@Alex
quote "One last remark for tonight"

100% agree with you. With 55 years I am considered the youth here...lol.

A couple of more points:

When a board member takes on the mental state that the organization somehow belongs to them, that they alone have total control, that is a sure sign of a problem. We see that here in NJ where another museum asks about an item that might be for sale and one trustee can simply say no on their own.

There is something called a membership here and they must take an interest in the affairs of the organization. Boards and board members can run amuck ONLY because the membership allows it. I tend to be more annoyed by the members than by issues with board members. Quitting as an active member is of no help to the organization. Talking over a beer with other members, but taking no action, is of no help.

Bottom line is the by-laws are critical, but its up to the membership to assure that they are adhered to.

J.R.

Pardon the pun, but this is an 'old' subject.

No organization whether for profit or not will survive a long time unless the older people running it get younger people involved.

This is one of the reasons NRHS started RailCamp roughly a quarter century ago.

Bob H

I've been watching this trend for a while now, and I think there's something else to it that often gets overlooked.

Often, these organizations struggle because they no longer serve the needs, wants or desires of a younger audience, not that the underlying topic no longer interests them.

For example, nobody needs to attend an NRHS chapter meeting to see a slide presentation on the Chief Wawatam when this video exists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STcaKuKTgU8

It, by the way, has over 1000 views as of this post.

This comes back to the idea that organizational leadership, regardless of its age, needs to be on top of maintaining that organization's relevancy and the attractiveness of its "product offering" as "consumption patterns" change in order to perpetuate itself.

I believe that the inherent problems really exist in organizations that do not have a "plan of succession" in place. Term Limits are what need to be enacted to ensue that there is fresh blood in the leadership of group, regardless of a persons age. If these term are well defined and understood that its being done for the health of the group, then it can truly evolve from the "good ole boys group" as their directors to an organization that functions more like a business.

I'm active on the Board of a Railroad Historical Society that each of its directors are term limited to Four 3-year terms, for a total of 12 consecutive years. The by-laws are also written that if that person wishes to become a director again they MUST have at least a 3-year break before being re-elected as a director.

There was another Railroad Historical Group that has/had a lot of active younger members involved with it, that I tried making case for similar rules for them and was turned down and was being told they didn't have the membership numbers to support that kind of thinking. So, unfortunately they had some problems develop and have since had to be rescued by one of the groups original founders after having "lost its way".

This is why groups should have at least one forward-thinking person as part of a Long-Range Planning Committee, too often groups are caught up in the "here and now" without giving a thought to the sustained future of the group.

So it seems the bigger challenge is in organizations that are gerontatorships rather than gerontocracies.

New in career, end of career, somewhere in the middle or superannuated, it seems the issues mentioned mostly can be solved by taking this excellent presentation to heart, no matter the size, mission, or resources of the organization.

https://theroundhousepodcast.com/2018/07/03/passing-the-torch-without-getting-burned-hra-presentation/

When approaching trusteeship and governance, a very important concept to keep in mind is thus: the Executive Director's job is to manage the museum’s operations; the board’s role is to develop policy—if one or the other colors outside these lines, there are usually negative consequences. Having said that, Boards can offer advice to the ED. It is also the board’s function to raise money. Boards which govern give money, get money or get off the board! Board members bring cash, bring clout and they bring contacts. They are traditionally people with wealth, with wisdom and with wit. They have a fiduciary responsibility (e.g., in law, finance, and knowledge of how to run an institution in a financially responsible manner like lawyers, doctors and bankers). They must know and understand expectations and responsibilities of the institution. Having a 'rank and file gerontocracy' board will not grow your museum or non-profit organization.

K. R. Bell, I believe your understanding of a board is quite old-fashioned. The board of directors should not be limited to the rich and those with power.

K.R. Bell's description is spot on. Go examine the make up of the BOD of any sizable, successful organization ( profit or non-profit) and you'll see its governing Board is made up of folks just like he described.

That's the way it works in real life.

Ross Rowland

> That's the way it works in real life.

That's the way its SUPPOSED to work, but 99% of the time it does not. Or it starts out that way with high hopes, and over a period of generations degenerates into something quite different.

The reality is that most non-profits are mom and pop shops, or small groups, that are very flat in their organization. Their success is tied to a small group of people, but hampered by periods of failing management where only an up rising of the membership can take hold and turn it around.

A certain "Hermit Kingdom" organization here in NJ started out in the 1960s with a fair mix of "wealth, with wisdom and with wit." They had experience with "fiduciary responsibility (e.g., in law, finance, and knowledge of how to run an institution in a financially responsible manner like lawyers, doctors and bankers)."

And then the clocked ticked forward. Those good people moved on, or died, the board morphed into something run by the active members, some of whom served until they too died, not to even be replaced. An effort to reverse this trend by the chairman was shot down by the board who could not see the value and was NOT supported by the membership.

Some decent by-laws would have helped here, but they were set up to protect the original board, which in turn protected those who later came along. There is no way to bring change.

Your organization is only as good as its by-laws and its membership.

J.R. May

An op-ed essay crossed my feed this morning that alleges, and in my opinion pretty much proves, that the "problem" of gerontocracy is far more deeply embedded--I dare to say, just to twist that overly-abused/exaggerated term, "systemic"--in American society and government than we want to admit:

https://reason.com/2022/04/15/dianne-fe ... ontocracy/

Now, cast aside (as best as possible) the politics invoked in this piece. (In my experience, the opposition's elderly politician is always to be regarded as "senile old fools" while one's own political side's old people are "senior statesmen bespeaking the experience and wisdom of their years"...........)

Look at some other aspects mentioned:



See any parallels?
I do.
I listened to one group's BOD refuse to take meetings online--via Zoom, Skype, RingCentral, or whatever--because one board member heard "all about" how a "virus" was spreading through Zoom. (They had a brief account security problem identified, and rectified within a day. Zoom's usage continued to explode, not what would happen if there really was a serious problem.) They're finally, about two years late with a couple new board members and a new president, coming around to the idea--and online meeting/program participation has been in the single digits, as opposed to dozens to a hundred with some similar groups with similar membership numbers.)