Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Termination
And Other Terms":
Question for Clarification, please:
Would it be
incorrect of me to consider that the $100,000 tucked safely away in a
Contingency Fund by this not-for-profit group might be to prevent any attempts
that might be made in the future to terminate the existing board?
***************
My reading of the quarterly statement indicated net cash assets of the board are $272,000.
The $100,000. set aside by board management is to take care of the possibility there might be a shortfall of funding or the board may not be able to carry on day to day operation. The contingency provides funds for winding up the business of the centre.
It indicates to me, the board is seriously considering the possibility
the agreement will be terminated and responsibilities remain that must be met by the board.
It is simply wise planning.
It's the only formal acknowledgement I've seen of the town's authority in the matter of governance of a building owned and maintained by the municipality and funding provided from the municipality for programming.
The board's constitution provides separate and independent authority from the town.
Financial support from the town, in the way of a rent-free building. maintenance and utilities provided and financial support compromises the board's independence.
They have raised revenues. They have received donations. The piano concert series has been funded by a donation to the Culture Centre. Not the town.
There are clauses in the contract that govern disposition of assets. I doubt it would be a tidy arrangement.
A new agreement along the lines of the first agreement will not
address the problem.
It will not make the building adequate for a culture centre for the performing arts.
It will not justify separate autonomous governance of such limited space.
It will not restore the building to original purpose when $3 million of public funds were invested to create a museum with accommodation for ancillary cultural events
It will not redress the betrayal of public trust. .
Thursday, 3 January 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"It will not make the building adequate for a culture centre (sic) for the performing arts."
That opinion *might* be valid if it came from someone who had actually attended an event. Regardless, the last three years have proven that Church Street School is much more than "adequate" as the home of Aurora's cultural centre.
This entire subject is bull shit.
Just lock the building and hide the key.
After the whining and moaning subside the town should hire a few staff and operate the building as a combination historical/cultural facility.
Just get on with it!!!!!
WHAT THE HELL IS CULTURE ANYWAYS????? Can someone please answer that so that I can decide which side of this stupid debate is right?
Is CULTURE piano recitals or string quartets? or
Is CULTURE a box of doctors instruments from the 1800's?
Post a Comment