BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF
STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
_______________________________________________
In the
Matter of the Application for Removal
of the
Trustees of the Rhinebeck Aerodrome
Museum by:
CARLE
J. KOPECKY, JOELLYN A. KOPECKY,
STEVEN
J. SWEENEY, PARKER
ACKLEY,
GWEN
ACKLEY, CHARLES
L. DAY,
ALEXANDER RHODES, MICHAEL O’NEAL, and
File
No.
MARTHA
ESCH,
Petitioners,
-against-
DEAN RYDER,
JAMES KICK, TERRANCE
MCCLINCH,
BILL SEGALLA, PAUL HEIMBACH
and
1-10 being
any other trustees whose names and addresses
are
presently not known,
Respondents.
_______________________________________________
PETITION FOR THE
REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES
OF THE
Petitioners
Carle J. Kopecky, Joellyn A. Kopecky, Steven J. Sweeney, Parker
1.
At all relevant
times, respondent
2.
At all relevant
times, respondents Dean Ryder, James Kick, Terrance McClinch, Bill Segalla, Paul Heimbach
and Stanley Segalla are members of the Museum board of trustees and their addresses are: Dean
Ryder, P.O. Box 10, Carmel, NY 10512; James Kick, 38 Bank Street, New Milford, CT 06776;
Terrance McClinch, 2661 Congress Street, Fairfield, CT 06824; Bill Segalla, 110 Allyndale
Road; Canaan, CT 06018; Paul Heimbach, 183
Journey’s End Road, South Salem, NY 10590 and
Stanley Segalla, Box 179, Canaan, CT 06018 (“Trustees”).
3.
John and/or Jane Doe’s
1-10
are any other trustees whose names and addresses are presently unknown to petitioners, and
the Museum’s attorney, Dennis B. Schlenker, Esq. is being served with a copy of these
papers on their behalf.
4.
Petitioners are
individuals, some of whom were formerly members of the board of trustees of the Museum or
are citizens interested in the protection and preservation of our American aeronautical
patrimony and related artifacts.
5.
Respondent
Trustees have repeatedly neglected their role as guardians of the Museum in the public
trust. Quoting the American Association of
Museums Code of Ethics, "This stewardship of
collections entails the highest public trust and carries with it the presumption of
rightful ownership, permanence, care, documentation, accessibility, and responsible
disposal." The cost of the Trustees’
neglect and disregard for their responsibility to the Museum and the public has been
damage and continued threat to the integrity of the world-class collection of aeronautical
artifacts owned by the Museum. As detailed
below, respondents have engaged in repeated and persistent misconduct, neglect of duty,
diversion of and waste of assets, failure to maintain adequate records regarding the
disposition of donated funds, failure to secure valuable and historically significant
assets, conflict of interest, misrepresentation to a public body, and failure to carry
into effect the educational purposes of the Museum, thereby violating the terms of its
charter and the Rules of the Regents governing the operations of chartered museums in New
York, as well as other state regulations and generally accepted codes of ethical behavior.
6.
The
petitioners therefore request
that the Board of Regents remove the current respondent Trustees and any other trustees
whose names and addresses are not presently known pursuant to The
Rules of the Board of Regents §3.31, 8 NYCRR §3.31
and supervise the installation of a new board of trustees and reorganization of the Museum
through by-laws amendments including election of trustees by the membership.
I. Respondents’ Misconduct:
7. Respondent
Trustees have acted and allowed others representing the Museum, including employees, to
act in a manner which represents a conflict of interest and/or unethical behavior
according to generally accepted non-profit and Museum codes of ethics. The American Association of Museums Code of Ethics
states:
"Loyalty to the
mission of the museum and to the public it serves is the essence of museum work, whether
volunteer or paid. Where conflicts of interest
arise – actual, potential, or perceived – the duty of loyalty must never be
compromised. No individual may use his or her
position in a museum for personal gain or to benefit another at the expense of the museum,
its mission, its reputatio, and the society it serves.
EXHIBIT 7 American Association of Museums Code of
Ethics
7.1. In December, 2006, Chad Wille, a pilot and mechanic on the
payroll of the affiliated Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Air Shows, was elected to its Board of
Trustees. On
7.2. Reinstatement of employee Eugene DeMarco in 1998 after his
prosecution for possession of stolen property in the form of a Piper Cub aircraft, for
which he pled Nolo Contendere. Trustees Richard King, Anna Kirschner and Barbara Schreiber
resigned in protest of this action and Trustee Scott Brewster was removed by the Board,
without due process, after reporting it to the Chartering Office. The action against Mr. Brewster violated the
Museum's by-laws and Regents Rules, and the continuation of Mr. DeMarco's status as a
representative of the Museum in dealings with potential donors are both misconduct. EXHIBIT 7.2 Minutes of
7.3. Refusal to terminate or sever the affiliation with the
aforementioned Eugene DeMarco from the Museums after receiving evidence in 2003 that he
had placed his personal collecting interests between the Museum and the donor of another
Piper Cub aircraft. In 1999 DeMarco produced
and signed false documents accepting a donation of miscellaneous aircraft parts from
Alexander Saunders, offering those false documents to the donor, and taking possession of
the aircraft himself. Saunders turned the
documents over to Museum staff in 2003. After
an investigation which was hindered and delayed by several Trustees, a majority of the
Trustees voted to retain DeMarco without punishment. Trustees Charles Day and
7.4.Trustee
James Kick has served as the insurance agent for the Museum without full, written disclosure of any financial gain that may or may
not have resulted from such service. This is
at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
8. Donations
of funds have been sought from the public for at least two projects which were never
completed. Tracking of these funds was
inadequately detailed and the ultimate disposition of these monies remains unclear. One of the projects was funded, in part, by legally
restricted funds derived from the sale of objects from the collection, and from an agency
of New York State government.
