Philosophical question for yÂ’allÂ…Â…..

I visited a well-known railroad museum not too long ago, one that (for want of a gentler way to phrase it) has been through good times and bad recently.

I was able to get a chance to talk with quite a few of the operation’s operating staff and volunteers in scattered places and circumstances. What I found intriguing was that, for some reason, everybody I tried to talk to, once the topic shifted anywhere away from basic information (All examples from here on in made up as general examples: In this case, going from “when was this car built?” to “when do you hope to get it operational?”), the people in question started hiding behind “You’ll have to talk to the head office/Public Relations folks/restoration chief.”

I certainly can understand one or two “newbies” not willing to comment to a stranger about specifics they may not know enough about. But the more I talked to more folks in a variety of settings on and off this site, it became somewhat painfully obvious that the institution had placed some formal or informal “gag order” on its personnel, apparently desiring to control every aspect of not only news release, but gossip as well. Some of them were apparently just deferring to those with more knowledge, but others were obviously deferring to some “Big Brother” or “Loose Lips Sink Ships”, judging from their body language and word choices.

Now, I’m not going up to, say, the Railroad Museum of North Kennsylzona with a TV crew and pointing a camera in faces and saying “what’s this about a toxic locomotive in your building, jeopardizing the health of thousands of people who go through every year?” (Again, fabricated example.) And I was there as an obviously card-carrying, hat-wearing and belt-buckle-wearing railfan and rail preservationist; every time I talked I attempted to identify myself as someone who works with several rail museums and preservation projects; and I discussed things with people in public and back behind the scenes. My questions might have at times been either rather complex or perhaps nosy (“How did you find the money to restore this car so quickly?” “How do you find your Baldwin parts?” “Need some manuals we may have?” “What are your plans for this building/car?” “Think we could trade some surplus books/cars between institutions?” “Why’d you stop the repaint midway through the job?”), but nothing ever likely to launch a scandal. But it got to the farcical point where if I had asked *anything* beyond their prepared script, they were going to refer me to the “PR department”:
“What day is it?” “You’ll have to ask the information desk, I can’t tell you....”

Now, I know from discussions with others that this particular placed got mired in considerable local “political” controversy over some recent events, so I’ll grant them a modest degree of holding the cards close to the chest, especially to a stranger. However, at some point such “secrecy” becomes self-defeating. For one thing, and perhaps most importantly, it makes the institution look like it has something nasty to hide—not good when public trust and goodwill needs to be involved. Also, it makes communication difficult—and communication is critical to such assistance and events as, say, the donation of goods and services to finish a project, or the big California rolling-stock trade recently. On the other hand, I can see how a place might want to keep “rumor-mongering” in check. But at the same time, can anybody tell me of instances of harm coming to an institution or a restoration project because of chatty gossip on TrainOrders, RYPN, TrainWeb, or the like? (Case in point below on the “Interchange”—we still don’t know for sure if the RF&P business car in Richmond is available for preservation or not. Does it matter? If it turns out there are plans to preserve it at that park, have we hurt those prospects by rumoring that it’s available?)

What’s your take on this, folks? How much gossip is too much, and how much “information control” is too much? Is there a firm policy at your institution? Is it enforced? Do superiors troll the Internet boards and reprimand those who mentioned something to a board or a poster? Would you have a different standard for talking to, say, someone on this board or from Trains Magazine versus Joe “Patch-collector” Blowhard with a camera around his neck?

And might this be YOUR excursion line/museum I'm describing? Why, then?


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

But
> at the same time, can anybody tell me of
> instances of harm coming to an institution
> or a restoration project because of chatty
> gossip on TrainOrders, RYPN, TrainWeb, or
> the like?

Well, I know of several instances in which people have contacted me as Moderator of this forum because they feared that harm would come to their projects from postings on the Interchange. I know of only one instance in which someone has feared that harm would come to them from RyPN's editorial content--the Briefs, Articles or Editorials.

Whether those fears were justified or not, I can't say--I can only attest that the perception has existed in some cases.

