The reasons for this investigation

by Randy Garbin

April 24, 2003

A dirty little secret lurks in the world of non-profit organizations that belies the common assumption of altruism guiding the deeds of those involved. A close look and long-time involvement in the field of preservation and its subculture reveals viciously competitive behavior and ambition that at times seems completely incongruous given the nature of the interest. In the for-profit world, money motivates most behavior. In theory, lofty ideals and the common good motivates the individual in the non-profit world.

Sorry. That's just not the case. In the field of non-profit preservation, no one gets especially wealthy, but the drive to enhance personal credentials often results in some tragic circumstances that often contradict the ideals. Few things bother me more than to see individuals drape themselves in the mantle of "preservation" while surreptitiously engaging in activities inconsistent with that position. Such is the case within the diner world and particularly with the American Diner Museum.

I've already stated this on numerous occasions, but it bears repeating: I fully support the concept of a museum to commemorate the history of the diner industry. I do not support its creation at the cost of credibility and the willfull destruction of those very structures most regard as the crown jewel of the American roadside. I do not believe that the ends justify the means.

I have nothing to gain if this museum fails. I don't have a whole lot to gain if it succeeds, either. I have no ambitions or designs on control of this entity. I do not covet any part of its collection. In fact, if asked to become involved, I would likely decline any offer to serve again as an officer or on any of the available committee chairs. I simply want to see this organization live up to its fiduciary duties, to adhere to its own bylaws, and to stop its underhanded and disingenuous methods of acquisition. I want to again become a member in good conscience.

In other words, I want to see this museum run by professionals, rather than an enthusiastic but secretive club of diner geeks with little or no understanding of what it takes to form an incorporated non-profit and manage it with strict adherence to its own bylaws. I want to see accountability, and as long as Daniel Zilka retains any position of responsibility or power in this museum, I doubt that will happen.

I resigned as Vice President from the American Diner Museum in 1999 publicly citing growing outside commitments. Privately, I expressed more pressing concerns to Daniel Zilka. In a private letter I urged him to do some pretty basic things: Catalogue the collection, raise some real money (and not the paltry proceeds raised through feel-good bake-sale events) and to make peace with Richard Gutman, Steve Harwin, and the other giants upon whose shoulders he now stood. My pleas fell on deaf ears.

I further warned that someone like Gutman probably had the ability, collection, and contacts necessary to form his own museum while the ADM foundered. You can now go to this museum at the Culinary Archives and Museum at Johnson & Wales in Providence.

Frankly, I did not want to pursue this investigation. I would have rather put this matter behind me, but like it or not, I'm still involved with the industry and I care about the fate of the collection. Hardly a road trip takes place without hearing yet another rumor or allegation of another of Zilka's breach of ethics or a potentially illegal transaction.

When I heard last year that Robb Kok had become the Museum's President and Aaron Marcavitch had become its executive director, I saw some hope that the museum would finally clean up its act. I met with Kok soon after hearing the news to discuss the matter and to inform him of the problem he faced in getting the industry to embrace its mission. During a three hour conversation, I conveyed all the sordid stories of the misdeeds of Daniel Zilka I had learned in my travels. While I couldn't then produce hard evidence of some of the worst infractions, I reminded Kok that none of the other figures in this field have this kind of problem with their reputations.

I promised Kok my complete discretion and to stop publishing any criticism of its activities providing the Museum made a genuine effort to rehabilitate itself.

A year later, it became absolutely clear to me and to others, that the board had completely failed to impose any real oversight upon Zilka. For that, I felt compelled to break a promise and go public with just some of this information. I now consider this organization thoroughly and hopelessly corrupted.

There are certain members of this museum who wish I would keep quiet, and who believe that all I want to do is tear this organization down. Frankly, if that was my intention, I would keep quiet. No one has done a better job of destroying this museum than itself.

Some don't understand all the acrimony. They believe that we're all in it to save diners, and we should all get along. Some sit contentedly on the sidelines, professing blissful ignorance or naively following Zilka down a road that will inexorably lead them to utter disillusionment and disgust.

This organization has profusely bled volunteers over the years. Some fine individuals came on board sharing its ideals and seeking a little fun with like-minded folks. However, attending a few monthly board meetings gradually changes anyone's perception of this museum's ability to accomplish anything substantive. Anyone of who witnesses these affairs will laugh at the notion of it ever attracting sustained corporate funding.

Finally, feeling abused and perplexed by Zilka's corrosive duplicity and smarmy, dismissive attitude, earnest volunteers who dedicated substantial amounts of time and money on the museum's behalf, simply up and leave. The list of disaffected former board members and volunteers just keeps getting longer.

I regard those who profess "neutrality" as especially gutless. I don't understand this apathy and I have no respect for it. This museum has deceived people and damaged livelihoods. This is a serious matter and people who claim to have any concern for preservation must speak up now. This organization will only be saved by the outrage of its membership as it recognizes the failure of its management to fulfill the goals as stated in its own bylaws.

I am genuinely worried about the condition and security of the collection. Most of the members do not seem to appreciate the implications of this museum's failure. If the board votes to dissolve the museum or the state revokes its charter, the collection falls under the control of the State of Rhode Island, which would sell it piece-meal at auction. However, without a catalogue or a documented inventory, the state won't know what it has. Essentially, the person who holding the artifact it at the time of dissolution will become its defacto owner.

And for some reason, the fact that the most valuable of these artifacts sit in Zilka's apartment doesn't seem to bother Robb Kok or the other board members all that much.

So, I ask again, where is the outrage?

This investigation continues.