Re: (erielack) Unansered Questions

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

Yes Schuyler,

That is correct and the three Board members consumed 40 minutes, I used 
10 minutes, Mike Connor and his comments another 6 or 7 minutes total 
and we had a hard cutoff time of 6:00 PM because the discussion time as 
switched from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM for what reason I do not recall at the 
moment. We did run over the 6:00 PM time by a couple of minutes, but 
because of the dinner serving schedule, we did not go more than that few 
minutes over. So about 6 or 7 minutes were left to ask questions.

Yes, I said to you at the time that I had the questions provided by 
several members to present and yes I did not jump up first thing to 
present them because I wanted to give other people a chance to speak 
first since I most people already knew my position. No one though so 
much time would be consumed by Board members or by myself. It did not 
leave much time for folks to ask questions, particularly when people 
were obviously feeling tentative as several members said to me after the 
session.

That was why the questions I had from others were not asked and that was 
what we spoke of at the time. It is not what I was referring to 
specifically about not receiving a response, that was a conversation 
when we had  both returned to our respective homes after the convention 
and email follow up reminders you had requested. I have no doubt you 
forgot about the whole course of the conversation since I do know how 
notoriously bad your memory is. Beyond a point though it is your 
obligation as chairman to follow up not mine to keep reminding you. That 
responsibility comes with the territory you voluntarily accept.

As for having the questions before hand? That point was beaten to death 
before the meeting, the salient point being, the Board members wouldn't 
have prior knowledge of them if the people were able to ask them in 
person and an immediate answer for a specific detail was not expected. 
It was ok to say "we'll have to get back to you on that", as long as 
follow up did actually happen.

Oh, as for the three people that did ask questions? Although there 
again, more accurately they were statements, not questions, one person 
stated they felt everything was fine so why change it, one said that 
elections are a PITA and from his long experience (he is 24) with the 
other society he is a Board member of and not worth wasting time with 
and the third stated he could see pros and cons of both sides of the issue.

For those people that did not attend, the most telling commentary was 
when I asked how many members in the room were over 50. More than half 
of the people raised their hands. Then how many members were over 30, 
most of the rest raised their hand. Finally how many members were under 
30, one person raised their hand.

Come on people, what does that tell you about the future of the ELHS? 
It's in BIG, BOLD letters staring everyone in the face. If you don't 
care about preserving the history of the DL&W, Erie and EL beyond your 
own lifetime, I suppose it isn't important. Some of us want there to 
still be an ELHS when we reach 55, 65 or 70. Some of us believe that the 
memory of the people that made these roads what they were deserve better 
than to fade into obscurity when we are all gone.

We HAVE to start finding ways to encourage younger people to become 
members. That issue will face almost all rail historical societies and 
the ones that deal with it have a chance to survive. One place to start 
is to start motivating current members to have more of a vested, active 
involvement in the ELHS. Members that actively participate, and that 
activity might simply be contributing material to be published on the 
web site or in the Diamond or Extra Board, are the best way to 
demonstrate the value of being a member to others. And speaking as an 
O&WHS member, that I believe is one of the not so secrets to success. It 
wasn't always so, but several years ago forward thinking people made it 
happen.

Regards,

Will

Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

>For the sake of accuracy, I need to amend this post:  There were three members
>of the Board who spoke at the Jamestown meeting:  Larry DeYoung, Rich Behrendt,
>and Tim Costello. 
>
>SGL
>
>  
>
>  
>

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