Re: (erielack) Well, Well, Well!

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

Ken,

I don't know about too kind. What motivates me is that I truly care 
about seeing the history of the railroads and the people that worked for 
them preserved. Not simply mothballed in some university basement 
somewhere (although some of us actually enjoy the ambiance of century 
old documents), but alive and vibrant. Currently, I still believe that 
the ELHS has the best potential to accomplish that goal. I personally 
don't want anything out of this other than a strong, dynamic, involved 
organization, because I and others feel is what will best ensure what I 
believe most of us want.

I know some people question our (my?) methods and motives and consider 
those of us espousing openness as heretics, but what this organization 
and similar ones face now and in the future cannot be judged by the way 
things were. We no longer are going to get "easy members" as in past. We 
have to offer people compelling reasons to join and participate and I 
cannot overemphasize how important participation is. As Rusty Recordon 
so aptly pointed out, it has helped make the O&WRHS a successful 
organization, it can do so for the ELHS as well.

There is no secret or mystery to why the O&WRHS is doing so well, but we 
(O&WRHS) members know that to continue to be successful means keeping 
member participation high and constantly looking for new and innovative 
ways to attract and involve new people to the Society. The O&WRHS is not 
the only example of success, but it is doubly impressive when you 
consider it not only is doing well in its own right, but more broadly 
against the backdrop of being one of the top three chapters of the NRHS. 
As many here know, the NRHS generally is another organization that has 
been suffering from steadily declining membership.

Ken, I believe your point about four issues per year of the Diamond and 
maintaining its content quality is an extremely valid one. I too agree 
that weakness is already showing. I am thankful we have contributors 
such as Marty Obed, Randy Brown, Bob Bahrs and Ron Dukarm among others, 
but where are the new contributers? Who is going to write the articles 
in the next five or ten years? We younger (relatively speaking) members 
have to start contributing more or there will not be much left of value 
to read in the publications.

Even with the web site, I have had 4, maybe 5 people contribute material 
or promise to contribute, the rest so far has come from my efforts or 
from my collection. I never wanted this to be my web site, I want it to 
be the ELHS web site. I would have simply started my own were it 
otherwise. The same with the Diamond, we can leave it to Mike Schafer to 
come up with all of the content and sit back and critique it, or we can 
contribute material which we might have a passion for, to share with 
others. Mike will only ever be able to do as good a job as he has 
material to work from, otherwise he is going to end up having to fill 
pages with whatever he can. How are we going to have something 
worthwhile, printed publication or otherwise, if people won't help it to 
be so? Too many are willing to take and too few are willing to give 
anything back. It's unsustainable.

Then I think, what example do we have? Leadership and example have to 
come from the top and from my personal experiences and in my personal 
opinion, it is sadly misguided and lacking. Do as I say, not as I do. I 
do have a great deal of respect for what many current and past Board 
members have contributed over the years, but we cannot afford to be 
thankful alone for what was done 5, 10, or 20 years ago, we need 
progressive, active, participating, open leadership today. This by no 
means excludes current Board members either, but it is a choice they 
have to make for themselves. If subscribers had a say in the matter, and 
new people with the time to devote could offer to serve on the Board 
through an elective process, it might make the decision easier for 
current members. Although, not if maintaining tight fisted, complete 
control is your aim. And not if you start from the attitude that 
suggests having actual voting members are not capable of good judgment 
and able to participate in governing the ELHS. Isn't that really what we 
are being told? We aren't to be trusted to carry forward the Board's 
vision of the ELHS? Factual or implied, that is the message I get.

No Ken, I don't want to leave the ELHS, not next year and not five or 
ten years from now. But I do want to be part of an organization that 
respects it members and not feel like a necessary evil. It is made all 
the more poignant since what came in the mail two days ago but my 
membership renewal form AND ballot for the O&WRHS. One more reminder of 
the disparity of attitudes towards members between the ELHS and the O&WRHS.

The steps necessary for a democratic ELHS (an amended filing of the 
Articles of Incorporation, new, inclusive by-laws and elections) are not 
a panacea and many, maybe most current subscribers don't care. But as I 
have said over and over to the Board, don't only look at it that way, 
you have to look at it as the ten or fifteen percent (I'm guessing at 
that number, it might be higher or lower) of the members that do care 
and are willing to participate if they felt they had a real stake in the 
ELHS are the ones you need to consider most. For someone who could care 
less, they have the choice to opt out of exercising their vote, there is 
no such recourse for the ones that do care.

Yikes! Sorry for the lengthy diatribe.

Regards,

Will Shultz


Ken Clark wrote:

>3. Will, you are too kind to give these guys another year.  After 17 years as a member I am not going to renew.  It is not worth my time and effort to fight the situation.  I go to a couple of train shows every year and ELHS has 4 or 5 tables at each one (can anyone say "unrelated business income").  If an issue has an interesting article, I'll just buy it there.
>
>
>  
>

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

End of EL List Daily V3 #1493
*****************************