(erielack) Re: ELHS Members and Sorry

[William Shultz <wshultz1_@_twcny.rr.com>]

Schuyler, et. al.,

It WAS intended to be a personal reply and I offer my sincerest apology 
for wasting non ELHS member's time and ELHS member's time that simply 
don't give a hoot. My only excuse is that I have been inhaling noxious 
vapors all day and by left mouse button finger isn't following the 
commands I attempt to send it hitting reply all rather than reply.

If you have no interest, please read no further, delete this now and 
don't waste your time. I must however correct factual inaccuracies in 
Schuyler's reply, then I will say no more about this on the list as it 
is NOT the place to do so. If anyone wants to complain about this and 
the previous email, do so to me personally, oh, I'm sure Schuyler won't 
mind if you copy him on it either. :)


1. "Every one of the Board members is individually accessible by email...."

Schuyler, some people might not feel comfortable asking a Board member 
directly via email. That's just the way it is. Some people actually feel 
intimidated by Board members. I don't, you know I'll ask you guys anything.


2. "...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...."

Blindsided? By what? This is a 501(c)3 charitable organization and as 
such is required to report and communicate specific information to 
ANYONE that requests it. It isn't some fraternal order or secret 
society. If you don't have an answer, you say "I don't know the answer, 
we'll get back to you."

And that is something I really take exception to, my colleagues? My 
colleagues were, last I knew, the ELHS membership, including the Board 
members. What do you think I put in all of my effort for? Not the Board, 
not because I don't have other things I could be doing, it's because I, 
like you, the rest of the Board and most members, believe that 
preserving and disseminating information about the EL, Erie and DL&W is 
important.

Ever since this issue was brought up it's felt like an "us" verses 
"them" situation. I hate to tell you this but it's all "us", there is no 
"them". Just because I was dumb enough to bring out in public something 
that has been festering for many years, well sorry, but too many people 
walked out of frustration than we can afford to loose.


3. "Not so. We decided to send out a mailing with the information 
regarding the Annual Meeting...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."

Schuyler, I have the complete mailing; flier, survey and return 
envelope. There is 60 cents postage on the envelope that was mailed, 
first ounce First Class and next ounce First Class. The flier alone with 
the envelope is under an ounce, with the survey and return envelope it 
is over an ounce. I do believe you are intelligent so I am sure you will 
see that it cost approximately $220 to include mailing the survey with 
the meeting flier.

Additionally, if we had waited until a postal permit could have been 
obtained for the reply envelope, that would have obviated the cost of 
any first class postage for return envelopes that were included 
(although some people didn't get them) and not returned.


4. "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."

Disrupt? What because I felt it was better to have an educated 
respondent rather than someone that may not even know how the ELHS is 
structured? How in Heaven's name is someone that has been informed about 
both sides of an issue a less valid respondent than someone that knows 
nothing? Would you condone such a premises under circumstances were it 
not about the governance of the ELHS.


5. "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."

Again, what possible useful information could be obtained aside that a 
large part of the membership doesn't or probably doesn't understand how 
the ELHS is set up to begin with? If you want to gauge something before 
and after, when was the "after" going to happen?

By the way, the survey wasn't my idea, I wanted to put a single issue 
referendum about  elections to the membership, the survey was the 
"compromise".


6. "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."

Does that include the computer troubleshooting time or just ELHS matters? :)

I believe you listen to me because I am also willing to put in the 
effort behind what I say. Schuyler, you and the Board don't seem to 
understand that I am not typical, I have no reservation about talking to 
the Board about anything. It isn't about me, it's about those members in 
the remaining 1059 that feel frustrated with not having a voice and for 
whatever reason remain silent and don't or won't contribute.

In the piece in the Extra Board, you (collectively) tout that there are 
now approximately 25 members actively keeping the ELHS running, I hate 
to tell you but that isn't a number to be proud of. That is a little 
over 2% and that includes the seven Board members!


7. "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?"

Don't be like a tabloid reporter and take it out of context. I was 
specifically referring to the by-laws, and there IS NO recourse open to 
the membership to a Board decision except to walk.


8. "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."

You're name IS Schuyler Larrabee isn't it? You did affix your name to 
the position from the Board that appeared in the Extra Board didn't you? 
You did read it right?

Now come on Schuyler, you know I was specifically referring to the 
by-laws and not to the Board. The plan fact is, the by-laws are 
collectively about the most regressive I have ever read. They are so 
completely and utterly authoritarian and empower the general membership 
with no rights whatsoever, period. I suggest that those very same 
by-laws allow the Board to amended them as they see fit. No membership 
action is need, or in fact provided for to change them. If nothing else, 
the Board can and should take it upon themselves to rectify something 
that should long ago have been corrected and in a way that cannot be 
repealed without majority membership approval.


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

This certainly is something I would rather discuss privately if you are 
interested, but also keep in mind that failure to act can be just as bad 
as acting in haste.


10. "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."

Your Bulletin Order piece in the Extra Board DOES indeed say that the ELHS website was being used. (See, I told you I'm one of the 10 that actually read your column. :}) Again, no ELHS resources where used. I wish they were and I wish that was at the Boards urging, but alas, no.

As for the cost of publishing the proposal? Considering how much membership opinion and feedback has been printed over the years (this is from the prospective of someone that has scanned almost all of the Extra Boards since they started being published) the cost is extremely minor. In fact, probably less that what was spent on the postage to mail the survey early. Regardless, I offered to pay for it out of pocket, but was told by the Chairman of the Board that wasn't necessary. You probably don't remember, do you.

As for the time at the annual meeting, how can that not be considered a benefit to members? Don't you believe that there are some members that are interested? Don't they have as much right as someone that is interested in a discussion of how to model an Erie slab side hopper? Don't the people that DO have an interest in the operations of the ELHS have a right to have their interests address too? It just might encourage a few more people to volunteer their time and effort to help the Society run. Oh, but I forgot, under the ELHS by-laws, members have no rights.

It's all about inclusion. If you pay more than lip service to encouraging people, you may not get many, but even two or three people makes a big difference.

11. "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."

Again, you know and I have stated many, many times that I have a great deal of respect for the current and past Board members and the service they have given. But don't complain about how tough it is being on the Board and at the same time not allow people that are willing to serve, do so. Last I knew, no one was forcing anyone to be on the Board, it is your choice. More I might add than the general membership has.

By the way...what in the world does the subscription level of a general purpose modeling magazine that is in a competitive environment have to do with a niche historical society's membership level? I fail to see the connection. Please reply off list since I am sure no one else cares but myself.

Will


>  
>

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