Passenger Trains > Response to 11/7 post: NARP/RPA's financial morass

The following was originally posted on November 1st. My response to correct a lot of factual errors will follow.

Date: 11/07/19 00:07
NARP/RPA's financial morass
Author: GenePoon

The following, regarding the financial condition of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, also known as Rail Passengers Association, has been put together from information provided by three independent attendees at the NARP/RPA October 2019 RailNation advocacy symposium in Sacramento, California. In the early autumn of 2017, a prosperous NARP/RPA member died; he bequeathed $4 million to NARP. In the intervening two years, NARP/RPA has burned through almost $3 million of that money, instead of using it as an endowment, protecting the principal amount, and using only interest to fund operations.

To provide his "idea" of the organization's financial condition, Chair Peter LeCody put out an agitprop graph showing that NARP/RPA had $450,000 in the bank five years ago and over a million now.  It omitted any mention of the $4 million that came, and mostly has gone, in the interim.  Unbelievable.  Well, maybe not. NARP expected the current, passenger-hostile Amtrak administration to induce more non-members to join, thus increasing its membership roster and the revenues from membership dues.  Instead, membership continues to decline due to non-renewals and few new members joining.  At the Sacramento meeting, no mention was made of how many members NARP actually has, or of the current trend of memberships.

Although its financial contribution was not in the same league as a $4 million bequest, the termination by Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson of the NARP-run Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee and the associated stipend was not mentioned. 
NARP staff has finally been instructed to come up with an operating budget that will not use any more funds from the now much-depleted $4 million bequest; unfortunately when such a budget is implemented, the result will likely be members of that very staff being laid off.

Opinion: when such organizations continue to use one shot revenues to fund operations, they eventually go bankrupt.

Response:

Gene,

Now that I'm back from vacation I can respond to your post about a so-called "financial morass".

First to correct a number of errors in your post:

In the early autumn of 2017, a prosperous NARP/RPA member died; he bequeathed $4 million to NARP.

Actually his name was George McCallum, a professor of economics from Erie, Pennsylvania. He died in 2015, not 2017 as you wrote. George had no other family members and had invested in stocks and bonds over the years. I talked with George at fall and spring meetings and he was a true rail advocate who wanted us to have a stronger and louder voice, not to put his funds in limbo. He left about $3.6 million, not $4 million as you wrote and it was received by Rail Passengers Association over a period of several years as his estate was settled, not all at once.

A good portion of the McCallum proceeds was authorized by the board and used over a three year period to fund many successful programs. His bequest to RPA was not "burned through" as you indicated. That is factually incorrect. That was a term only used, to my recollection, in an email to Council members by one of two board members that went outside of board protocol and said the entire board was not moving fast enough toward a balanced budget. It fact the entire board of 14 members, in October 2018, agreed on a plan to achieve a balanced budget by 2021 while still putting some of the bequest toward major works that have made us lounder and stronger, as George McCallum wanted. The board has moved up the balanced budget to start in January 2020.

You wrote: To provide his "idea" of the organization's financial condition, Chair Peter LeCody put out an agitprop graph showing that NARP/RPA had $450,000 in the bank five years ago and over a million now.  It omitted any mention of the $4 million that came, and mostly has gone, in the interim.  Unbelievable.  Well, maybe not.

Well Gene, we are about a million dollars stronger than we were in 2014 and that's a fact. $450,000 would not have carried the organization for more than a year or two back then and by 2016 we might have had to shut the doors. 

You wrote: NARP expected the current, passenger-hostile Amtrak administration to induce more non-members to join, thus increasing its membership roster and the revenues from membership dues.  Instead, membership continues to decline due to non-renewals and few new members joining.

Factually totally wrong. I don't know where you get your stats from Gene but membership is strong. Our KPI's (key indicators) show that membership is up in numbers and revenue this year. We have had nearly 5,000 new members sign up this year over last year. Existing members are increasing their membership giving over decreasing their membership giving by a 2 to 1 margin. 

You wrote: Although its financial contribution was not in the same league as a $4 million bequest, the termination by Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson of the NARP-run Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee and the associated stipend was not mentioned.

Actually Gene, the RPA (not NARP anymore) Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee continues to function and supply feedback to the railroad on train trips by ACAC volunteers. A part-time position by one staffer handles ACAC. Amtrak reimburses the staffer's time, RPA supplies the office and all necessities. We don't "make money" on this. Rail Passengers has the ability to offer this service to other passenger rail service providers so they can hear about their customers travel experiences.  

You wrote: NARP staff has finally been instructed to come up with an operating budget that will not use any more funds from the now much-depleted $4 million bequest; unfortunately when such a budget is implemented, the result will likely be members of that very staff being laid off.