8.1.In 2001, a
fund-raising goal of $50,000 was reached, triggering a matching $25,000 Challenge Grant
from the Thompson Charitable Trust. The stated
purpose of this campaign was to install temperature and humidity controls in the History
of Flight Museum building. This building
houses some of the oldest and most valuable original aircraft of the collection, including
a unique 1908 Voisin-type aeroplane. High
humidity plagues this building year-round, componded by severe heat in the summer, which
is extremely detrimental to the wood and fabric structure of the oldest airplanes, as well
as being corrosive to the metal parts. The
only improvement made was the installation of a rudimentary propane heating system for the
winter. To date, no further improvements have
been made and the remaining funds are unaccounted for.
According to IRS Form 990 for 2005, the Temporarily Restricted Fund balance
is zero The disappearance or re-allocation of
these funds without the express permission of the Thompson Trust is misconduct. EXHIBIT 8.1 IRS Form 990 for
2005, page 4
8.2.From the
late 1990s through 2003 the Museum undertook a project to build an authentic, flying
reproduction of Charles Lindbergh’s Spirit of
St. Louis. A hangar was specially
constructed to house the airplane. Proceeds
from the sale of a Rausenberger engine from the collection were to be devoted to the
restoration and overhaul of an original Wright Whirlwind engine, and other funds were
applied to the project, including substantial amounts raised from members of the public,
one of whom was Reeve Lindbergh, daughter of the trans-Atlantic aviator. In 2002, a $25,000 NY State Economic
Development Grant was received for this project. The
grant award clearly stated its purpose,
“The project
will include the construction of a fully operable, exact reproduction of Charles Lindbergh’s
famed Spirit of St. Louis. Visitors to the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome will step
back seventy-five years in time and get a first-hand opportunity to witness the Spirit take flight again from another grassy
8.2.1.
Throughout
the Spirit of St.Louis project, confusing and
conflicting financial reports were disseminated on the cost of the project and disposition
of these legally, and donor-restricted, funds. A
$1,500 donation from Central Hudson Electric and Gas, intended for the Spirit project was re-allocated, improperly, to the
Restricted Fund of Deaccession Proceeds by the Board of Trustees. Since a Board-imposed cap on allocations from the
Restricted Fund to the Spirit had allegedly
already been reached, this effectively denied the donor’s intent. In 2003 work on the project was terminated, and
various trustees and other spokesmen made conflicting statements as to whether the nearly
completed airplane would be finished. Despite the statement in the Fall, 2004 issue of the
newsletter by Trustees McClinch and Kick, ". .
. we assure you that it will be completed and put into service in the near future”
no further effort has been put into
the Spirit project, other than to mount the
uncompleted and uncovered wing and taxi the airplane during air shows in 2007. This ill-considered action risked contaminating the
exposed wooden wing structure with oil and dust, making the integrity and airworthiness of
future adhesives questionable if the wing is ever completed. The unclear
tracking of these funds and three-year suspension of the project while other restoration
projects were begun is misconduct in the form of a serious breach of the public trust. Operating the airplane with the wing incomplete is
misconduct as a waste of a valuable asset and possibly a willful act of sabotage. EXHIBIT 8.2.1 Acknowledgement of Charitable
Contribution signed by John Borchert, Central Hudson Energy, June 27,2001; EXHIBIT 8.2.1a Minutes of March 21,2002; EXHIBIT 8.2.1b Rotary Ramblings, Fall, 2004, page
2; EXHIBIT
8.2.1c Photo and commentary of taxi
demonstration.
9. Trustees have demonstrated a continuing lack of knowledge
of, and contempt for
9.1. Since the resignation in 2003 of Board Secretary Peter
Truesdell, the Trustees have failed to keep complete and accurate minutes of the
proceedings of all meetings, and have repeatedly refused to provide reasonable public
access to such minutes as do exist, and to detailed financial information as required by
law. In violation of the ten days notice
requirement of its By-laws, Article I Section 4, the Board of Trustees has a history of a
few members making decisions between board meetings and communicating them to staff as
verbal directives. Written notice of these
conversations and their results have routinely not been provided to fellow trustees. EXHIBIT 9.1 Letter from former
Trustee Carle Kopecky to the Board, Sept. 21, 2002
9.2. Numerous requests for access to the minutes and to
financial records have been rebuffed or ignored. In
a January 28, 2006 e-mail to Gwen Ackley, former trustee Richard King stated that he had “...tried to get minutes of meetings, but
Jennifer, the [office] secretary tells me that they don’t keep minutes of meetings.”