I always explain the the Interchange is a discussion forum, and opinions posted on it are those of the poster alone, and do not represent the editorial judgement of RyPN or its staff. We do not moderate the Interchange for content, other than enforcing a strict no flames policy.

> WhatÂ’s your take on this, folks? How much
> gossip is too much,

Judgement is key. No one objects to compliments--the tricky posts are the comments that imply negligence, malfeasance, incompetence, fault, or even just excessive bad luck on the part of the party being commented on.

I would encourage people to think carefully before making such posts unless they have first-hand familiarity with the situation from personal observation or experience. I don't consider being told something by one or two people, no matter how relaible, to constitute personal familiarity--I can't tell you the number of times moderating this board that two people, often people I like and greatly respect as individuals, have come to me and give diametrically the opposite account of a situation. Neither of them is lying; its usually a question of perspective. But it illustrates the perils of relying on oral testimony to come to a conclusion about a situation you have not observed for yourself.

Do superiors troll the Internet
> boards and reprimand those who mentioned
> something to a board or a poster?

Yes, I know of instances in which this has happened in connection with the Interchange. Not many, but some.

Would you
> have a different standard for talking to,
> say, someone on this board or from Trains
> Magazine versus Joe “Patch-collector”
> Blowhard with a camera around his neck?

Personally, I would distinguish between Trains or R&R and the Interchange or the Obs Car. Trains and R&R are edited publications--there is an editor and a publisher that stands behind the accuracy of the reporter's words, and can be held to account for them.

By contrast, posters on the Interchange, no matter how knowledgeable (and many are vastly knowledgeable) are nevertheless writing as private citizens, not journalists. No one edits their words, investigates their sources, or fact-checks their remarks. All that stands behind the words is the individual poster's personal reputation.

So, I think an organization might be justified in giving different a response to a reporter than they might to a knowledgable individual fan or afellow preservationist. Note that I am not recommending what those responses should be--I am just noting some differences among these groups tha tmight justfy different treatment.

> And might this be YOUR excursion line/museum
> I'm describing? Why, then?


eledbetter@rypn.org

> And might this be YOUR excursion line/museum
> I'm describing? Why, then?

Our rulebook at National Capital Trolley Museum includes general guidelines for speaking to patrons. The intent is to achieve a level of consistentcy and professionalism.

On several occasions we have also issued specific instructions to operating staff on how to respond to questions. The most recent was last year when the sniper was active in our immediate area. The notice asked staff not to speculate on impact, Museum security mesaures, etc., and directed staff to refer questions to our educator, who also doubles as public relations contact.

Wesley

National Capital Trolley Museum

Accuracy certainly is required......and accurate information isn't gossip. Most museums should provide a basic outline of current goals and priorities as well as their mission statement to all volunteers and staff, and insist it be public information. That's how you gain support.

Passing the buck on a question to an appropriate source is also acceptable if you don't know the answer.

Nobody who doesn't know ANY answers shouldn't be dealing with the public.

Several years ago at TRAIN, a presentation was given by an attorney about answering questions in the aftermath of an incident. Great caution was properly advised, and one point of contact for all inquiries.

Interpreting the colorful history of places and things requires humanity. Jim Crow era? Potentially offensive to some people but necessary. Likewise stories of people who worked / lived / whatever related to the interpretation. I recall a family of a former shop worker offended by their ancestor being mentioned as a ghost haunting the building in question, said ghost having been seen and identified by living people who knew him in life. Go figure......

Fear of unintentionally causing offense seems a gray area to me. I wouldn't feel comfortable gagging a docent from providing a dispassionate and accurate interpretation based on it.

dave



irondave@bellsouth.net

> Accuracy certainly is required......and
> accurate information isn't gossip. Most
> museums should provide a basic outline of
> current goals and priorities as well as
> their mission statement to all volunteers
> and staff, and insist it be public
> information. That's how you gain support.

> Passing the buck on a question to an
> appropriate source is also acceptable if you
> don't know the answer.

> Nobody who doesn't know ANY answers
> shouldn't be dealing with the public.

