I would only select potential BOD candidates based on judgements as to their competence, abilities and level of commitment to the organization. The role of the board is not to virtue signal but is to make prudent, thoughtful and informed decisions about the function and future longevity of the organization. The BOD is the last place that anyone should be electing people to based on what they look like, or to check a box.

I have served on boards on which people were elected to because they were long time members and it was felt that it was "their turn". They are of the "go along to get along" type. They vote with the majority, never have any meaningful input to make and generally just take up space. Those are the board members to avoid. However in some small organizations, that may be the only pool of board members to choose from.

I also wish that most board members would take a class on what it means to serve on a board, because many of them have no clue.

.

Could you post a link to the conference website/details/presentation in question?
Thank you.

*

Yes! It’s the association of performing arts professionals. APAP365.org
The presentation I was referring to was called “Time to Flip some tables”

The point of having different types of people on your board is not to "check boxes" or "virtue signal." It is to bring different perspectives, attract new people to the organization, to bring in new sources of funding, and to represent the community members your organization serves.

In another thread, ADMIV, who is never shy about his unique political views, wrote about an older white male BOD discriminating against an effective GM. http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46193&start=15

The same thread spends a lot of time talking about how various boards have shot themselves in the foot due to myopia. Having a diverse BOD is about trying to avoid these situation.

OP did not say, "you are canceled unless you get a black woman on your board," but that is how some have reacted.

How about this, how many of our BODs have folks that are not hardcore railfans over 60 years old? How many have board members that are able to bring an outsider's perspective to an appreciation of railroad history and technology?

Fremont, CA, where one of my organizations is located, was once a mostly white Bay Area suburb. It is now extremely diverse - with a ~60% Asian population, including 18% Indian. I've seen many Indian families, including a few seeming railfans come to ride the train, but I am not aware of any active volunteers from this community. You can say they have "self-selected" themselves not to participate, but anyone can tell you that it is VERY difficult to get started volunteering at most of our organizations, and I suspect anyone from a different cultural background is going to have a harder time feeling comfortable - Not because anyone at the railway is biased or prejudiced, but because most people are more comfortable around people that are already like themselves.

The only way to overcome this form of unconscious bias is through a conscious effort to reach out and be welcoming to people that are different from you.

I've heard many on this board talk about the "age" problem facing our field. I would suggest that demographics are a part of this problem as well. We are unwittingly precluding most folks that don't already "fit in." The general lack of women active in our organizations illustrates this. Our organizations are primarily older, white, and male. They will all stay that way, even as the demographics of the country change, unless we actively try to do otherwise. Recruiting board members from outside of the dominant demographic is a step in that direction.

Beautifully said Mr. Ruiz!

*

Your use of derisive language seems to indicate plenty of emotionalism on your part. Why are you so triggered by a dissenting view? Is it too difficult for you to imagine a field of railway preservation that is more than older white men restoring and operating trains?

Is there no room in your imagination for other dimensions for our avocation? Are you aware that most volunteer RR Museums do a shoddy job at many of the things Museums are supposed to do? Could it be because of the limited perspectives that technologically-oriented railfans bring to preservation? Should other people with a focus on interpretation, education, volunteer management, fundraising, hospitality, and other non-restoration or operating programs be welcome and supported? Or do you want to just call them names so you can feel superior to, well, anything?

The goal should be community parity. I expect in most places that would be about 50% women, but what do I know, people that care about these things are never any good with numbers.

Organizations that are led by people who create a hostile environment for people that are different from themselves sow the wind.

*

My wife was once involved in a local dietetics association, basically a professional group of dietitians, nutritionists and associated fields. They had monthly meetings, a BOD and officers and basically was set up like many small rail historical societies are, except the monthly program was NOT about trains.

Thinking about when I would attend some of the meetings with her, I was often the only man in what was almost entirely a membership made up of women. But at no point did I ever hear them discuss bringing in some men to bring different perspectives or to better represent the community that they serve. That would have been silly. There were mostly women in that organization because that is who was interested in being a part of it. Period. Nobody saw a problem with that.

Just as the field of dietetics is one largely made up of women, railroading is an industry largely made up of men. There is nothing wrong with that. We used to, as a society, be able to understand and respect that some people naturally gravitate to certain fields of interest. But now we have this flawed notion that all sexes, all races, all ethnicities must be interested in everything and in the same proportion as their percentage in the population. That is just not how a free people behaves and trying to make that a reality will always cause more problems than it supposedly solves.

Something that stuck with me from a class long ago was that an organization should recruit to overcome its weaknesses. If your board is homogeneous, recruit someone who has a different set of skills and knowledges and can fill the gaps, whether they be technical, cultural, or temperamental.

There are railroad related organizations where one of the main qualifications for the BOD is the ability to bring in at least $500K/year in donations, not personally, but from their contacts. They are among the more successful tourist roads and museums in the U. S.

And here we have in microcosm a vivid reflection of our larger society today. That alone - as an old white guy of very mixed ancestry with a blue collar job - makes me extremely dismayed and embarrassed since people like me have been in charge for generations with this being the result. Why wouldn't people not like me have a chance of doing better if given a chance? We certainly didn't earn it.........

That depends on how you define the word successful.

It’s interesting, and very telling that several have commented very defensively against race and sex. That’s not the only kind of diversity that exists.

The idea of having non-railfan members of the community on the board is an excellent idea that I hadn’t thought of.

Also... it’s 2022... I’ve seen females working in all types of positions at Illinois Railway Museum, Strasburg, TVRM, Durango, etc. including engineers and Fireman. To suggest that females aren’t interested in railroading suggests you haven’t been out and about in a few years!