EXHIBIT 9.2 e-mail from Richard King to Gwen
Ackley, January 28, 2006
10. The
Trustees knowingly provided false or misleading information to the Town of Red Hook Zoning
Board regarding construction of a hangar in 2005.
10.1.
According
to the Red Hook Zoning Board Minutes of April 4, 2005, a dilapidated hangar was granted a
waiver for replacement without the required Site Plan Review and associated State
Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). This was
based on the assurance that “...the proposed
hanger is the same size as the damaged hanger, will be constructed on the same footprint
of the damaged hanger, and involves no substantial site improvements.” The original hangar, an open-sided structure,
approximately 33 x 40 feet with a dirt floor, could house at most, four small airplanes. The new hangar’s dimensions are 55 feet x 80
feet, large enough to house up to eight airplanes, according to the Museum’s website,
with walls, a concrete floor and electrically-operated door.
The excavation for foundations and floor constitutes significant site
improvement, as seen in the accompanying photographs, and failure to reveal the actual
size and scope of the project was misconduct as a violation of environmental and zoning
law.
EXHIBIT 10.1 Town of Red Hook Zoning Board Minutes of April 4, 2005; EXHIBIT 10.1A oldrhinebeck.org/news_archive.htm
February 21 and March 30, 2005; EXHIBIT 10.1B letter
from Steve Sweeney to Paula Schoonmaker, April 21, 2005 with photographs
10.1.1.
Quoting
again from the Zoning Board Minutes, “Mr. Horrigan [the Trustee’s representative
and then air show director] explained that David Palmquist, director of Museums for the
State of New York, had informed the Aerodrome that it must protect its collection of
historic airplanes and artifacts or risk losing its 501(c)3 museum status. Mr. Horrigan
said that if the Aerodrome were to lose that status, it would no longer qualify for the
grants and funding that would allow it to survive. Therefore, the immediate replacement of
the storage hanger was imperative.” This
is an overstatement of whatever Mr. Palmquist may or may not have told them, since the old
hangar had not been used for aircraft storage for several years and, combined with the
understated size and scope of the proposed building project, constituted misconduct in the
form of a deliberate and successful effort to mislead the zoning board which granted the
waiver. EXHIBIT 10.1 Town of Red
Hook Zoning Board Minutes of April 4, 2005
II. Respondnet’s Neglect of Duty:
11. The
Board of Trustees has failed to make detailed, proactive long-range plans for investment
in the areas of the physical plant and aircraft restoration, resulting in the reactive and
ill-considered expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on projects of questionable
value. Long-range planning has never been seriously undertaken, although one was
apparently begun as early as 1998. A committee
was appointed in December 2000, and in 2001 aerial photographs were taken to prepare for a
topographical survey. In February 2002, the
Museum director presented a draft plan to stimulate discussion, but it was not adopted. At a Board Retreat June 1, 2002 it was agreed to
create a site-planning sub-committee which would prepare a concept plan to the Board by
November 21, 2002. This did not occur. Regents Rule §3.27 Paragraph c(2)(i) requires a
museum to "prioritize its activities to meet its mission statement" EXHIBIT 11a, Minutes of December 14, 2000; EXHIBIT
11b, Minutes of February 21, 2002; EXHIBIT 11c,
Long Range Planning Agreements May 31-June1, 2002, page 1
11.1.
The majority of the Museum’s operating funds are
derived from weekly air shows, conducted on its grounds by an affiliated Chartered Museum,
Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Air Shows. This is
also the primary way the collection is interpreted to the public. Therefore the Trustees have a responsibility to see
that air show flight operations can be conducted. Encroaching
development of land surrounding the flying field threatens continued operations, but
despite significant overlap of the trustees serving on both the Air Shows and Museum
boards, there was no commitment to the acquisition of adjacent land and its associated
airspace when the opportunity arose. Specific
examples include:
11.1.1.
In 1999 the property
belonging to the estate of Robert Love, adjoining the flying field and including a house
and a hangar, came on the market. Mr. Love had
documented and complained of many violations of FAA minimum altitude regulations over the
house. Prior to its chartering as a Museum,
the Aerodrome's owner, the late Cole Palen had offered to purchase the property for
$267,000, but passed away before completing the transaction.
As executrix of the Love estate, Mr. Love’s daughter Marion, offered
the property for sale to the Museum for $225,000 - well below the Palen offer - before
putting it on the market. A succession of Trustees, including Dean Ryder, negotiating on
behalf of the Board refused for months to offer anything close to this, finally claiming
that the property was actually worth less than an “appraised value” of $188,000
due to its proximity to an airport! This
appraisal ignored the special value of the airspace above the property for flight
operations, which Ryder himself acknowledged twice during the Board meetings of July 1 and
August 12, 1999. A motion to offer $200,000
made on August 12 was not even seconded. The
property was sold in September for $230,000 and the Museum began renting the hangar from
the new owner. Trustee Ryder, a banker who
could have helped arrange for favorable financing, and the Board lost the opportunity to
ensure the future of the institution, choosing instead to exercise their “stewardship”
by appearing to protect the Museum from possibly paying a bit too much for this invaluable
property. Ownership of this property would
have provided less restricted airspace for flight operations, a hangar, and a house with
attached 2-car garage and basement workshop which could have been put to any number of
uses, such as a collection storage and library facility, conservation workshop, etc. This missed opportunity was a serious neglect of
the duty of care and stewardship to ensure the organization's future viability. EXHIBIT 11.1.1
Minutes, July 1, August 12, and September 9,1999; EXHIBIT
11.1.1a e-mail from Marion Love,
executrix.
