Big Boy update, talks on going

If you were a truly interested and involved member of the museum, you would have attended the board meetings where this was discussed. There, you would have been allowed to state your opinion.

Besides, the acquisition or deaccession of museum assets in an organization such as this would be covered extensively in a policy devoted to the topic (which--again--would have been Board approved. Because that's what they were elected to do by the membership). The deaccession of anything from a rusty railroad spike to a Big Boy may be completely within the legitimate duties of the Board--and the Board alone. 

I think that even at that time they knew that it would be a great PR tool, last steam aquired and so on, plus all the Execs came up with steam. 

I thought in an earlier posting that the Board are actually putting a package together to  the members so that they have an understanding of the situation and are invited to pass comment.

Rich and others have quoted several times here that it is the BOD that have the final say as to what happens to an item such as the BB. This is all dependant I would say as to what their constitution or equivalent says in the small print.

It could say that some items are at the discretion of the BOD and other items that form the nucleus of the collection are not at the BOD's discretion solely to make a decision,  but have to be inclusive of the members and that possibly an x% factor majority is the answer. This protects those items from what can be perceived as a possible wrong decision being made. In reality the constitution sets the direction of how the museum functions and not the BOD. BOD come and go, the constitution is more static and binding. Unless we know how the constitution is set out then we are all speculating and making assumptions incorrectly.

Neil

A club's "constitution" is usually known as "by-laws".

Hi,

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this as below:

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed?

The bye-laws etc will be a sub set of the constitution 

Big mistake. Your board of directors should have negotiated the deal in confidence, all the way through to the final deal. Then you should tell the members what you are going to do.

I belong to the Carnegie Science Center in Pittsburgh. It is a non-profit organization that owns many historical pieces of equipment, including a World War II submarine. If CSC wanted to lend, sell or otherwise use that sub to make a few bucks off-site, they are not going to consult me or any other member about that. Their BOARD OF DIRECTORS would make the deal, then announce to the members what they are going to do. That is what a Board of DIRECTORS is supposed to do...DIRECT the path of the organization for the overall benefit of the organization.

Negotiating a deal like this requires the utmost in discretion and confidentiality. You cannot maintain either by telling your entire membership about it before the deal is done.

A Museum? With a constitution? Nope. They're by-laws.

How many RR or historical museums are you a member of? You don't seem to...um...have a very good understanding of them.

Well, do you have access to the acquisitions policy? I've seen a few, and they usually don't require membership vote. And please--your constant reference to "constitutions" sort of shows how...out of touch with RR musems you may be. You seem to be in a hole that no amount of additional digging will get you out of.

So, what is this "foamer" word that Rich used?
Mad rabid railfan, foaming at the mouth? No.
Foamer: A term railroad employees use to describe a railroad enthusiast / railfan and the railfan community at large. Most often used disparagingly.

Okay...I had to look this word up.
Thanks Rich for causing me actually to engage my brain.

There does seem to be way more cooks in the kitchen than necessary with this...in the end I hope we all get to see,hear and feel a 4000 climbing Sherman Hill again.

Yeah...that pretty much nails it. 

Steve,

Can you expand as to why you feel I am out of touch with regards to how RR museums are run? It's not always easy to keep a balanced view on discusssons like this but it could show the differences between how we do things over here compared to you guys, but I am a loss at to see why it should.  A constitution or "that document" can normally be found in I would say 99% of any club/musuem etc here.  It's basically the operating manual on how it conducts itself on a day to day basis.  There is no generic "that document" that fits all, they are bespoke to each situation.  Some may give autonomy to the BOD for all decisions and some may be more complex and tie certain issues up which makes life difficult.  I have been there!  I have been on a committee/BOD, whatever you may wish to call them for 12 years from 1976 for a transport musuem, not trains but vintage commercial vehicles.  Same difficulties, different subject matter.  I have seen both sides of the coin where the "that document" can make life extremely easy or you end up with long debates which get protracted and you can't please everyone. It isn't a bed of roses being a commitee member having to make some of those more challenging decisions.

Our "that document" went into detail on how we opened to the public, acquired/disposed/leased vehicles, rented vehicle space to members own vehicles, membership (big area) as some examples and also a plan for what happens in the event of the musuem being wound up to dispose of vehicles, spares, the library and finally the sale of the freehold which today has a value of about $2.5M,  as it sits in a prime residential area.  Any monies raised would then get distributed to other similar organisations.