Playing devil's advocate, just to illustrate the other side:

Sadly, a lot of volunteers don't know any answers, but don't want to appear uninformed, so they wing it. I've seen docents babbling complete falsehoods, just because they want to be seen as experts; others do it because they have an agenda that may be at odds with the official agenda.

Also, some questioners tend to be a bit too nosey, though they may not realize it. They like to pry into things that are, in truth, none of their business. Fans love nothing more than a rousing game of "I know something you don't."

IMO, there should not be gossip, because it can come back to haunt the museum. Certain foamers who claim to be preservationists thrive on getting 5% information, adding 95% fantasy to it,and spreading it all over the globe. This can create unjustified expectations of the museum or of the railroad. When that happens, the people who came to believe the fairy tale end up mad that they were had. Not wanting to admit they were flim-flammed, they get mad at the museum (or railroad) for not doing what they never promised to do in the first place; that leads to MORE angry rumors being spread, and the museum/railroad has to deal with that, too.

So, I agree that volunteers should be educated in the history, and in the basics of how the artifact was acquired, restored, etc. But beyond that, questions on policy or finances or plans should adhere to a firm, official line.

And need it be said that personal politics and agendas should be checked at the locker room door?

> And I
> was there as an obviously card-carrying,
> hat-wearing and belt-buckle-wearing railfan
> and rail preservationist; every time I
> talked I attempted to identify myself as
> someone who works with several rail museums
> and preservation projects; and I discussed
> things with people in public and back behind
> the scenes. My questions might have at times
> been either rather complex or perhaps nosy
> but nothing ever likely to launch a scandal.

Just because you "look like", a card carrying bonafide railfan/museum curiator/volunteer from across the pond/whatever doesn't mean you are.

And even if you ARE one of them, that doesn't mean that you won't take what the docent/employee/volunteer says, misconstrue it to the point of lucridity, and repeat it in a newspaper or magazine, or on this or some other web site, and thus "represent" the museum as something it is not, and/or doesn't want to be.

Or worse, present the "answer" in a court of law in the soon to be filed lawsuit over some stupidity.

I don't mean to cast aspersions, but your hypothetical questions could all have been construed to be "prying" into areas that could have been "sensitive" to the museum... They were all about the Museum's "Operations", not about the Museum's "Presentations".

None of your listed questions were "fair" to a docent, ticket agent, grounds keeper, painter, mechanic, boiler maker or anyone else other than the "Board of Directors". And as such I would expect anyone other than the Board of Directors to ALWAYS reply: "You'll have to talk to management about that."

ESPECIALLY in today's litigous society and the chance that you are NOT whom you represent yourself to be.

Talk to the docents, employees and volunteers about historical facts and what is in "presentation", but go to management with questions concerning "Museum Operations".

It is sometimes difficult to determine just what the questions are really about. So...

"If in doubt, refer to management."

Semper Vaporo,
Charles T. McCullough
CMBY RY

> "If in doubt, refer to
> management."

*So, ultimately, by this point of view, ALL decisions, viewpoints, etc. are ultimately made by, and answerable to, "Il Duce" at the top of this ladder?

> Semper Vaporo,
> Charles T. McCullough
> CMBY RY

*Pardon my phrasing it this way, but who the heck is this?


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> Playing devil's advocate, just to illustrate
> the other side:

*Understood and quite sympathetic, much as some parties on here might believe otherwise.......

> Sadly, a lot of volunteers don't know any
> answers, but don't want to appear
> uninformed, so they wing it. I've seen
> docents babbling complete falsehoods, just
> because they want to be seen as experts;
> others do it because they have an agenda
> that may be at odds with the official
> agenda.

*And I have heard people describe a Berkshire as a "2-4-8 wheel arrangement". Unfortunately, in America, it's darned difficult to say "I don't know, it's my first month here; I'll look it up" without shame. Or, for that matter, to say "I don't know why they stopped rebuilding that loco; they didn't consult me on it."

> Also, some questioners tend to be a bit too
> nosey, though they may not realize it. They
> like to pry into things that are, in truth,
> none of their business. Fans love nothing
> more than a rousing game of "I know
> something you don't."