There have been staff duties and changes made over the past four years that I have observed in my voluntary role as Chairman. People do come and go. We lost a dynamic gentleman early this year that handled policy issues when he left to join the private sector on the West coast. This year two positions were added to make the organization stronger: a fantastic Resource Development Director and a very energetic Membership Manager to work directly with our valued members.  

Your wrote: Opinion: when such organizations continue to use one shot revenues to fund operations, they eventually go bankrupt. 

Gene, I think we're doing OK. 

With regards,
Peter J LeCody
Chairman, Rail Passengers Association

I am sure Gene is very capable of responding as he is a most knowledgeable and repected person and so I am in no way intending to respond for him. That said, after reading this post this AM I feel the need to respond.. As most of this post has to do with financial situation and membership of NARP who, as we have been reminded no longer wants to be called NARP but RPA. That matter also begs a response. Members like myself have been so for a very long time. To us it is NARP not RPA and we think the latter quite frankly is rather offensive. Why? Is there something wrong with "National"? We thought this organization was supposed to be. Also why would an organization like NARP want to be confused with "Regional Plan Association"? There have been certain contexts I've seen where confusion had to be corrected. I can only assume the reason for this change is that "RPA" indeed no longer wants to be neither in name or substance to what NARP stood for, and that is something that I for one have an issue with. Every state ARP carries the name of the state. So does "RPA" think that they are such a king of rail advocacy that "National" is no longer needed? Anyway, end of that subject, except to say that it is one reason why I (and perhaps I'm speaking for others) have lost confidence and interest.

Regarding the organization's financial condition, I do not have first-hand knowledge. However I do see from Chairman's LeCody's comments that apparently not everyone is on board there regarding the subject. However if "RPA's" financial condition is wonderful and membership is growing then there is no apparent need for those of us who have been having issues to continue. If "RPA's" focus is such that it is satisfying an ever increasing number,  good enough. It just means to us (speaking of myself and others of like mind) that the organization has turned its main attention from what it once was to appealing to a different crowd now and the name change gives every evidence of the same. It also means that this being the case the organization does not need our support and further our own personal $ are better spent elsewhere.

It is not that we don't notice such things as CEO Mathew's testimony before Congress. Neither do we fail to notice any genuine effort to support the LD trains. Wherever it is seen it is appreciated, don't get me wrong.

Shall I reiterate my own personal loss of interest? Since the time that Richard Anderson became sole CEO and the departure of Charles (Wick) Moorman everything has been downhill. In spite of what "RPA" has been doing (as I have just acknowledged) there has been negative change after change with Amtrak. It is very evident that with the change of Amtrak leadership that there has been increasing and relentless negative changes. After a year of so of this it began to become ever more apparent that the airline-minded leadership at Amtrak is the problem. This leadership is not about to change it's mind because it is convinced that it is correct. Because of this it is not done doing damage, just wait and see! "RPA" seems to want to try to persuade and plead for changes rather than taking a very firm stand. It is becoming ever more evident that this is not working. If "RPA" as the "leading" passenger rail advocate does not make it clear that Anderson's direction is not acceptable, how does it ever expect to turn the tide? The arrogance that CEO Anderson displays for those not agreeing with him is appalling. It is well past time for him to go and for the Amtrak board to understand that his policies are not acceptable. Why should there be an Amtrak CEO who has not been a RR Passenger himself nor have genuine interest in his stakeholder's wishes be in this position? My belief is that "RPA" should be very vocal about this. Where NARP more likely would have been, RPA is not and seems to want to "save face".

Additional evidence for loss of interest in "RPA" is that the displeasure that should be directed towards the Amtrak CEO is instead directed to the "RPA" members that don't agree with RPA!!! This conveys the message to us as to where we stand. Further, Senators  such as Senators Moran, Roberts, Gardner, Bennet, Heinrich, Tester, Daines, Manchin and Udall as well as a number of House members seem to have verbalized more frustration with Amtrak than has "RPA". Further writers such as Andrew Selden, Dick Spotswood, William Vantuono, David Peter Alan, Don Phillips, Wayne Davis, M.E. Singer and others have written strong language to and about frustrations with Amtrak. This is where I stand at this point and I suspect that there are others of the same mind, though "RPA" will likely have some words of rebuke. 



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/19 06:49 by PRSL-recall.

In the northeast, "RPA" is better know as  totally different planning organization that has been around 80 years https://www.rpa.org/  In as much as Amtrak's legal name is National Railroad Passenger Corporation, "RPA"s legal name is still National Association of Railroad Passengers. Either term is correct, however silly some of us think their new public name is.

Representative De Fazio and Senator Moran have sent out letters with many, many co-signers from both sides of the aisle to Anderson expressing their displeasure with him and his running the LD network into the ground. Anderson dismisses them as well as the authors of NARP Director's White Paper on Amtrak's fraudulent accounting and fixed cost allocation as mere "rail enthusiasts". He also also seen fit to remove many metrics from monthly reports. Stereotyping long distance riders as "enthusiasts" is text book Archie Bunker. Anderson is a relic from the 1960's. So much for his decisions being "data driven", and without emotion. The LD trains generate more passenger miles than the NEC, the Empire Builder more than Acela. 

