Join the discussion on the following article:
Trains News Wire EXCLUSIVE: Details emerge about proposed NRHS business model
I took a very quick look at the budget the NRHS posted on its website. My impressions:
(1) It is not a viable business model: In 2015, the budget says that there will be $608,000 in total income. Of that $608,000, $450,000 is supposed to come from donations ($425,000) and Major Giving ($25,000). If I ignore those donations, the budgeted income in 2015 is $158,000. That is a problem because the budget also calls for $289,500 to be consumed by operational business expenses (salary, insurance, audit, legal, PR, social media support, etc).
On its website, the NRHS says “In June, a special committee was charged by the NRHS Board of Directors to create a new business model that would a) stabilize the society’s financial situation and b) transform NRHS into a modern society with a vital purpose.”
I just don’t see how the proposed budget can cause a stabilization in the society’s financial situation… but I’m just an engineer, not an accountant.
(2) Poor use of donations: In 2015, 30% of the expected donations ($131,500 of $450,000) have to be spent on day-to-day business of the organization. Worse, only $100,000 of the $450,000 in donations actually gets distributed as Heritage Grants.
(3) Library Selloff: The budget calls for raising $100,000 over four years from “Sale of Library Assets”.
I can guarantee if they drop the chapter model, there will be no NRHS, as there will be no reason for the local "former’ chapters to become affiliates of the national organization.
It is an intelligent approach to their problems and I hope it works. Many of the chapters have become social clubs rather than rail preservationists, conservators, or historians. And I certainly hope there doesn’t become two NRHS’s but two separate groups with two separate names. One of the reasons I left the NRHS was the lack of direction of the organization and lack of direction and enthusiasm of the membership. Some of these changes have come about because of generation change and influence and some because of the change on the nature of the hobby. Yes, it has always been picture oriented going back to Railroad Magazine’s picture club and exchange. Color and digital photography has changed that along with the instant internet. Concentrating on the purpose of the organization toward history and preservation will serve it well working like a steering committee, as a moderator, as a financial source, and as a cooperative effort hopefully will work. And as such it need not be a competitor to the likes of the R&LHS but rather a partner and supporter. The question of losing those not interested in doing what the NRHS does my lower memberships, at least initially. But it will also give fans the freedom of doing more social meetings at less expense with fewer restrictions which in turn may bring more into the NRHS and other parts of railfaning by osmosis or exposure. Good luck to all…
Excursions are what sometimes draw me to conventions. The cost is what sometimes keeps me away. I would suggest supplementing the all day excursions with shorter, but less expensive ones, similar to the Train Expo in Owosso.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Civil War Trust
Sounds like the end of NRHS. If I want to donate funds to preserve something why wouldn’t I give it directly to the group doing the preservation? As a member since 1975 I would hate to see the NRHS disappear but frankly the hobby has changed so much that perhaps it’s no longer relevant.
I’ve been a member since 1982 and tried to keep an open mind about the proposed changes, but I have formed the opinion that the NRHS is in a lose-lose situation. Continue as is and die a slow death or adopt the new proposal and commit hara-kiri right away.
Doesn’t impress, I won’t be ponying up for membership anytime soon. Are we creating a group of elitests to attempt to dictate what should and shouldn’t be saved. Personally I’ll vote directly with my donations.
Doesn’t impress, I won’t be ponying up for membership anytime soon. Are we creating a group of elitests to attempt to dictate what should and shouldn’t be saved. Personally I’ll vote directly with my donations.
The NRHS might as well go ahead with this plan. I see a lot of chapters jumping ship and going independent anyway. The question is, will the National still charge members exorbitant dues?
Mr. Rowell has a good suggestion about conventions. Shorter excursions would be good. However, fewer excursions and more other stuff as proposed will seriously cut attendance.
The Civil War Trust minimum membership is $35.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation individual membership is as low a $20.
National Trust celebrates National Lands Day at Washington Union Station on September 27 from 10:00am to 3:00pm in an effort to clean up Columbus Plaza
correction:
The Civil War Trust minimum membership is $35.
The National Trusts for Historic Preservation individual membership is as low as $20.
The National Trust celebrates National Lands Day at Washington Union Station on September 27th, from 10:00am to 3:00pm, in an effort to clean up Columbus Plaza.
As far as NRHS convention excursions, it’s been a while since main-line steam has done the honors. One past convention had 3 engines. The times they are a changin’ just like us old-timers. Oh well, at least there are videos to remind us of the “Glory Days”.
As far as NRHS convention excursions, it’s been a while since main-line steam has done the honors. The times they are a changin’ just like us old-timers.
I sense a large increase in membership in the RL&HS.
I think preservation is a great idea that truly does give the NRHS focus, purpose and utility. I hope the board will go along with it, although I’m sure it will be resisted by some. For socializing and running fan trips, there should be a conversion from NRHS chapters into locally-named railfan clubs for “boys who just want to have fun”–not that such clubs can’t also become involved in preservation efforts.
R&LHS seems to run a national office and provides a dues structure that is more realistic. No indication that NRHS has ever sought competitive bids for its office contract. All this restructuring does not address the costly overhead arrangement that consumes a larger portion of each member’s dues every year. (Not to speak of those renewals that are getting “lost.”) The National can’t look in the mirror or be transparent about the real problem. The alternative of collecting (say) $400,000 so that they can donate $100,000 to preservation IS the unsustainable option. Your preservation money should go directly to your local or regional museums where every dollar arrives where it is intended. Concepts are great cannon fodder, except for some of us who looked at the numbers. The proposal should be rejected as it will no doubt accelerate the downward spiral.
It looks to me like they need to take a very serious look at their financial picture( ie: their cost of administration, management services, etc.). When a donor gives money to a cause, they want to see more than 30% of their donation going to the cause, not overhead. Most would rather give directly to their chosen project, such as Friends of the E B T, Friends of the C & T, or Fire up 611. I have been a member for more than 30 years and never been in a chapter. Their publications need to change and stop being just another rail magazine that can’t come out on time. The electronic format for the newsletter is the way to go, less costly and more timely. I am also a member of RLHS and they put out scholarly work and have a nice short but informative annual meeting that does not last 7 or 8 days. These week long conventions (NRHS & NMRA) are getting really costly.