*Granted, although there's precious little way to distinguish the game-playing fan idiot from the guy who owns a paint factory and could donate all the custom-blended paint you need, or the shop teacher itching for a project for his students.

> IMO, there should not be gossip, because it
> can come back to haunt the museum.

*And how does one distinguish the "good" gossip from the "bad"? One man's philosophical discussion is another's slander, libel, or treason.

Certain foamers who claim to be preservationists
> thrive on getting 5% information, adding 95%
> fantasy to it, and spreading it all over the
> globe. This can create unjustified
> expectations of the museum or of the
> railroad. When that happens, the people who
> came to believe the fairy tale end up mad
> that they were had. Not wanting to admit
> they were flim-flammed, they get mad at the
> museum (or railroad) for not doing what they
> never promised to do in the first place;
> that leads to MORE angry rumors being
> spread, and the museum/railroad has to deal
> with that, too.

*Okay, granted that it's FAR easier to do this, and for this to occur, in the modern Internet age than in the old mimeograph age I came from. But how is the ultimate decision process any different from the mimeograph, telephone, and telegraph age? So now 1,000 RyPN/Trainweb/TrainOrders readers have unrealistic expectations of, say, a weekly PRR K4s excursion around the Horse Shoe Curve rather than ten. Is that not counter-balanced by the equivalent hundred-fold enthusiasts and fund-raising targets willing to help out in the modern era?

Case in point: "EBT Restoration Photo of the Week". I can now see progress in Orbisonia. I can now feel like a big army, not a lone wolf flogging away in vain. And no doubt someday, as my schedule allows, I'll be up there with them.

> So, I agree that volunteers should be
> educated in the history, and in the basics
> of how the artifact was acquired, restored,
> etc. But beyond that, questions on policy or
> finances or plans should adhere to a firm,
> official line.

*All too often, though, that line is neither firm or official, through no fault of the artifact or the volunteer talking about it. Is it wrong to insinuate, for example, that the loco being discussed is the "black sheep" of the roster, and that maybe a better home could be found for it--just as, to fabricate an example, the Napa Valley Wine Train is looking for a decent big steamer of about those dimensions?
And just what is "official"? Who's in charge, the hired CEO, the chairman of the board of directors, the senior board officer(s), or the founder? How much difference does it make?

> And need it be said that personal politics
> and agendas should be checked at the locker
> room door?

*If I'm working for the "corporation" as an official representative to the public, it becomes automatic. On the other hand, I believe the appointed representative owes his constituents not only his representation, but his educated judgement. The question then becomes, is the docent/volunteer/employee worthy of representing a preservation project to the public? I don't expect, for example, a Wal-Mart employee to be able to dictate corporate policy, but I do expect at least a middle manager to tell me if I have a hope of finding, say, Earl Grey tea in the food section.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> On several occasions we have also issued
> specific instructions to operating staff on
> how to respond to questions. The most recent
> was last year when the sniper was active in
> our immediate area. The notice asked staff
> not to speculate on impact, Museum security
> mesaures, etc., and directed staff to refer
> questions to our educator, who also doubles
> as public relations contact.

My next question is, who in heck goes to a trolley museum for analysis of a wanton sniper?!?

Now, having said that, I must remark that I live in the area affected by said sniper, and more than once I was looking over my shoulder as I pumped gas in Rockville and Wheaton and Laurel. But at the same time, I would go to the National Capital Trolley Museum looking to get AWAY from sniper realities. Did anyone ask several times a day about said sniper, or is this an example of micromanagement run amok?


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

Well I can pretty much guess it wasn't my local MA&PA. There are a coupla guys that would not talk to you at all ... just shoo you away after carefully defining the small area you could LOOK from, and BTW don't ask any questions about equipment, goals, financing or other top secret information. On the other hand you might get lucky and get a tour of the facility and loaded up with a history of the RR, the equipment, where we are and where we are going, if you happen to hit the right folks. We have been the victim of vandalism and might look askance at the wrong questions. If you happen to identify yourself as a member of the press however, it will suddenly get very chilly and you will get referred to "THE PROPER AUTHORITY" as outlined in the rule book.

