Business Model gives the NRHS a reason for existing in the 21st century. The social club model, while quite useful in 1935 right up until the advent of the internet, is broken -- look at any social organization and you'll see the decline across the board. On the rail side, the Railroad Enthusiasts and Railroadians of America are gone, and the Railway & Locomotive Historical Society has retrenched into academia. The path forward is to maintain the failing business model -- the social club -- or find a new purpose. The work of the New Business Model Committee is based in fact, analysis and research. The financial analysis, which is nearly developed, shows the model will be very successful and can make a significant difference in rail preservation. The new model invites both organizations and individuals to share in the vision if they so desire, or they can go on their own way with no hard feelings.

The new model shares much of its structure with other successful (key word = successful) non-profits such as the Red Cross and the National Trust For Historic Preservation. Every aspect of the NRHS was looked at and if the analysis and numbers showed it wouldn't work, it was discarded. If it worked, then it was looked at how it could be improved. Key components such as the Heritage Grants Program, RailCamp and the Endangered List, as well as conventions, made the cut -- these are all key programs that will serve rail preservation in a good way in the years to come.

As it turns out, rail preservation is looking for a unifying force to make "Train World" stronger and more effective -- just look at what John Hankey has been saying recently. NRHS can fill that void -- it can have a purpose -- if it has the courage to step up to the plate.

For the record, outgoing president Molloy has had no input into the new model. This has been completely designed by the committee as approved by the board in June, along with two consultants (legal and fund raising).

If the New Business Model is voted down, it will be because of the NRHS aversion to change -- the aversion that could very well ultimately doom the organization in a very short time. Read the complete release at http://nrhs.com/news/nrhs-reveals-details-proposed-new-business-model. The "way it's always been done" doesn't work anymore.

Steve Barry

Seems to me that Steve Barry has it right. Society moves on whether its to our liking or not and IMHO the NRHS will be wise to adopt the recommended changes asap.

Ross Rowland

To clarify a bit:

The aggravations expressed at the meeting was not at the new business model, but in the manner (at least as described, by a long-involved National Representative) that Molloy & Co. were perceived as proceeding with actions to retain and consolidate power in spite of (literally, in spite of) the most recent election result. In effect, the perception was that the NRHS management, and not the chapters, were the one resisting change, specifically the change dictated by the last election, and were acting like "sore losers."

I willingly concede that this could be misinterpretation, or even outright misrepresentation by our National Representative. However, this would be in keeping with a long-simmering feeling, stoked initially by the changeover from "National Directors" to "National Representatives," that the NRHS management is attempting to consolidate power and finances at the top, while studiously ignoring the Chapters and relegating their role to a token presence at best.

There are legitimate reasons to consolidate functions and roles, and make the NRHS a "truly national" organization rather than a loosely-knit bunch of clubs. But it has to be conceded that the national NRHS has not only done a terrible job of communications with the Chapters and membership, but at times has taken a downright adversarial and antagonistic approach to same, which has thoroughly displeased many and also caused some to abandon the NRHS. Further, many of the actions, or lack thereof, seen--the closing of the central office and contracting member services at considerable expense, the packing in storage of the national NRHS Library and rumors that the collection will be offered up for auction, failure to utilize the Internet effectively, poor communications in general, etc.--not only perpetuate the image of lack of service to the membership, but also the image of a group in crisis.

Of course, in all things "political" there are multiple views and interpretations. I'm sure an astute balderdash-shoveller could find a way to put a positive spin on, say, the scrapping of PRR 1361 or the NYC Mohawk or SP 4449, if any of those were to transpire. But if the NRHS leadership is vested in these proposed changes, it desperately needs to 1) explain to its members and Chapters why these changes are occurring, 2) give the Chapters with enough resources to stand alone--the ones with rolling stock, property, and sizeable treasuries--motivation to remain allied to the national organization in any fashion; and 3) outline further proposals and plans for the future that involve change from the current models.

This is why the New Business Model (NBM) essentially flips the relationship between National and local organizations and between National and members. The NBM does not require any kind of affiliation between a local organization and the national unless that local organization wants to affiliate. And there are clearly defined benefits and expectations between the national and affiliates defined in the NBM. Likewise, no longer does an affiliate organization need to have 100% participation of its members to be a part of NRHS -- indeed, an affiliate can have zero members donating to NRHS. The decision on whether to be involved in national or not (and at what level) is left entirely to the individual. It is true that there is a lot of antagonism between the national and chapters and national and members. The NBM removes the reasons for the antagonism and makes these relationships voluntary with clearly defined roles.

Steve Barry

Has or will your national representative (who is well known in NRHS even though you won't give his/her name) shared your chapter's concern with your National Representative?

and saying Molloy's removal from office is very "incorrect", he ran for reelection and was defeated

saying some one was removed from office implies that person was impeached
and that clearly didn't happen.

Bob H

It occurs to me that, as eager to defend the NRHS as you seem to be, your energy would be MUCH better expended in presenting the NRHS in a positive light (as Brother Barry has) rather than simply seeking to naysay and nitpick every complaint of mine/ours and denigrate me in the process. Your "defend by attacking and undercutting" is straight out of the Alinsky playbook, and furthers the impression that the NRHS is hostile to constructive criticism. By this stage of the game, my reaction to your posts are unprintable in a civil, polite forum.