11.1.2.
As early as August,
2002, the Town of Red Hook Planning Board requested a long-range plan from the Museum, to
be delivered by September 25. The Town’s
interest was in how their zoning board might work with the Museum, particularly in regard
to the Becht farm located off the north end of the runway, to prevent future housing
development in the interest of flight operations. Their
overtures were not even seriously considered and no official response was made to this
request. According to the minutes of the
August Board meeting, "Dean [Ryder] suggested
that we tell them that we intend to continue what we are already doing, just bigger and
better with new buildings. Jim Kick suggested
we mention that we intend to promote tourism." EXHIBIT 11.1.2 Minutes of August 15, 2002
11.1.3.
In August 2004, the
adjoining Becht property was sold as a tax foreclosure to a developer. No offer, even for a portion of the land closest to
the runway, was made by the Museum. This
represents another missed opportunity to prevent the loss of operating air space due to
encroaching development. Not until January
2005, upon the urging of then Dutchess County Representative, now Assembyman Marcus
Molinaro, was the Town’s interest was in placing a conservation easement on the
former Becht farm even considered, but never acted upon.
In February 2007, the Town announced the protection of 126 acres of this
property, in cooperation with the Winnake Land Trust – still with no participation or
comment from Museum officials. However with
six new homes to be allowed on the easement, the chairman of the town's Open Space
Advisory Committee commented, "But I think it
remains to be seen if there is a sufficient buffer from the aerodrome, which is an
important economic contributor to the local economy." EXHIBIT 11.1.3 News
article, Poughkeepsie Journal, February 20, 2007.
11.2.
In the Winter of 2005, a decision was made by the
respondent Trustees to erect a new $120,000 hangar on the far side of the runway
(inaccessible to the public) to replace an open-sided structure that had deteriorated. According to an estimate recorded in the Minutes of
January 11, 2000, that old hangar could have been replaced with a similar, open structure
for approximately $17,000. Nowhere in the
Draft Long-Range Plan was there mention of building such a large hangar in that location. Rather, it called for improvements to existing
hangars and a comprehensive plan for future buildings.
The decision to build was made after experiencing a combined operating
deficit for the Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum and Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Air Shows in 2004
of more than $62,000, and coincided with ongoing repairs to the New Standard N176H and
other costly projects. But the lack of any
grants or fund-raising activites for either project while membership and other
contributions plummeted, resulted in a combined year-end deficit of an additional $111,848
in 2005. The decision to build, and
particularly its timing, represent an imprudent neglect of the duty of care for the
organizations financial resources. EXHIBIT 11.2a
Minutes of January 11, 2000, page 2; EXHIBIT 10.1a 2005 news articles in the Museum's website; EXHIBIT 11.2b Analysis of combined (Museum and Air
Show) IRS Form 990s for 1994-2005; Long Range Plan Draft of 2/16/2002, pages 13,17,18,19.
11.3.
A
New Standard D-25 biplane, N176H, was restored in 2001-2002 for passenger carrying
operations at air shows and other exhibition sites away from the Rhinebeck Aerodrome. The decision to operate this second rides airplane
was based on estimates of the potential for earned income, but no formal business plan or
cost-benefit analysis of any kind was made. After
the aircraft crash-landed in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on July 30, 2002, a second, more expensive
(in excess of $100,000) repair was immediately begun. This included fabrication of a
completely new fuselage, despite the fact that the previous April the Board voted not to
sell either of the two extra fuselages the Museum already owned. Still there was no plan or timetable for the
recovery of these funds and, unlike the Spirit of
St. Louis, no fund-raising campaign for either the restoration or the repair was ever
undertaken. There is no record in the Minutes
that the Museum Board ever formally authorized all these repairs. This is another neglect of the duty of care for the
organization's financial resources through imprudent decision-making. EXHIBIT 11.3 Damage Assessment on New Standard,
September 2002; EXHIBIT 11.3a
Minutes of April 18, 2002.
12. The
Board has consistently failed to hire, retain and adequately support the efforts of
competent professional staff and volunteers. This
threatens the integrity and security of the collection and makes the museum vulnerable to
loss through lack of adequate fiscal controls.
12.1.
Except for a two-month period in 2003, the Board failed to
hire a fully-qualified professional executive director.
The position was vacant until 1999 when the first of a series of
semi-qualified local individuals filled the position.
The bookkeeper, reporting personally to the Board Treasurer, refused to
allow these directors access to the financial files on the computer. A national search for a Managing Director began in
late 2002. The position was filled by a
highly-qualified individual, Stephen Cunningham, in May, 2003, only to have him resign two
months later in July because of the conduct of the Trustees.
