I would like to suggest that the voting down of this proposed business plan is not tied to either a "rejection" of anything new or a refusal to change, but rather a rejection ONLY OF the manner and haste in which this proposal was "rushed" before the "board":

1) after an election which changed the presidency and before he takes office (we don't care whether the timetable was planned months or years in advance, it looks suspicious);
2) without adequate time for Chapters and members to review and discuss the proposals;
3) without adequate time for Chapter leadership to debate the ramifications and prospects of these proposals, and decide on a proper course of action.

Right now, as someone who truly wants to give a "new NRHS" a chance to survive, I have to scream "Wait a blankety-blank minute here! You GOTTA be kidding me!" What I've seen of this "new business plan" so far raises FAR more questions than answers, and I hardly have time to consider the complexity of the questions and ASK them, let alone:
1) get answers from the folks that hatched this plan (and real answers, not bureaucratic/political gobbledygook);
2) Go back to our Chapter's board of directors and membership and consider the options;
3) react accordingly--join forces, part ways, ignore the National completely, whatever.

And I'm an officer that sees this kind of political balderdash as an impediment to the mission of the NRHS and chapter; there are a couple officers that have learned to thrive on this cr@p, because they've had to shovel so much of it over the decades, both from their careers and from the NRHS.

No.
Try again, you guys. And this time, act like we're part of the reason you're doing this, not an obstacle to whatever your objectives may be.

(Disclaimer: These views are mine and mine alone, and should not be construed to reflect upon the positions of any NRHS Chapter, any rail preservation group, any political party, any brewery whose beers I may consume, any transportation or transit service I may ride or use, or anyone else on the face of this or any other planet.)

In the end, I think Mr. Barry and the other proponents of the New Business Model failed to grasp a very basic point:

They needed the membership more than the membership needed them.

When your public pronouncements include phrases like "dragging the NRHS into the 21st century" it underlies a basic contempt for the very members who needed to approve the proposal. While the underlying reasoning for wanting to reform, change and renew the NRHS may have been lilly white pure, I think the approach really turned off a lot of rank-and-file members.

"Try again, you guys. And this time, act like we're part of the reason you're doing this, not an obstacle to whatever your objectives may be."

Now on to authentic reform.

1.) Evolution, not revolution.

2.) Broad consent, not a tyranny of "experts" egaged in a great war against the benighted masses.

3.) Careful (allowing for adequate debate and time for debate) deliberation and sober reflection, not a harried attempt to remake an organization. Persuade skeptics, rather than impugn them.

4.) More Wick Moorman, less "Chainsaw Al" Dunlap. Respect your legacy, don't treat it as a cancer.

(Disclaimer: These views are mine and mine alone, and should not be construed to reflect upon the positions of any NRHS Chapter, any professional organization that I may belong to, any rail preservation group, any political party, any brewery whose beers I may consume, any transportation or transit service I may ride or use, or anyone else on the face of this or any other planet, who routinely associates with me in a structured or unstructured manner, who may know, suspect or be blissfully ignorant of my "real identity" in this or any other universe or multiverse.)

Could you please share the source of your information with us, for example

were you at meeting?

have you talked to anyone on the board who voted against the new plan?

or are you speculating and posting information that may not be accurate like you often do.

Bob H

An item in the Trains Newswire:
Trains News Wire EXCLUSIVE: Future of NRHS uncertain as board votes down new business plan proposal (September 22, 2014)

Short quote:
If I'm reading that right, the NRHS "lost" $288,000 over a two year period. Has the amount of that loss been reported before?

Thanks for the link to the Trains Newswire story

The net income data is old news:

NRHS has presented financial data as part of the President's report at the Annual Membership Meeting held during each convention and posts financial data, including audit reports on the admin portion of its web site. The audit report for 2013 was posted in early June.

Bob H

While I don't think his arguments in support of the proposed re-org of the NRHS have been persuasive (to me), I would like to thank Steve Barry for his thoughtful analysis of the proposals offered. I wish there had been a mechanism to get member's input and perhaps slightly make modifications. Even if everyone didn't get everything they wanted, I suspect there would have been a likely yes vote to at least try some of the proposals.

This thread has been interesting and in my opinion a very necessary discussion about the future of organized rail preservation as some of these issues extend beyond the NRHS.

I would also like to point out that the one or two NRHS "zealots" who have made it a point to attack everyone on this thread who criticizes those with negative or even questioning views of the NRHS. Most of it is childish and sadly represents the way I have seen NRHS national officials behave for years. It speaks volumes on the sustainability of the NRHS that the best you have is cheap shots and character assassination. Several years ago I did what many have done and expressed my no vote by not renewing. I have donated to specific projects by the Chapter I used to belong to and I look forward to rejoining once the yoke of NRHS membership in order to join is lifted.

You know, I was going to compose a well-reasoned answer to the bloke in question, but what does it matter? His mind is made up. He's treating me with the same disdain that has driven many others of my personal acquaintance from the NRHS and other such groups. And now me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting of the "revolutionary council" to attend.

I've been following this discussion for a month or so, and my mind on Saturday's vote was not made up one way or the other. On one hand, I'm in complete agreement that old-line organizations, like NRHS or the World Airline Historical Society must change with the times if they hope to stay (or become) relevant.

On the other hand, I agree with the points quoted above, particularly that this vote was being rushed so that it would take place before the new president could take office and without sufficient time for discussion on the merits of the proposal.

