RE: (erielack) ELHS Members

["Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee_@_verizon.net>]

Well, thanks, Will. Since you broadcast what
really should be a personal reply to the list,
(breaking your own rule about discussing this
issue on the erielack list) I guess I have to do
likewise. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Shultz
[mailto:wshultz1_@_twcny.rr.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 9:08 PM
> To: Schuyler Larrabee
> Cc: 'Erie Lackawanna Mail List'
> Subject: Re: (erielack) ELHS Members
> 
> Schuyler,
> 
> All well and good, but seeing how no one else
had stepped 
> forward; i.e. 
> a Board member, I am simply providing a service
to members 
> that would otherwise not have the opportunity to
ask a 
> question put directly to all of the Board
members in attendance.

Every one of the Board members is individually
accessible by email.  A few of us are on the list,
and can be replied to individually, or if not,
they can be reached through those of us who are.
I simply felt that making it perfectly clear, in
print, that I can be reached as well as you, was
appropriate.

> I also fail to see how you being copied on
someone's question 
> is not "fair". I hadn't realized the questions
would be 
> screened first and not put directly by the
questioner. Is 
> this to be one of those "scripted" 
> open discussions or a real open discussion?

Of course not.  Nobody's going to "script"
anything.  What wouldn't be fair, and still won't,
is if you and your colleagues have questions we
haven't seen and we're blindsided with some sort
of complex question.  I'd like to see that sort of
question in advance, just as you will.  I don't
think that's asking much.  Why don't you just
forward the questions you receive to me?  Do you
think that's not "fair?"

> I don't consider it unfair that the Board
reviewed our op ed 
> piece that was published in the Extra Board well
in advance 
> of publication because I provided the Board with
copies back 
> in May at the Eastern Region meeting. We
certainly were not 
> returned the same courtesy. I didn't claim it
was unfair. 
> Discourteous maybe, but not unfair.

"Reviewed" you say?  What are you trying to imply?
It was printed word-for-word as you wrote it.  And
furthermore we're not under any obligation to
clear what we have to say with you, as far as I
know.  There is no "discourtesy."

> I didn't claim it was unfair that the Board
insisted on 
> mailing the member survey that was oh so
important, after not 
> bothering to survey the membership for 18 years,
but it 
> couldn't wait until the opinion piece or pieces
were 
> published in the Extra Board, unfair. Ok so that
one maybe I 
> did consider unfair. 

As has been explained to you before, and as you
did your best to disrupt, we wanted a survey of
what the membership thought about the Society AS
THEY PERCEIVED it before this issue was discussed.
It was separate from that.  We agreed to run the
survey as you suggested because it hadn't been
done for a long time, and it was simply a good
idea.

Aside that it cost extra money to be 
> spent on postage unnecessarily that could have
been saved if 
> it had been mailed with the Diamond. 

Not so.  We decided to send out a mailing with the
information regarding the Annual Meeting, once we
realized that because The Diamond would be
somewhat later than we'd planned, and because the
Annual was moved forward two weeks from the
originally planned date, there wouldn't be
sufficient time for people to register if the
registration materials were mailed with The
Diamond.   Then we realized that we could
piggyback the survey on that mailing for no extra
money.  We are VERY careful with the Society's
funds.

But I am sure there were 
> good reasons for that despite the fact I was
never given any. 

Actually, we did (I personally did) explain that.
Maybe you don't recall . . . 

> Being the other "member" of the Survey Committee
certainly 
> wasn't reason enough. It wasn't like I didn't
ask that it be 
> postponed if you will recall.

I know you asked that it be postponed, but that
would have prevented us getting the information we
wanted.  As I explained a few paragraphs up, we
wanted to know what people thought BEFORE this
issue was discussed.

> I admit that these are just my personal and
humble opinions 
> which are meaningless under the present by-laws
of the ELHS. 

That is not true.  That's why we've been listening
to you and why I've spent hours on the phone with
you and why I am writing this now.

> After all I am simply a magazine subscriber and
have no voice 
> in ELHS matters beyond what the Board graciously
bestows upon 
> me. Is that "fair"? No say, no recourse? 