Playing Neville Chamberlain obviously doesn't work with a clueless bully; he has learned nothing on the job, and still refuses to use his own product, which is why many of us can advocate with Congress just fine without NARP's shackles and bring up issues that NARP won't touch. "Respect" is a 2-way street. He once ran out of a Senator Moran meeting after a shouting match with his flawed hit-and-run PPT show. He has no respect for Congress, who funds him, and none for the advocates, some of us have been at it for 40 years. Ergo, he is entitled to none in return, and that goes for Gardner and Coscia too.  



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/19 07:10 by joemvcnj.

I totally agree. RPA seems determined to keep a rapore  with Anderson when they should be trying to get ride of him more forcefully.

I have been a member of NARP way back when I thought such an organization could have real impact improving rail travel. But I became very disillusioned. I have no idea what NARP has accomplished over the decades in improving Amtrak and growing Amtrak that justified a paid staff and $4,000,000+. "Where's the beef" NARP? I am listening. 

RRBaron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been a member of NARP way back when I
> thought such an organization could have real
> impact improving rail travel. But I became very
> disillusioned. I have no idea what NARP has
> accomplished over the decades in improving Amtrak
> and growing Amtrak that justified a paid staff and
> $4,000,000+. "Where's the beef" NARP? I am
> listening. 

I have been a NARP/RPA member for 40+ years and, to answer your  question, RRBaron, I am convinced that the national network and/or Amtrak itself would not exist as we know it today if not for RPA. You can quibble over the name change but the fact is the the organization's stature has increased over the years thanks to the dogged determination of the staff in it's dealings with Congress. NARP/RPA is now in the position of being recognized by many congressional staffers as the first call they make when there is a question concerning Amtrak and passenger service in general.  I am delighted that the increased dues I pay are being put to good use.

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

There was NARP, who by the way approved of rerouting the Broadway Ltd to the unmarketable B&O based on the folly that Akron and Youngstown would more than compensate for the loss of Lima and Fort Wayne, thereby killing it, and approved killing the Pioneer and Desert Wind to restore daily service to other trains, after remaining silent when Tom Downs scrapped Heritage cars without replacements so as to shift Superliners east to replace them. 

Passenger rail service now has far wider Congressional support than during the Clinton and Bush-43 years, which is why RPA gets invited. Some of the support is a result of outrage at Amtrak's current management and their arrogance. If there was the same hostile Congress now than we had back then, it would be harder to get a foot in the door. We in NJ converted 2 rather anti-Amtrak House members to be pro - and we have tabulated scorecards on votes over 15 - 20 years to prove it. We did it - not NARP. 

Now it is RPA, with Amtrak with record high appropriations, who only wishes to tweak contemporary dining while consists are slashed for longer and longer winter seasons, Superliners leased to California, minor wreck repairs not done, defective equipment departs daily, daily loco failures on the road due to poor maintenance, fraudulent cost allocations continues - all without comment. Then Anderson trashes the concept of LD train travel every time he opens his ignorant and lying mouth, and 5 - 10 trains are on Anderson's hit list, the Sunset Ltd being next. Yet RPA is not shy about trashing other individuals and groups who don't tow the organizational line ["Don't get mad - Get Active", "Bills not Billboards" - condescending and veiled criticism of those who have called for Anderson's head; at Benet Levin who saved Toys-for-Tots, if not also a means of further pandering to Anderson], such as a Mathews column in PTJ, 2 issue ago. That all just reinforced my decision to have canceled by membership - hardly a memberhsip driven outfit.

I find out more on what is going on by the Southwest Chief's Facebook page, PTJ, and the RUN Newsletter than anything that NARP/RPA publishes.  



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/19 05:07 by joemvcnj.

Let's not forget they also told everyone that we would be "pleasantly surprised" [my words] about the first round of "contemporary dining".  What?

RPA is not Anderson’s lap dog. We do meet with Amtrak management on a regular basis and point out the good, the bad and the ugly about their plans and actions they implement.

We don’t sit on their board, we don’t own stock in the railroad, we aren’t on their management team. We can’t fire anyone. We can’t force them to change. That’s reality,

We advocate on behalf of our members and when we find issues that run counter to our mission we now have plenty of friends on the Hill to hold them accountable.

Posted from iPhone

That explains why some trains Amtrak shouldn't of gotten rid of over the years did get eleminated anyway! Also Anderson is so stubborn it's not even funny, in fact I know there's gonna be a point where if the situation he's planning on doing hits the fan again like last year with the chief, he's gonna blow his top, count on it!