IMHO I am glad the rumors, backbiting and other trash is kept off this particular forum. A lot of experienced folks on this board have helped me with my projects in a very constructive manner and I do appreciate it.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Lets face it, being in the know is a lot of fun.
I work at two museums, and I always hear things and I always ask the Managers if it is OK to mention it here.

One way to getmore in the know is join the museum, the newsletter, web site or whatever is always way out ahead of the public. It will cost you a few dollars spect in a good cause, but you also get the why behind the decisions.

Seashore Trolley Museum publishes the Dispatch, which I think is one of the best in the field of traction preservation, because the why as well as the nuts and bolts of what is happening where is covered.

ted_miles@nps.gov

As someone who works for a railway museum as either a paid or unpaid staffer, let me share a few observations on protocol and "public statements".

The designated spokesperson for the museum is usually the Director or the P.R./Marketing person. Museum staff paid or unpaid should defer to them for public comment on sesntive issues or topics that requires an official response. That way, one person can represent the institution in the best possible light and with a single answer. Imagine the embarrassment an institution could face if they got twenty different answers from various staff people. It would be political suicide for an institution, especially one that is publicly funded!

Some matters (such as PCBs in a recent post about GG-1s at an eatsern museum) should be left private and are not proprietary pieces of information for public knowledge until an investigation has been conducted and the business at hand has been addressed. Then the museum reps can go to the press and answer any questions. It is absolutely shocking to read all of the fiction that has been posted on this board about the former situation, when 100% of the posters are not even involved at the institution and don't have any of their facts straight!! I have been privvy to their dilemma as a colleague at another museum and can speak with some creditibility.

In my opinion the internet has become a breeding ground for rumor dissemination and does not help this field one bit.

Robert E. Evans

> Philosophical question for yÂ’allÂ…Â…..

> I visited a well-known railroad museum not
> too long ago, one that (for want of a
> gentler way to phrase it) has been through
> good times and bad recently.

> I was able to get a chance to talk with
> quite a few of the operationÂ’s operating
> staff and volunteers in scattered places and
> circumstances. What I found intriguing was
> that, for some reason, everybody I tried to
> talk to, once the topic shifted anywhere
> away from basic information (All examples
> from here on in made up as general examples:
> In this case, going from “when was this car
> built?” to “when do you hope to get it
> operational?”), the people in question
> started hiding behind “You’ll have to talk
> to the head office/Public Relations
> folks/restoration chief.”

> I certainly can understand one or two
> “newbies” not willing to comment to a
> stranger about specifics they may not know
> enough about. But the more I talked to more
> folks in a variety of settings on and off
> this site, it became somewhat painfully
> obvious that the institution had placed some
> formal or informal “gag order” on its
> personnel, apparently desiring to control
> every aspect of not only news release, but
> gossip as well. Some of them were apparently
> just deferring to those with more knowledge,
> but others were obviously deferring to some
> “Big Brother” or “Loose Lips Sink Ships”,
> judging from their body language and word
> choices.

> Now, IÂ’m not going up to, say, the Railroad
> Museum of North Kennsylzona with a TV crew
> and pointing a camera in faces and saying
> “what’s this about a toxic locomotive in
> your building, jeopardizing the health of
> thousands of people who go through every
> year?” (Again, fabricated example.) And I
> was there as an obviously card-carrying,
> hat-wearing and belt-buckle-wearing railfan
> and rail preservationist; every time I
> talked I attempted to identify myself as
> someone who works with several rail museums
> and preservation projects; and I discussed
> things with people in public and back behind
> the scenes. My questions might have at times
> been either rather complex or perhaps nosy
> (“How did you find the money to restore this
> car so quickly?” “How do you find your
> Baldwin parts?” “Need some manuals we may
> have?” “What are your plans for this
> building/car?” “Think we could trade some
> surplus books/cars between institutions?”
> “Why’d you stop the repaint midway through
> the job?”), but nothing ever likely to
> launch a scandal. But it got to the farcical
> point where if I had asked *anything* beyond
> their prepared script, they were going to
> refer me to the “PR department”:
> “What day is it?” “You’ll have to ask the
> information desk, I can’t tell you....”