Since this time there has been no qualified director of the Museum. A succession of Air Show directors have acted as
spokesmen for the Museum, but lack the authority and essential qualifications in
non-profit administration, education and collections care, to carry out the Museum's
Mission and care for its assets. This is
another neglect of the duty of care through the establishement of adequate internal
financial controls, as well as the duty to carry out the corporate mission by hiring staff
who are qualified and empowered to do so. EXHIBIT 12.1 Stephen Cunningham letter of resignation.
12.2.
In spite of the Museum collection's 1995 appraised value
of more than $4.5 million, there has not been a qualified curator, either paid or
volunteer. No individual is held responsible
for the integrity of the collection, and no comprehensive inventory has been made. As a result, several artifacts are known to be
unaccounted for. Even an entire engine was
missing for several months, and its whereabouts during this time have never been
disclosed. This is certainly a neglect of the
duty of care for the Museum's assets.
12.2.1.
In the summer of 2005
the Museum's rare 1935 Indian-4 motorcycle was disassembled, then the component parts were
left in an unsupervised and insecure location for many weeks. During this time the magneto and possibly other
parts went missing. It is unknown whether a
Museum visitor or a member of the staff is responsible for this disappearance. EXHIBIT 12.2.1
Affidavit of Parker Ackley; EXHIBIT 12.2.1a
Photo of Indian Parts on open shelves in public view
12.2.2.
At the end of January
2006, a freshly-overhauled, 160 horsepower Gnome rotary engine of 1918 vintage was
missing. Volunteer and Air Show pilot Dan
Taylor reported the loss to at least one Trustee, James
Kick, who did not act on this information for several days before
authorizing Taylor (upon Taylor's insistence) to notify the police. Taylor was then suspected of taking it, and the
police investigation focused on him. Meanwhile,
a description of the engine was widely circulated, mostly by concerned individuals outside
the Museum, to try to locate the engine. December
2005 newspaper articles from New Zealand indicated that filmmaker Peter Jackson (King Kong, Lord of the Rings) had made a deal with
the Te Papa Museum to license an exhibition based on his Lord of the Rings movies, in
return for the Museum acquiring an engine "found
somewhere in the northern hemisphere" for his Sopwith Camel, which is powered by
a 160 horsepower Gnome. It is significant to
note that the aforementioned Eugene DeMarco works or has worked for Jackson and flies his
Camel. After the engine's disappearance had
been made public, a February article on the Lord of the Rings exhibit stated that, "Correspondence shows the [Te Papa] museum was concerned the deal could be
controversial." The article also
stated that although more than one engine had been sought, a Beardmore engine had been
purchased for Jackson's Camel by the Te Papa Museum. However, a Beardmore can not be
mounted in a Camel, being a water-cooled stationary in-line engine, not an air-cooled
rotary radial engine as all Camel engines were. Rhinebeck's
engine mysteriously reappeared on April 1, 2006 at the Museum, in a different location
where it was known that Taylor would be working that day.
The engine had been partially taken apart and reassembled while it was
missing. The Board has offered no explanation
of this incident, and no charges have been filed. The
failure to immediately and diligently try to locate the engine, then determine who was
responsible for its disappearance and reappearance is an unbelievable neglect of the duty
of care. EXHIBIT 12.2.2 E-mail from Gwen Ackley citing
outside efforts to locate engine; EXHIBIT 12.2.2a
Museum's Gnome bulletin; EXHIBIT 12.2.2b Museum
web site news article, April 3, 2006; EXHIBIT 12.2.2c
Articles from New Zealand newspapers
12.2.3.
Nearly 15 years
after its chartering, the Museum still has not begun a comprehensive inventory of all the
engine parts, instruments and other aircraft components, not to mention vehicles,
uniforms, tools, artwork, documents and other artifacts of the collection. A list of the major objects in the estate of the
late Cole Palen remains the basis for tracking the whereabouts of the collection. Money authorized for curatorial training of the
Museum director in 1999 was not expended. Since
2005, members of the public have noted the unexplained disappearance of several engines,
airframes and a uniform from exhibition. The
lack of a comprehensive inventory, especially after the disappearance of the Gnome engine,
underscores that the Trustees have not taken fundamental stepts to exercise their duty of
care for the collection. EXHIBIT
11.1.1 Minutes, July 1, 1999
12.3.
Respondent Trustees have failed in their fiduciary
oversight responsibility of the Museum. Between
1998 and 2004, Museum admissions ranged from $18,000 to $30,000 per year. In 2005, admissions suddenly jumped $52,002 to
$71,155, an increase of more than 3.7 times the prior year.
That same year, air show admissions declined 25%. However, the Museum’s Temporarily Restricted
Fund declined from $52,273 to zero with no noticeable progress on either the Thompson
Trust grant or the Spirit project. This indicates a serious misappropriation of
restricted funds or a serious bookkeeping error, either of which constitutes a neglect of
the Board’s duty of care through fiscal oversight. EXHIBIT 12.3
Spreadsheet Analysis of IRS Form 990, 1998-2005; EXHIBIT 12.3a Chart, Gate Receipts and Temp.
Restricted Funds
12.4.