It's not necessary for me to give his name. This is still quite a bit an internal matter within the NRHS. And I'm considerably toning down his rhetoric. Other officers have expressed similar, or worse, misgivings, to the extent that at least one is departing the NRHS. (I could point you towards the NRHS website to figure out his name, but, gee, nobody's updated the national website Chapter listing in quite a while......)

One of the misgivings expressed was specifically that an "emergency" meeting and vote was being called with inadequate time or opportunity for Chapters/membership to adequately investigate and respond--in an organization that, historically, has moved at a "glacial" pace in such matters.

Being one of the oft-maligned "youngsters" who "don't need a social club", I feel that I should speak up in this discussion. First, to be clear, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I have attended a few of the National conventions and enjoyed them, but haven't really seen much in the way of service from being a National member besides a somewhat-interesting News publication (which I have contributed to) and a Bulletin that gets relegated to the magazine pile to be read when I don't have anything else. From my perspective, my affiliation is with the Roanoke Chapter as those are the people that I work with and hear from regularly.

I truly believe that there is a place for the National organization in the rail community. There needs to be a voice for preservation and historical advocacy that is nationwide rather than in each locale. There are some things that a national organization is better suited to, such as working directly with the Class 1s, simply because it has a larger "voice" than any individual Chapter.

However, having watched the actions of the National management over the past few years, I can say that I do not agree that it has been acting in the best interests of the organization as a whole and its membership. I find it deeply disturbing that over the past two or three years, no budget has been produced or approved until half the year has already passed. The fact that the current finances of the organization are not available to any member who wishes to review them (or at least are not available to a representative of each chapter), while it may not mean anything is actually wrong, creates the impression of "hiding the bad news and keeping the laity fat and happy." It certainly does not indicate fiscal and fiduciary responsibility to me. The membership has already expressed a voice for change once this year and there are certainly quite a few of us who see this New Business Model vote as an attempt to do an end-run around our expressed intentions by the current management before the new Board is seated.

It may be that this New Business Model will result in some good ideas for the NRHS as a whole, since change is necessary even when we don't want it. However, what disturbs me the most is exactly the "flip of relationship" that Steve refers to. While I have only been a member of the NRHS for the past 5 years, there are some individuals who have put in considerable time and effort and financial backing to this organization for decades. Do we have the right to simply remove the voices of these stakeholders (and in essence stock-holders)?

Any attempt at change will be met with resistance from some parties who are happy with the way that "things used to be". That is to be expected. What the NRHS and the New Business Model Committee need to be sure of is that, while in the process of making changes, they do not unnecessarily alienate the very group of people that have been supporting and working for the organization for so long. If the changes that are proposed can be explained in a thoughtful and well reasoned way and convince the membership that they are the right path for our organization, then I believe that this will be a success. If they are not communicated well (and there have been quite a few examples of poor communication from the National management over the past few years) then I honestly believe that this will result in a lot of anger, bad blood, and quite possibly litigation.

Much has been said about how this won't really impact the Chapters, and that is true in one sense. While I have been a member of the Roanoke Chapter, our membership has grown by more than 10% and we are holding public events, progressing on our station restoration, and are in the process of restoring more of our rolling stock to active service. However, having the mantle of a national organization can be helpful in bringing attention to our projects and activities which a local organization wouldn't be able to muster. I would hate to see the NRHS as a national organization cease to exist, but I also do not want to see it divest itself of those of us who have chosen to support it and wish to continue to do so.

D. Lewis Foster
Secretary, Roanoke Chapter, NRHS

(The views above are my own and are not intended to represent the stance of my Chapter or its membership)

Have you looked at the admin portion of the NRHS website recently?

It's got the 990 for 2012, an audited financial report for 2013, and a year to date data through the second quarter of 2014.

One thing Greg has insisted on is financial data be reasonably accurate before it's released and that effort sometimes takes more effort than many desire.

BTW, the Roanoke Chapter is a good example of an NRHS chapter that provides significant public services rather than being just a social club !

Bob H

This shouldn't have come as a surprise. The board approved a September 15 deadline when they charged the committee back in June.

Steve Barry

You are absolutely correct here about having a national organization, and that is what the New Business Model provides. And NRHS is not "divesting" itself of those who have chosen to support it. However, from a bylaws standpoint for the "new" NRHS, it makes more sense to terminate the old connection with local organizations and re-establish it under the parameters of the new bylaws. Grandfathering and bylaws can get messy. And among the benefits of affiliating with the "new" NRHS will be the ability to say you are part of a national organization and a national stage that NRHS can provide for local projects. An affiliate will have access to a nice data base of donors who have historically been supporters of rail preservation. It all works out quite nice.

Steve Barry

Fixed that for you......

(The views above are my own and are not intended to represent the stance of my Chapters or their membership)

except there's a difference between using accurate facts and coming up constructive criticism and you have to have the first right to for the second be meaningful

Bob H