Didn't a thread just get locked today for the exact same path that these posts are headed towards? More arguing about the NRHS business model?

""Reinstalled" is the wrong word to use"

No, it's the right word, and one I chose with due care.

What we heard last night was that if the plan was accepted, this will create a new governing structure who will then select new officers to start on a trabsition to the new structure. The speaker indicated that he DIRECTLY ASKED if this means that they COULD (that's could, not will) reinstall Greg M. The answer was "YES".

There would be no more elections in the future, because under the new structure there will be no members.

To use your analogy, it would be as if the United States was contemplating a new Constitution at the time of a Presidential election and after there was a valid election, the announcement was made that in the future, Presidents will be chosen not by a popular election (that informs an electoral college) but by a board which now makes this election. The results of the most recent election would be vacated by the new organization which would NO LONGER HAVE future elections.

Now if you have facts to dispute the account provided to the Harrisburg Chapter last evening, I await them. This could be solved in a red hot minute if the complete plan under consideration was made public.

"Didn't a thread just get locked today for the exact same path that these posts are headed towards? More arguing about the NRHS business model?"


And the question is why? The future of one of the biggest organizations involved with Preservation is unclear and at stake, and this forum is one of the best places to have a vigorous discussion about the matter.

I simply don't understand the desire to suppress debate among some folks, except when promoting THEIR business.

The NRHS election discussion thread appears to have been moved over to the "railfanning" discussion on this site.

PC

And it's locked...so the discussion continues on another thread.

So since this string started out being about the R&LHS, lets ask an obvious question.

Both R&LHS and NRHS have "historical" as a primary descriptor in their name.

R&LHS seems to be proceeding quite successfully with what they are doing.

NRHS is obviously having some problems.

Is the size and focus of the respective organizations a major factor here? Is part of this difference because R&LHS has confined their activities and focus to a manageable size, while the NRHS has tried to do too much?

PC

"R&LHS seems to be proceeding quite successfully with what they are doing.

NRHS is obviously having some problems."


I recently made an inquiry of Mr. Robert Holzweiss, the RLHS President as to whether his organization could and would accept an orphaned NRHS chapter, should Chapters be eliminated.

Within a matter of hours, I received a courteous response in the affirmative (from the addressee, not a delegate), with application materials and RLHS by-laws attached, as well as a listing of important requirements (chapter and RLHS bylaws cannot conflict, for example) for affiliation, personal contact information and an offer of assistance.

I found this rather impressive, in a day when we have to run like rats in a sadistic maze to find the way to get the voice response unit to connect you with a human being.

It might be part of the reason for success cited by Mr. Cook.

Regardless of what happens with the NRHS, the RLHS has two new members.

Be careful, besides the RLHS requirements, there may be state and federal requirements you have to meet and it may take a lawyer to help you jump through the hoops involved.

BTW, many many NRHS members also belong to RLHS and in the past the two organizations have held a joint convention.

Bob H

"there may be state and federal requirements you have to meet and it may take a lawyer to help you jump through the hoops involved."

There are no federal issues associated with this. If you have a valid 501(c)(3), the exempt purpose essentially remains the same -educational and charitable. The IRS doesn't care who your dance partner is, if they are essentially the same type of entity. (I am a CPA, and therefore admitted to practice before the IRs pursuant to "Circular 230").

As for state issues, with the caveat I am not an attorney, I see no issues presented by a new affiliation, the purpose and operation would remain the same.

Issues I do see, that WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THE NATIONAL under their plan to eliminate chapters, would be twofold:

1.) The corporate name of some Chapters identify them as NRHS chapters. If there are no more chapters, the name would need to be changed. That is ordinarily the province of attorneys.

2.) Many by-laws are written to provide that the individual chapter is identified and operated as a Chapter. By-laws will need to be reviewed and revised to eliminate provisions related to being a NRHS Chapter.

In short, Chapters are going to be revising their constituitive and operating documents accordingly ANYWAY. Many thanks to the folks in Philadelphia if they impose this on the chapters that are described on the NRHS website in such glowing terms.