Maybe the manner and haste of which this was done was coincidental or unintended, but the "optics" were wrong.

At our last Chapter Board meeting, we directed our National Representative to contact as many National Board members as possible to express our desire for a "no" vote. Our reasons were almost exactly as stated by Mr. Mitchell.

In a comment under John Hankey's Will the NRHS Survive? Part Three: What Comes Next?, Bill Chapman argued that the BOD adopting the new business model would have violated NRHS bylaws. Here's a short excerpt of Mr Chapman's post:

From what I've heard, which is hearsay and not from a Board member, the by-laws played a part in Saturday's meeting. The "reform" movement interpreted the by-laws as meaning that new officers and directors would be seated at the next "regular" meeting which is in late October or early November. However the by-laws were said to read "next" meeting. Therefore the newly elected president presided over the special meeting.

Again, strictly hearsay........

There's been some confusion here:

If you've look at the nrhs bylaws which are posted on the admin section of the NRHS website, you'll find a clause that says the President and Vice President take office as soon as they are notified of the election results, and another clause which says the rest of the BOD is seated at the "fall" meeting which takes place in Oct or Nov.

(Note that the Secretary and Treasury are elected by the BOD, but only vote if they also hold seats on the BOD)

What this meant for the Sept 20 meeting is Al had to give up his seat on the board which Greg then filled by vote of the board--- had John Goodman taken that seat (and because we was just elected, he'll hold it starting at the fall BOD meeting) the vote might have been different....

I wasn't at the meeting, but have heard there was one member of the BOD who was participating by phone, and because he was having connection problems throughout the meeting, his voted was not counted and it also might have been a no.

Play the "what if" game, and you can come up with 14 nos and 9 yeses....

Bob H

Bob, Note that I said this is "hearsay" twice in my comments. Regardless of how the meeting went down, the result is that there will be change at NRHS National. Whether it will be good or bad is yet to be seen, and depends on the new President and Board. The strong and diverse Chapters will continue what they are doing regardless of what happens at National, and the " Old Fart Slideshow Club" Chapters will continue to wither and die.

Many posts have addressed the issues facing the future of organized rail preservation and the questions that need to be answered.

What are the organizational resources currently available to rail preservationists?

Are there any unmet or partially met needs that a national organization, such as the NRHS or the “new NRHS” could meet in a manner that justifies the continued expense of keeping the national operating or can those needs could be best backfilled by some other currently existing resource?

Several themes recur throughout this thread and in other recent threads. The first is the evolution of the rail preservation marketplace and how that is reflected in the selection of possible services that, on a national level, would help further the cause of rail preservation.

Desertdude stated that, “the number of true railfans has been decreasing for a long time. What remains steady or could even be increasing are the number of rail photography fans and rail videography fans. To the latter, railroads are just a subject to point their lenses at.”

This may well be the case for younger people who have been drawn to an interest in railroads more recently, but is this a new trend or simply a continuation of a generational cycle?

Many railfan activities and organizations were started by people who, in the 1930s an 1940s, would dress up in their Sunday best to attend events organized by, or in cooperation with, the local railroad. These events often included an excursion, shop tour, and the staging of locomotives for photography. The advent of widely available black and white photographic equipment spurred this interest in people who were driven to get the perfect wedge shot with low light properly exposing the running gear and with the rods in the lower quarter. These events were social in their nature as was the trading (via snail mail) that went on among the “roster guys” in their quest for the perfect photo of each locomotive in their favorite road’s roster.

Today, the advent of widely available digital still photo and video equipment and the means to instantaneously share those images via social media is restarting this cycle of interest. The challenge here is to recognize this cycle, look at where the preservation community may have been slow to evolve the first time around, and act such that this cycle may be utilized so that rail preservation is sustained and flourishes.

It appears that many of the attendees of the events put on by the railroads in the early to mid 20th century may have been slow to adapt when the railroads, under financial pressure and facing a rapidly changing transportation industry, removed such events from their business models. The enthusiast’s focus, if you will, was more on photographically preserving prototypical rail activities that were becoming obsolete. There was a delay in the realization that, if they wanted any heritage rail activity to continue, they would have to get out of the darkroom and create the environment in which that activity could occur.

The question with regards to the current crop of digital rail photographers and videographers is, how can they be exposed to the other aspects of rail preservation in a way that interests them and encourages them to participate such that sustainability in rail heritage preservation is created?

Mr. Wowarski and East of Eden also addressed the need for developing strategies that will further the goal of sustainability by broadening the appeal to a larger audience. Mr. Wowarski states, “We wait for people to show up with an inexplicable intrinsic love for railways and trains instead of reaching out to our communities at large to find people with broader interests that have some application to railways. We should all be appealing to people's broader interests and showing them how they apply to what we do as well”… “the people and interest are out there, especially, I find among my 25-30 year old peers. They just need to be enticed rather than excluded.”

Besides being more in line with the educational purposes of a 501(c)(3) organization, there is a very practical reason to find ways to broaden the public awareness campaign. As East of Eden points out, “You can't continue to solicit the 80,000 railfans in the US and Canada who subscribe to rail oriented magazines and expect to grow. That market is already saturated with the message.”

There is a need to be able to react more nimbly to the cyclic changes in focus among those with an interest in railroads and to appeal to a broader market of people who have either a latent interest in railroads or an interest in a related field. Are these tasks best left to a national organization, or is a concerted effort by successful local groups throughout the country the most economically effective way to meet this challenge?