> Now, I know from discussions with others
> that this particular placed got mired in
> considerable local “political” controversy
> over some recent events, so IÂ’ll grant them
> a modest degree of holding the cards close
> to the chest, especially to a stranger.
> However, at some point such “secrecy”
> becomes self-defeating. For one thing, and
> perhaps most importantly, it makes the
> institution look like it has something nasty
> to hide—not good when public trust and
> goodwill needs to be involved. Also, it
> makes communication difficult—and
> communication is critical to such assistance
> and events as, say, the donation of goods
> and services to finish a project, or the big
> California rolling-stock trade recently. On
> the other hand, I can see how a place might
> want to keep “rumor-mongering” in check. But
> at the same time, can anybody tell me of
> instances of harm coming to an institution
> or a restoration project because of chatty
> gossip on TrainOrders, RYPN, TrainWeb, or
> the like? (Case in point below on the
> “Interchange”—we still don’t know for sure
> if the RF&P business car in Richmond is
> available for preservation or not. Does it
> matter? If it turns out there are plans to
> preserve it at that park, have we hurt those
> prospects by rumoring that itÂ’s available?)

> WhatÂ’s your take on this, folks? How much
> gossip is too much, and how much
> “information control” is too much? Is there
> a firm policy at your institution? Is it
> enforced? Do superiors troll the Internet
> boards and reprimand those who mentioned
> something to a board or a poster? Would you
> have a different standard for talking to,
> say, someone on this board or from Trains
> Magazine versus Joe “Patch-collector”
> Blowhard with a camera around his neck?

> And might this be YOUR excursion line/museum
> I'm describing? Why, then?

I got married in College Park, with easy access to the Beltway, during the height of the frenzy, and it seemed to me that everyone everywhere was worried about being targeted due to the randomness of the criminals. Anywhere that people congregated seemed to be a risk.
Changing gears - Question for Wes, has NCTM been able to conduct any salvage efforts yet? I've been thinking to myself that the sweepers seemed to have a large consistency of heavy steel, and I hope that it might be possible to reconstruct a car body on top of the frame had save a piece of equipment. Not trying to second guess your efforts, just hoping for a Phoenix to rise from the ashes.

Later - Mike

Western VA RR Preservation Soc.

> My next question is, who in heck goes to a
> trolley museum for analysis of a wanton
> sniper?!?

> Now, having said that, I must remark that I
> live in the area affected by said sniper,
> and more than once I was looking over my
> shoulder as I pumped gas in Rockville and
> Wheaton and Laurel. But at the same time, I
> would go to the National Capital Trolley
> Museum looking to get AWAY from sniper
> realities. Did anyone ask several times a
> day about said sniper, or is this an example
> of micromanagement run amok?


Yenko117@yahoo.com

> *So, ultimately, by this point of view, ALL
> decisions, viewpoints, etc. are ultimately
> made by, and answerable to, "Il
> Duce" at the top of this ladder?

I am afraid so. I have been a "docent" at a couple of museum's (non railroad, unfortunately) and I have been on the Board of Directors of another museum (and a docent there as well, I guess). As the docent/tour guide/presence-to-keep-the-theivery-down I was asked questions that, while "innocent" on the surface, could have led to problems, since I really did not know "who" the person was doing the asking.

As the docent I have (or should have) the answers about the items being displayed, but it is not my place to divulge "why" items are in the state they are, other than in the way of "history" about it.

I don't know if you have kids; but how would you (as head of household) feel if I asked one of them why your house is only half painted, or how much your house payments are, or what you spend on groceries. Kids will spill the beans about ANYTHING... "Dad can't finish painting cause he lost all the money at the casino last month." "Mom says they can't take our house when we file for bankruptcy, so we don't hafta make the payments anymore." "We don't have to buy groceries, we get food stamps!" All that could be a precocious kid repeating what he heard on TV last night and have NOTHING to do with your reality... but I can spread those lies innocently to your detriment.