If the BOD behind 4014 had the power to make a decision without the members input then they should have done so, if there are reasons why they can't, then that is their direction they have to go down now.  As to my visibility to any policies they have, it isn't my right to know that, nor anyone elses really unless you are a member or looking to be a new member and wish to know more before joining.  If the BOD behind 4014 want to make known what policies they have to the Forum, then it may explain why they are where they are.  A lot of organisations don't list "that document" on their websites but I personally feel it would be a good idea to do so.

I have never said that the membership has to have a vote, I have said that dependant on the situation one finds oneself in, the course of action may be that the membership has to be more inclusive and "that document" dictates that direction.

I respect Rich for his views and beliefs and being consistant along with others that share the same. But if leaders should have such power then in four years time when your elections come up again, the rank and file will be asked to make choices and eventually a new president, but why?  If the big decisions are to be made by leaders then logic says the next president should be decided by either the outgoing or incoming elected politicians directly.

At our museum, there is nothing that is put up for the vote of the general membership. Acquisition decisions, as well as other general operating decisions as to grounds/ buildings, deacquisition/ scrapping, etc. are made by the Board or by the "elite members" (the correct name of which I have forgotten), per the By-Laws and rules of the museum.

Again the general membership is not voting on this matter.  The BOD just wants to get their opinion on this.  The BOD has been and will be the only group to cast a final vote on this matter. 

Leaders elected by a group of people in order to make decisions that affect all.  And they have a limited term and have to be reelected (or not) by those very same people.

Gee, that sounds like democracy to me.

Rusty

UP4014 I would like to say that I certainly understand the groups concerns for it's collection and it's future and I for one truely hope an agreement can be reached to please both your organization and the UP.  I must admit I am in the camp of "its better to be understeam, than sitting cold".  This w/o question will be the hardest decision this BOD has had to make in a long time and for that matter...if ever.

     At any rate thank you for taking the time to respond and explain what you are at liberty to.  I appreciate it.

Chris,

Thank you for your comments.  As evident not only here on this forum, but on almost every train forum topics have started and have received hundreds of views and responses, and for us that shows that everyone is very exicted about the possibility to have a 4000 up and under steam again, and that is what it is all really about.  The purpose of any train museum or any museum for that matter is to to preserve and educate about the past, and I can think of no better way to accomplish both then to get the engine running. 

And please if you have any question I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

John

Ukaflyer, that is some pretty badly twisted logic there, but you have actually made my point for me. You are correct in that every four years the general population of the country votes to elect a new President. However, does the President and the congress put EVERYTHING they discuss out for a popular vote? As a huge example, did Obamacare go to the overall population for an up or down vote? Of course, not. Decisions like that are made in the halls of Congress by the people we elect to LEAD the country (there's that word again.) If we don't like the decisions they make and the way they lead, then we express our opinion at the ballot box the next time around.

I think you need to step back, take off your rose-colored glasses and think about a more realistic view of that statement. Most of the posts on the internet about this subject have been in response to the way you guys have mishandled this opportunity, not about the locomotive itself. You are all behaving like a bunch of rabid foamers instead of taking the professional approach and working quietly behind the scenes, looking at this as a business decision.

The very fact that you are engaging in this discussion on this forum as a rep from the museum is evidence that you still don't get it. You've even got this all over your museum's web site home page...and it is not a done deal yet! These kinds of deals get done only when discretion and confidentiality are maintained until the deal is DONE. That is certainly not happening here.

Rich,

You are absolutely right, it was a pretty crap scenario I was trying to put over as an example and it didn't come over as I wished. In my mind I knew what I wanted to say but the fingers didn't translate it so well.

How about this one, second time lucky - I know of your involvement and passion in 765 and that ownership is with the Fort Wayne group and they have a BOD which I belive you are not one but a non exec. Say for example the FW BOD get an offer to buy the 765 and the new purchaser was going to mothball it for a few years. But the sale of 765 would oversee the total rebuild of another locomotive much respected and viewed as a real gem to be seen running again. Would you still respect the boards decision to go ahead and also expect the members that support 765 to do so as well?

I had a look at some of the other forums debating the 4000 issue and one person posted that they emailed UP to ask the current situation, the response is below.

So instead of UP driving this it appears to be the elusive third party which doesn't get mentioned much. As UP allegedly say, they have evaluated which one they consider the best option, which is 4014 and are probably waiting for the so called TP to progress further. It may make sense as to why the UP may not be so embarrassed when the cat was let out of the bag as to that the TP probably was.

As I recall, a certain individual made an "offer" to the Forth Wayne Railroad Historical Society, some years ago. The whole organization got together and TURNED IT DOWN.

Of course I would.