In 2006, the membership program was discontinued, even to
the point of returning membership dues contributions to donors, in spite of substantial
operating deficits suffered in 2004 and 2005. It
was only reinstated after considerable public outcry.
One of the promised benefits of membership, namely the scheduled publication
of the newsletter, Rotary Ramblings has not
been fulfilled since 2005. Several members who
have tried to renew their membership in 2007 at the new, higher rate have not had any
response, and checks remain undeposited after several months. EXHIBIT 12.4
e-mails from members; EXHIBIT 12.4a
C.F. Gray membership appeal
III. Respondents’ Failure or Refusal of the
Institution to Carry Into Effect Its Educational
Purposes:
13. The Trustees have failed to make comprehensive plans for
audience development through advertising, promotion and educational programs other than
continuing to pour resources into the repair of the New Standard N176H for the dubious
benefit of passenger operations at other air shows. They
have also failed to take advantage of publicity opportunities that became available and
their actions have driven away volunteers who helped with education and public relations.
13.1.
Attendance
has dropped sharply, mostly it is believed because of the adverse publicity generated by
the poor quality of the air shows and public criticism of the management of this
world-famous institution. The Trustees
response has been to cut advertising and then complain of the air show's inability to
compete with attractions like theme parks. EXHIBIT
13.1a Complaints of audience members and web postings by members of the public; EXHIBIT 13.1b article
in Atlantic Flyer; EXHIBIT 11.2b combined
analysis of IRS Form 990 returns filed by the Museum and Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Air
Shows; EXHIBIT 13.1c Graph of revenue vs. advertising.
13.2.
In 2005, an advertising and directional sign located on
the property of the Ruge's car dealership at the intersection of Rts. 9 and 199 was
falling apart. Pilot Dan Taylor donated the
design services for a new sign, obtained prices and made a formal proposal to the Board of
Trustees, with numerous follow-up requests for action.
His initiative was ignored, the sign fell down during the winter of
2005-2006, and has not yet been replaced.
13.3.
In February 2007, the Trustees failed to have any presence
at the annual Westchester County model airplane show, where the Rhinebeck Aerodrome had
advertised and recruited members for many years, usually bringing a full-size airplane for
display.
13.4.
In 2006, the Smithsonian’s National Air & Space
Museum invited the Aerodrome to bring the replica Santos-Dumont Demoiselle airplane and a
speaker to the Smithsonian's 100th Anniversary celebration of the first airplane flight in
Europe, by Alberto Santos-Dumont. All
arrangements were to be made by the Smithsonian at no cost to the Museum. This offer was ignored by the Trustees -- an
unbelievable refusal to carry out the educational purpose of the Museum at such a
prestigious venue.
13.5.
While lavishing funds on a second New Standard rides
plane, the Board of Trustees obstructed and finally halted the construction of what would
be the most historically-accurate Sprit of St. Louis
reproduction to date, when it was nearly completed (see above). This is a project of recognized educational value,
since that aircraft and engine, together with Lindbergh’s innovative planning and
navigation, combined in a technological breakthrough that inspired a generation, including
the Museum’s founder, the late Cole Palen. Beginning
in June of 2007, the Spirit began ground taxi
demonstrations in the air shows even though the wing wass incomplete and consists only of
the bare wooden framework. If this was an
attempt to demonstrate intent to complete the airplane, it had just the opposite effect,
because the oil, dust and other debris thrown back by the engine and propeller would
contaminate the unfinished wood, preventing a sound, airworthy bonding of glue and other
adhesives needed to finish the wing. Failure
to properly complete and fly this aircraft is a refusal to carry out the educational
purpose of the Museum. EXHIBIT 8.2.1c Photo of
Spirit of St. Louis being taxied.
14. The
condition of the collection has deteriorated rapidly and its integrity has been and
continues to be compromised. Donors offering
significant contributions of time and money for preservation have been rebuffed or
ignored. Significant original artifacts are
being sold or traded from the collection in return for replicas.
14.1.
In 2002, magazine publisher, Bertram Kalisher, offered to
support the protection and preservation of the Museum’s antique automobile
collection. The Museum's collection of antique vehicles is second only to its aircraft
collection in terms of educational and technological significance. After funding the publication of a brochure
highlighting the vehicle collection, Mr. Kalisher offered to organize a committee to raise
funds for the construction of a period-looking garage on the Museum grounds. His proposal, which included a detailed
fund-raising plan, was brought to the attention of the Board at its November, 2002 meeting
at which the Board authorized the committee to proceed.
However, the project was allowed to lapse and there was no followup with
Kalisher. While certain restoration works are
publicized, other important parts of the collection are deteriorating due to neglect as
basic as leaving antique vehicles stored for weeks with their wooden-spoked wheels
immersed in water. Failure to provide these artifacts with the necessary
standard of care and interpretation as is a neglect of the duty of care and refusal to
carry out the mission of historic preservation. EXHIBIT 14.1 Letters from Bertram Kalisher,
November 15 and 18, 2002; EXHIBIT 14.1a Minutes
of Vintage Automobile Committee, November 9, 2002; EXHIBIT 14.1b Minutes of Board of Trustees,
November 21, 2002; EXHIBIT 14.1c Excerpt
of a letter from Alexander Rhodes, September 3, 2006;.