Wouldn't you prefer your kids to refer such questions to YOU. The kid should probably get a bit upset and say; "Hey, mister, you don't need to know that! Go ask my Dad if you wanna know." But as a docent, dealing with the public, that is a bit harsh and must be toned down to simply; "You need to speak to management about that."

I have seen (GLAD I wasn't directly involved!) people ask where an item came from, and then attempt to "TAKE IT" with them because they claimed that it really belonged to them and the person that donated it didn't have the right to do so. (We had signed papers showing ownership, but "Family" members don't necessarily agree with court/probate awards!) The fine young lady that was the docent/tour guide had answered truthfully as to who gave it, but got "blasted" by the head of the Board of Directors for divulging the information. (I disagreed with that, but I was not on the Board at the time!)

> *Pardon my phrasing it this way, but who the
> heck is this?

I am tempted to reply with a quote from the TV show M*A*S*H where Col. Potter asks the "indigenous personel" if he can identify himself and the elderly Korean gentleman says,

"This is me."

As for just who the heck I am... let's just say a nobody fer now. I am just concerned with the subject that you brought up and I do see your point of view... you meant no harm and were curious about some things and actually had generous intent in others. But that doesn't mean the person you were talking to knew that for sure.

As a docent I have "offered an opinion" but I always prefaced it with: "This is not necessarily the way this museum works or wants to do things, but I would sure like to..." see this or that restored or obtained or disposed of. But I learned to be VERY careful to explain AGAIN that those are just my opinions and NOT those of the museum proper.

When in doubt, refer to management!

Semper Vaporo,
Charles T. McCullough
CMBY RY

> As someone who works for a railway museum as
> either a paid or unpaid staffer, let me
> share a few observations on protocol and
> "public statements".

> The designated spokesperson for the museum
> is usually the Director or the
> P.R./Marketing person. Museum staff paid or
> unpaid should defer to them for public
> comment on sesntive issues or topics that
> requires an official response. That way, one
> person can represent the institution in the
> best possible light and with a single
> answer. Imagine the embarrassment an
> institution could face if they got twenty
> different answers from various staff people.
> It would be political suicide for an
> institution, especially one that is publicly
> funded!

> Some matters (such as PCBs in a recent post
> about GG-1s at an eatsern museum) should be
> left private and are not proprietary pieces
> of information for public knowledge until an
> investigation has been conducted and the
> business at hand has been addressed. Then
> the museum reps can go to the press and
> answer any questions. It is absolutely
> shocking to read all of the fiction that has
> been posted on this board about the former
> situation, when 100% of the posters are not
> even involved at the institution and don't
> have any of their facts straight!! I have
> been privvy to their dilemma as a colleague
> at another museum and can speak with some
> creditibility.

> In my opinion the internet has become a
> breeding ground for rumor dissemination and
> does not help this field one bit.

> Robert E. Evans

I agree. Much of the misinformation gets started because someone deep down in the organization has an axe to grind, and he is aided and abetted by those who are alawys digging into everything to find some small detail they can run out and tell the world about.

IMO, this is just one of the many things that sets most "real" museums apart from most RR museums, and feeds the impression that RR museums are just a bunch of overgrown kids playing with big toys. In the "real" museum world, gossip is not tolerated for very long; the individual, paid or volunteer is quickly asked to shut up or leave the staff, and if they do neither, they get fired.

In a volunteer organization, ther are always going to be afew people whi disagree with the board or the ED or whomever is in charge. these folsk should run for office; if they win, they might than be in a position to make some changes. If they lose, then that should be an indication that not enough others share their views. At that point, they must make the choice to either be cooperative and shut up or get out.

Harsh I know, but too much time and effort is spent on this kind of mischief and ego, when it should be going to more productive use. And don't think for a moment that the public or the one-in-10-million-visitors-who-might give-large-sums-of-moeny that everyone seems to be so worried about don't pick up on what's going at musuems where such gossipy behavior and back-biting is tolerated and out in the open for all to see. If nothing else, it's very unprofessional.

When I visit or volunteer at a museum, I don't come with the attitude that they owe me inside information just because I like trains.