In this scenario I would expect our Board of Directors to negotiate the best deal possible for the Society, in total confidence and without saying anything public to anyone about it during the negotiations. Then, when the deal was done, announce it to the members. If it truly is a good deal for the Society, most of the members, who share the same vision for the future of the organization as the board, would agree to do the deal.

Would ALL of the members think it was a good deal? No, they would not. There will always be some who oppose changing anything from the status quo. And therein lies the problem. A vocal minority can crater a deal like this when sensitive negotiations are underway and discretion and confidentiality must prevail.

Discussing negotiations like this in public inevitably results in an unpleasant scenario. While the end result may be positive, the process, especially when discussed in public like this, can get ugly. It's the old "sausage" analogy in play. I'm sure everyone here enjoys eating good sausage. However, I suspect that very few of us would enjoy watching it being made.

Bad assumption. Some of us abhor sausage in any form; it's quite unhealthy with the high fat content and carcinogenic processing agents.

Which just goes to show how good people can disagree on so many different levels.

I do have a few....Seeing as your group is located in the L.A. Cty fairgrounds, do they have any issues/concerns with how or when/if the 4014 gets moved as it relates to their property?

Secondly I am assuming that the members are most likely split on this 50/50 or so and I am just curious, what is the chief concern of those that are against it?  Is it the clubs ability to "draw" people in down the road?  Or simply that the 4014 would be gone?

Again if you are not at liberty to discuss this I completely understand....Thank you.

Well...I like a good, well-seasoned sausage and eat it a couple times a month. No ill effects so far...

I think Rich hit the nail on the head, when it comes to any representative group, whether it is the board of a non profit, the executive group of a corporation, congress/legislatures, they are responsible for handling matters like this, negotiating a deal. In a corporation, such as the takeover offer of another company, the executive team negotiates the deal, it is put before the board (who represent the shareholders) and it goes through (few deals require proxy votes on the deal itself, the only kicker is the firm being bought has its shareholders sell their shares, so the other party gains control). Congress is elected to pass laws as Rich mentioned.

And I agree, this should have gone on in secrecy, funny, I would never think Trains magazines as being like the Washington Post *lol*. Seriously, there is a reason why negotiations go on in secret, it is to allow them to work out a deal without all the crap flying around as we see here, the rumors, people getting their arms up over what might be nothing and so forth. You see that with the government all the time, stuff comes out about proposed legislation that is totally bogus, or some clown with the IQ of a turnip submits an amendment, and everyone goes crazy..and what often happens is something that needs to be done doesn't get done. 

It is funny, these days we often hear references to the founding fathers, what they did or didn't do. When the constitutional convention met, supposedly to amend the articles of confederation, there was a complete blackout on what was going on their, members were not allowed to talk (reputedly, showing his wisdom once again, Washington supposedly said that anyone who publicly spoke/leaked information wouldn't be thrown out, they would be shot.....and he might have been serious, knowing Washington...). There was a reason, negotiations like that were fraught, and they knew it, the compromises that were made, the decisions to let the future worry about issues like slavery, all would have caused heated discussion and worse had it gotten out..heck, if it became known they were writing a new constitution, it likely might have caused a revolt in some quarters, because technically they were charged with amending,not rewriting, the current rules.

Trains didn't leak this first.  Going back to the original OGR post about this idea, there was an email which appears to be sent out by someone at the meeting, or well informed about the meeting. He couldn't wait to blab

I was being funny, not blaming Trains magazine at all

Yes that is where this began originally.

Sorry I'm about a week late to chime in. I'm no steam, PRR, or even GG1 expert, but I was just finishing reading Black Gold - Black Diamonds about Pennsy's dieselization. The author states that by the early 50's PRR was done with steam, shelved electrics, and was pushing for diesels based on percentage formulas. Also, wasn't N&W still building articulated Y6's into 1949, and the last steam switcher in 1960? It seems at least like if PRR wanted a GG2 in the 60's, there were still folks around somewhere with the know how.

Sam

I used to see the GG1's running up and down the Northeast Corridor crossing the Susquehanna River at Havre de Grace Maryland until some time in the late 1970s or early 1980's.  I remember driving north on I95 I495 in Claymont Delaware and seeing a yard full of GG1's waiting to be sent to the scrapper.  It's too bad camera's were not as prolific as they are today.  I read that one of the issues was a electric transformer on board the unit that contained PCB's that had to be removed from the units to comply with the EPA.  There are still 16 surviving GG1's

The last steam engine out of Roanoke was an 0-8-0 S1a #244 built in 1953.