Recourse for what?  If you think you have
something for which you need "recourse," talk to
us.  So far, I have yet to hear anything from
anybody except you, and you earnestly tell me that
you hope none of the Board members leave because
of this discussion. So, just what IS the issue,
Will?

> Just the whim of the Board? That's effectively
what the 
> by-laws as they stand do.

....???
 
> My apologies for sounding so cynical, but the
ELHS by-laws 
> remind me of the type of constitutions that were
written for 
> Socialist dictatorships, certainly not someone
used to a 
> Democracy, so accepting them is rather difficult
for me to 
> stomach. The worse part is, they don't even
allow a recourse 
> for a bad Board decision by the membership or
for that 
> matter, prevent the very thing it is claimed
they were set up 
> that way in the first place to prevent from
happening. In 
> fact, if a majority of the Board wanted
Nebraska, to use your 
> example, to be the seat of ELHS power, there is
nothing the 
> members could do to prevent that. At least with
an elected 
> Board they could the next election cycle and
with a strong 
> constitution and by-laws, they could prevent
much damage from 
> happening in the interim. The ELHS has no such
escape hatch, 
> the Board's word is gospel. We have been very
fortunate so 
> far that only relatively minor poor decisions
have been made 
> over the years and not major ones. 
> That IS to the Board's credit.

First of all, "Nebraska" is NOT my example.
Secondly, what you have written about
"dictatorships" is so far from the way that the
Board operates as to be ludicrous.  With seven
very intelligent people (I should say six, and let
others decide about me) it will be a long time
before we make any truly bad decisions.

I would be interested to know what you think were
the "relatively minor [bad decisions]" we've made
. . . 

> Oh, and no one has to subscribe to nothin', I
simply stated 
> that they send me an email at an email address.
And...if you 
> like Mr. Larrabee, we would gladly open the
forum up to 
> anonymous, unmoderated posting, who would that
serve? 
> But...say the word and it will be done Mr.
Chairman.

Sarcasm is unbecoming, Will.

> Oh, and to correct your comment in the Extra
Board, as you 
> are now aware, no ELHS web resources were or are
used to 
> support the forum. Only the time, effort and
dedication of 
> members that care and are concerned about the
future of the ELHS.

I didn't say "the forum" was using the ELHS
resources, but publishing your piece is using
several pages of ELHS space.  Space paid for by
members.  Spending an hour at the Annual Meeting
is spending time at the meeting which some, I am
sure, would rather see spent on another
presentation about the railroads, not on talking
about the governance of the Society, is using ELHS
resources, and member's money.  I suspect that
most people realize that we spend the most time we
can talking about the railroads, the history, the
people, and keep the operations of the Society out
of everybody's way.  And I suspect that most
people prefer it that way.

As to "time, effort, and dedication of  members
that care and are concerned about the future of
the ELHS," I think that very well sums up the
membership of the Board.

> Respectfully, your humble servant,
> 
> Will

All I said, Will, was, that people should feel
free to send me their questions as well.  If there
is going to be a "discussion" among reasonable
people, it'd be reasonable that we have all the
facts and questions to think about.  In advance.
Now, Will, let's leave these issues off the list,
please.

Just as respectfully, I've been serving the ELHS
for a good long time, Will.

SGL




> 
> Schuyler Larrabee wrote:
> 
> >Will, in this email, asks that people not
attending the 
> annual meeting 
> >send him questions that they'd like asked
during the open discussion 
> >we've scheduled.  Well, I think it's only fair
that any such 
> questions 
> >should be sent to me as well, if this is to be
a fair discussion.
> >Therefore, I'd ask that you send me the
questions you may 
> have as well.
> >
> >Since some people don't necessarily find it
easy to send me 
> an email by 
> >reply, for some reason, send them to
schuyler.larrabee_@_verizon.net
> >
> >I agree that your opinion is important.  You
don't have to 
> register at 
> >any website to talk to me, or anyone else on
the board.  
> Just send me a 
> >note.
> >
> >Schuyler Larrabee
> >Chairman
> >ELHS
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> 

------------------------------