14.2.
By failing to complete the installation of the temperature
and humidity controls in the History of Flight building, funded by the Thompson Trust
Challenge Grant above described, the Trustees are allowing the exhibits and collection to
deteriorate. This insulated steel building is
so inadequately ventilated that condensation forms inside, and on the artifacts within,
during humid summer months. Particulary since
funding was available, this constitutes a neglect of the duty of care and a failure to
carry out the mission of historic preservation for some of the most valuable and fragile
artifacts in the Musuem’s collection.
14.3.
By
allowing unskilled or incompetent individuals to restore, maintain and operate artifacts
leased to the affiliated Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome Air Shows, the Trustees have caused the
destruction, premature wear, deterioration and loss of rare or irreplaceable artifacts and
their component parts.
14.3.1. In 2005, the 1917 Ford Model T roadster was found to have
had its 6-volt battery replaced by a 12-volt battery and a resistor (to reduce the voltage
back to 6-volts) that generated such excessive heat that it scorched the wooden dashboard
on which it was carelessly mounted. The 1920
Buick had a modern fuel pump installed that was so powerful gasoline sprayed out of the
carburetor, creating an obvious fire hazard, yet both of these vehicles were operating in
the weekly air shows. This is a failure to
carry out the Museum's historic preservation mission. EXHIBIT 14.3.1 E-mail correspondence
between Todd Scheff and Gwen and Parker Ackley,
August, 2005.
14.3.2. The rare, original 1929 Davis D-1W aircraft was suddenly
removed from flying status in 2005. Instead of
being placed on static display, it was disassembled, the fabric covering stripped from the
framework, which was left standing exposed in the front of an open hangar for two years
with no preservation. Photographs taken in
2006 indicate that substantial corrosion is now occurring on the exposed structure. This is a failure to carry out the Museum's historic
preservation mission. EXHIBIT 14.3.2 eyewitness reports and photographs.
14.3.3.
Repairs to the original 1918 American-built Renault FT light tank, the only example in operating
condition in the Western Hemisphere, resulted in the addition of an improper long cannon
barrel and a chrome-plated motorcycle exhaust pipe. This
is a failure to carry out the educational mission of the Museum. EXHIBIT 14.3.3a Museum website article; EXHIBIT 14.3.3b historic and current photos.
14.4.
The Board has failed for more than two years to hold
meetings of the Collections Committee and the Education Committee, both of which had met
regularly with considerable volunteer participation and written recommendations to the
Board until 2004. Currently, the Collections
Committee communicates only by e-mail and has only three members, two of which, Chad Wille
and Joe Gertler, have antique aircraft parts and restoration businesses of their own. EXHIBIT 14.4 E-mail from William King, May 23,
2007; EXHIBIT
14.4a Joe Gertler web site; EXHIBIT 14.4b Chad Wille internet page
14.4.1.
The Trustees continue to
engage in improper and ill-advised de-accessioning of objects from the collection for sale
or trade. It was reported in the Spring of
2007 that two extremely rare and significant World War I aircraft engines were being
traded for a fairly common replica airplane. The
engines, which are the only examples in the collection, are a 120 horsepower Mercedes used
in early German observation and fighter aircraft, and a 70 horsepower air-cooled Renault
used in early French observation and training planes as well as the famous British B.E.2c. To allow these two artifacts to pass into private
hands, perhaps overseas, would be an inexcusable failure to carry into effect the Museum's
purpose: " To acquire, restore,
construct and exhibit to the public, World War I vintage aircraft and memorabilia related
to the World War I period for the educational enrichment of the public and To visually portray the scientific developments of
aircraft construction and related machines employed during the said era." EXHIBIT 14.4.1
Certificate of Incorporation, Rhinebeck Escadrille Research Center, re-named
and provisionally chartered as Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum, March 27, 1992.
14.4.2.
In August 2007, the
Aerodrome advertised its DeHavilland Puss Moth for sale, but only on a Moth collectors web
site in England. The ad declares it to be
"surplus to the collection" which it is not, according to the Museum's own
collections management policy, it being the only example in the Museum collection,
complete (although disassembled) and potentially airworthy, and historically significant. A similar Puss Moth made the first East-to-West solo
crossing of the Atlantic in 1931, making this original Lindbergh-Era aircraft as important
as the replica Spirit of St. Louis. Disposal of this aircraft would be a refusal to
carry out the educational mission of the Museum.
EXHIBIT 14.4.2
Puss Moth internet ad and e-mail; Exhibit 14.4.2a Collections Management Policy, as
Amended October 27, 2000
14.4.3.
As of the Fall of 2007,
the whereabouts of several other recently-exhibited artifacts, including the last
remaining Raab-Katzenstein glider, a World War I Italian Isotta-Fraschini airplane engine,
a 1920s Armstrong-Siddeley "Genet" airplane engine and a World War I American
uniform tunic, are unknown to the petitioners.
14.5.
The location of a large new hangar on the far side of the
airport runway makes a substantial portion of the collection inaccessible to the visiting
public during weekdays because FAA regulations prohibit anyone except licensed pilots and
authorized airport personnel from crossing an airport runway. This is another unnecessary failure to carry out
the Museum's educational mission.
