"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Nothing Less Than Public Trust Is Involved

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 oa 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. . 
           
 

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

"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.

Anonymous said...


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!!!!!

Anonymous said...

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?