There have been several knock-down-drag-out elections and financial disasters at several of the major western railroad museums over the years that I am aware of.

In one case in particular there was a self appointing board of trustees that had lost their way. The museum had totally lost focus on its purpose, and since the volunteers didn't do what the board ordered them to they had to resort to a paid executive director who then needed an expensive downtown office and support staff. The end result is that the primary purpose of the staff was to find money for their salaries. Several members had set up a for profit corporation which ended up contracting with the museum to run their special operations using museum equipment and rights in exchange for use of the facilities and maintaining the museum's equipment. This private operation actually had a worse business plan than the museum, and it was suspected, but never proven before his untimely death, that the museum's executive director was an investor/owner in the private company.

The situation grew worse until one of the former board members met with an attorney and found that under state law, there could be a petition to recall the board. The required signatures were gathered by a group of formerly active members, and of course the board refused the recall and dug in its heels. As a result, suit was filed in state court which forced the recall election, which was actually done by a CPA independent of the situation. Amazingly, the first recall vote was a dead tie. At some point the board's insurance carrier told them they were on their own and that their errors and omissions insurance did not apply to their refusal to follow state law. Some "dissident" members had banded together and paid for several mailings using the membership roster which I recall was supplied by court order. The board had claimed a decent profit for the previous year, but upon examination of the financials it was apparent that they had shown a sizable restricted endowment donation as general income and never expensed it out of the general fund into the restricted account, leaving the museum with an operating loss for the year. This and other questionable practices as well as the general deterioration of the collection were carefully explained to the membership and resulted in an overwhelming recall on the second vote.

Then the election of a replacement board fiasco began. Both sides put up numerous candidates, but the "dissidents" created a coalition of formerly and currently active members that agreed to a common message and ran together under a single campaign and were elected to every board position. between the initial recall petition and the seating of the replacement board took about a year. Some of the existing volunteers left while others returned. Everyone worked together to try to salvage the situation. The paid staff and leased office space was terminated. The new president submitted his bill for the attorney's fees to force the recall, which the board had to refuse because there was simply no money. The president wasn't happy, but he did negotiate the museum out of the outstanding debts the new board inherited, including the previous boards attorney's fees. The museum separated itself from the for profit company. Years later the museum is stable with an entirely different business plan and solid finances, very few employee costs, is growing and attracting new volunteers. New bylaws are in place, parts of the collection have been restored as well as new acquisitions, and the library now has a permanent space. The current successors to the for profit company continue to have questionable business practices and financial issues.

So what does this have to do with FRRS? Simple - if the current board did nothing wrong and is willing to stand by their actions and financial records, and if the dissidents are making nothing but wild accusations with no basis, then why not let an open and fair election go forward? The membership has the duty to elect members who will manage the non-profit consistent with the public trust it operates under.

FRRS seems to drag out the election process. According to their website, the nominating committee is appointed no later than the previous August to recruit candidates. Nominations are only open in January. By Feb 9th, the candidates must submit their informational statement and $100. The last day for a candidate to withdraw is Feb 28th. The ballots are to be sent out by April 20th at the latest, so nothing apparently happens in March. By May 9 the board appoints those who will count the ballots, and all ballots must be returned by May 23. The annual meeting is held on June 6th where the results are announced.

From their campaign guidelines regarding a candidate's statement:

(K) Such statements shall only pertain to the candidate and his service and qualifications; statements in opposition to other candidates shall not be permitted. Statements and names of Members endorsing candidates shall be allowed with said statement; statements in opposition to other candidates shall not be permitted. The Board of Directors shall review all candidate statements for proper statements of qualifications and return any candidate statements that do not meet the Code of Ethics and/or bring discredit or embarrassment to the Feather River Rail Society, or to their profession in any activity.

Candidate will have 48 hours to respond or return a revised statement.

Such statements shall not exceed one sheet of eight and one-half by eleven inch paper; however, candidates or others may utilize both sides of the paper. The corporation shall pay for the cost of mailing these statements with election material.

Each candidate or members submitting a statement will be responsible for the cost of the printing of said statement. Likewise, in the event it becomes necessary to use a mailing service, the fees from any mailing service shall be similarly prorated. The Committee may require an advance deposit of the prorated share of the costs prior to the printing and assembly of the ballot mailing. Currently there is a flat rate charge of $100.00 (subject to change, due to printing costs) for the inclusion of the candidate’s statements, the cost of which is to be borne by that candidate him/herself. Any candidate submitting a statement shall be required to submit the payment at the time the statement is presented, to cover costs of reproduction and mailing preparation.

Members and or candidates can submit additional material at their own expense, under the same guidelines, review and timelines as candidates’ statements. The organization shall not incur any cost for any additional cost for printing and/or mailing.

(end quoted passage - begin my comments)

Note that the sitting board (not the election committee) "shall review all candidate statements for proper statements of qualifications and return any candidate statements that do not meet the Code of Ethics and/or bring discredit or embarrassment to the Feather River Rail Society, or to their profession in any activity." In this particular election, there are three incumbents running for reelection, one of them being the President's wife. Could you imagine if in the next US presidential and congressional elections those currently in power had the right to approve or reject what any opposing candidate might say in their campaign? I agree that there should be some reasonable restrictions, and you really don't want to see any personal attacks, but if a candidate's statement is negative or has baseless or personal attacks, I doubt the voting members would elect them. Write in candidates are allowed, but without access to communication with the members there is little chance they would be elected if a full slate is available on the ballot.

Is it bad when a sitting board member (not standing for reelection this year) states, in his position as a museum director on a public blog "We have an attempted mutiny on our hands folks, it's time to make these lowlifes walk the plank." in regards to the opposition candidates and other members/volunteers supporting them? Non-profit organizations are not a monarchy or dictatorship, they are governed by a democratic republic system where the elected board members are tasked with the responsibility and honor of representing the museums best interests. That doesn't mean you will have the unqualified support of all the members, but you should have gained the respect of the majority of them. There are those who enjoy causing trouble and there are always personality conflicts, but all board members must learn to rise above conflict and challenges and act in the organization's best interests, including accepting criticism for their actions.

So my advice (thankfully as a bystander with absolutely no dog in the fight this time) is simple (or not):

FRRS - Agree to allowing the opposition candidates to appear on the ballot. Have the board refer the approval of the candidate's statements to the election committee which shall not include any member with a potential conflict of interest. Allow reasonable criticism of the museum's current board and past actions. Allow every candidate equal access to the corporate records. Limit each candidate to a one page statement, which shall be distributed by the election committee to each candidate. Up to one additional page may be used by each candidate for a rebuttal to all the other statements. The committee mails the statements to the voting members. Make the financial and collection/asset inventory/disposition records for the last few years easily available to the members now. (Like an event recorder, if you were following the rules it will exonerate you - if not, it could hang you.) Board meetings for regular business must be open and available to the general membership. If meetings are to be held electronically instead of in person, then open access must be provided to the members.

To both the incumbents and opposition - Refrain from personal attacks and negativity. Stand by your previous accomplishments and state your vision for the museum's future. Don't just point out the problems, offer your ideas of specific solutions. Don't make blind or unfounded accusations. Let the voting members decide for themselves. Compromise and settle this now, out of court. If this process gets tangled up in court, it will cost the museum money, volunteers and damage their reputation. If any sitting board refuses to allow the possibility of evolution, they may be faced with revolution.

I am really disappointed in all this. I thought better of FRRS and those I've met over the years. My soap box has collapsed, so this will be my last comment until the court hearing. May the ultimate winner be the FRRS members preserving railroad history for future generations.