"tension"

"...I think Jason raises legit issues in terms of managing the "tension" between need for fund raising and the goal of historic preservation and interpretation."

Agreed. I understand his point about what should be the proper balance between interpretation and collection preservation. I would suggest, however, that this is a policy issue that should rightly fall under governance rather than under management, i.e. the board of directors formulates policy and management executes it. Since CRRM is a membership driven corporation, the lever that members have is in the election of directors (assuming that the by-laws prescribe this). This doesn't mean that members ought to go around threatening directors with being voted out of office on every decision they disagree with. But it does mean that the board has an accountability to the members and the management has an accountability to the board.

Two other points: 1) I noticed from the 990 that most of CRRM investment assets are unrestricted. That's an enviable position to be in because it allows greater flexibility in matters of historic preservation activities. 2) John, I recall on several occasions you making an important distinction regarding historic railway preservation organizations between those that become more of a professional/sophisticated operation vs. those that remain more of a club. With either approach, you gain something and you lose something, wouldn't you say.

BTW, I couldn't agree more about the value of transparency. A lot of mission-driven organizations preach it, but a lot fewer practice it.