15. Respondent Trustees have repeatedly scorned the advice and
counsel of staff, volunteers and even fellow Trustees with both experience in museum and
non-profit administration and long association with the air shows at Old Rhinebeck
Aerodrome, dating back to the time of its private ownership.
These individuals, possessing specialized talents, knowledge and experience
with this unusual collection, have either resigned or withdrawn their support because they
could not in good conscience be part of the persistent unethical behavior of respondent
Trustees. Other employees and volunteers were
deliberately terminated or intimidated with false accusations by the respondent Trustees.
15.1.
In 1999, Trustees Richard King, Anna Kirshner, and Barbara
Schreiber resigned in protest of the reinstatement of Eugene DeMarco after his conviction
for possession of a stolen airplane. Trustee
Scott Brewster also verbally resigned, then sought advice from the Museum Chartering
Office. At the March 3, 1999 Trustee meeting,
Brewster expressed his desire to remain on the Board.
The remaining Trustees, without due process, declined to reinstate him. EXHIBIT 15.1 Minutes, March 3, 1999
15.2.
In July, 2003, Trustee
15.3.
In late 2003, volunteer Christopher Rogine was arrested,
accused of having stolen a NASA parachute given as a gift by the late Cole Palen to the
Museum. Only one such parachute of two
formerly owned by Palen was listed on the inventory created upon the transfer of the
collection from the estate of Cole Palen to the Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum. That parachute was found to be still in the Museum’s
posession, but Rogine was prosecuted until the case against him was dismissed in December,
2004. Rogine has still been unable to have his
confiscated parachute returned. While not
holding back his criticism of decisions and practices that Rogine did not feel were in the
best interest of the Air Show and Museum, Rogine had been an active volunteer, serving on
the Education Committee and the Collections Committee.
15.4.
Dan
Taylor, an Air Show pilot who had been very active in promoting the Museum, restoring the
oldest types of planes and attempting, as a volunteer, to care for the collection in
general, was suspected by the Trustees of stealing the Gnome engine that he himself
reported missing in 2006. The investigation focused exclusively on him while nothing
was done to identify any other suspect, until the engine re-appeared without explanation
four months later. Taylor had also voiced criticism of Air Show and Museum
management practices in appeals to the Board of Trustees.
15.5.
Chief
Mechanic/Pilot/grounds caretaker Ken Cassens and his assistant Scott MacKenzie were
terminated without explanation on Friday, November 7, 2003. This arbitrary action resulted in the loss of many
volunteers and contributors who worked with and respected them, including but not limited
to:
15.5.1. George Buso, who withdrew his Charitable Remainder Trust
bequest for one-fourth of the remainder of his lifetime trust fund, valued in 2000 at
$216,202. EXHIBIT
15.5.1 Correspondence from George Buso
15.5.2. Kurt Muller, who overhauled engines such as the famous
1918 12-cylinder Liberty, the 1918 Mercedes powering the famous Fokker D.vii fighter replica, the 1910 Hall-Scott engine of
the Curtiss D, and the 3-cylinder Anzani
powering the oldest flyable airplane in the Western Hemisphere, the 1909 Bleriot xi, as well as building a new wooden covered bridge
for the air field entrance. EXHIBIT 15.5.2 E-mail from Kurt Muller
15.5.3. Michael O’Neal, a noted aviation artist who had
organized an annual aviation art show at the Museum.
15.5.4. Parker and Gwen Ackley, who cared for the antique fashion
show collection, made the arrangements for the Museum’s annual appearance at the
Concours d’Elegance antique car show in Greenwich, Connecticut, performed numerous
public relation services including donating professional graphic design services, and
generally helped during air shows.
15.5.5. The Mackenzie family, Scott, Helga and Robert, who
performed aircraft, automobile and motorcycle maintenance, worked in the gift shop and
generally helped during air shows.
15.5.6. More than 250 people who have indicated their displeasure
and concerns with the current Trustees by pledging financial support totaling more than
$90,000 in cash, goods and services via the independent non-profit corporation Old
Rhinebeck Aerodrome, Inc., contingent upon the resignation of respondents and the
implementation of certain reforms. EXHIBIT 15.5.6 Web site of Old
Rhinebeck Aerodrome.org
16. Upon information and
belief, there may be other acts of commission, omission and/or wrongdoing of respondent
Trustees and Museum which are presently unknown to petitioners. In the event such conduct comes to light during
this proceeding which support findings of misconduct, neglect of duties and/or failure or
refusal of the Museum to carry into effect its educational purposes, then it is
respectfully requested that such commission, omission and/or wrongdoing be included as
part of this petition.
WHEREFORE,
petitioners respectfully request that the Board of Regents remove respondent Trustees for
misconduct, incapacity, neglect of duty and failure or refusal of the Museum to carry into
effect its educational purposes and supervise the installation of a new board of trustees
and reorganization of the Museum through by-laws amendments including election of trustees
by the membership.
Dated: December
__, 2007
___________________________________
Lillian S. Weigert
Gellert & Klein, P.C.
Attorneys for Petitioners
75
Washington Street
Poughkeepsie,
New York 12601
(845)
454-3250