Has the veil of secrecy (gag order) been removed on this situation at SDRM for anyone to comment? It looks like a case study worth other RR museums taking note.

See the Flimsies news story link.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20021115-9999_7m15museum.html

Oops! I see this news was posted earlier.
Nevertheless it's a clarion call to the "Enrons" of the RR museum world to get your house in order before the "stockholders" (members & volunteers) do it for you.

> Has the veil of secrecy (gag order) been
> removed on this situation at SDRM for anyone
> to comment? It looks like a case study worth
> other RR museums taking note.

> See the Flimsies news story link.

>I think the first problem is that there was a 25 member board. Inevitably, a board that size encourages factionalizing-contrary to popular belief more is not always better.

Secondly, in 650 people-maybe 10-15 has the experience to be an effective board member. That means 40-60% was probably the folks that get on boards as rewards for long service.

If this group is smart-they'll find 5-9 folks who have the grey matter and time.



superheater@beer.com

Huh?! What kind of logic is that?

> Secondly, in 650 people-maybe 10-15 has the
> experience to be an effective board member.
> That means 40-60% was probably the folks
> that get on boards as rewards for long
> service.

> If this group is smart-they'll find 5-9
> folks who have the grey matter and time.

I hear another RR museum had a board member and exec. director resign today over the failure to overturn a motion requiring that three board positions be nominated from the membership. They were pushing a full self-perpetuating board which essentially disenfranchied the paying members.

> Has the veil of secrecy (gag order) been
> removed on this situation at SDRM for anyone
> to comment? It looks like a case study worth
> other RR museums taking note.

> See the Flimsies news story link.