Cheap Bastards

For all the funding they receive I would hope the Southland Museum and Art Gallery could invest a little more money in a few 3M removable hooks!

I went to the museum today and was irritated by the cheap and ineffective method of hanging up the headphones.

They have five televisions at the top of the stairs in an all black alcove, because of the darkness I did not see the headphones beneath each screen.  Then my five-year old squealed as something in the darkness went thud.  The wide band headphones had come off their brass L cup hooks (like you buy at Mitre 10).   Even with the hook screwed in traditionally it would only just fit the band but these idiots screwed it in right next to a vertical batten (?) which reduced the hook size to about 15mm.  Hardly enough room to hang a tie let alone hefty hi-fi headphones.  I spent the next five minutes picking up headphones only to hear thud, squeal (as each promptly dropped again and startled a tired belligerent five-year old who was already on edge because she had earlier ‘heard’ the Roaring 40′s sea-lion).

I assume they couldn’t find a dwang and choose to mount the hooks on the stud next to the batten.  Maybe the battens are metal (too busy picking up headphones to find out) so they couldn’t screw into them, buggered if I know (or care).  Splurge out with that ratepayer funding and buy some 3M stick on hooks!  Please!

I must mention the embarrassment I felt over little things like the ineffective hooks, obscure signage and lovely old brass telescope that had what looked like tin foil wrapped around part of it.  Why?  We all know that things haven’t changed much for years but the average tourist would be unaware of that but the tacky shit like headphones and tin foil say something else…cheap bastards

The Museum Letters

As Cracker has pointed out, we have more people supporting the museum.  Since they aren’t declaring themselves, here is all the trustees of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust

Darren Ludlow
Alan Dennis
Wayne Harpur
Gavin MacPherson
Wallace Jack
Gwen Neave
Anthony Laker
Donald Mowat

And don’t bother looking for last year’s financial information, that was due 31 December 2011 because it’s not there (even though they are given six months from their end of year!)

Meanwhile I’d like to say to Don Mowat that swimming pools have ratios of user pays and ratepayer funding (45%/55% I think) to adhere to.  I hope the museum has something similar in place.  I assumed Pottinger’s comments about ‘standing on their own feet’ referred to attracting their own patrons as opposed to benefiting from people using the i-site.  That is how I interpreted it anyway.

I’ve been having problems with the scanner/printer (and kids) so will try to catch up on any letters to the editor.  Meanwhile if you need a particular one, let me know (c.teau@woosh.co.nz)

UPDATE

I’ve had a phone call that confirmed what I thought (but I went with the Charities Commission list), that the trustees I’ve listed is not current.  I’ve checked with the October 29 2010 appointments and the appointed trustees from ICC are Darren Ludlow, Lloyd Esler and Graham Sycamore.  So the question for me is why the hell would a right minded council (or anyone else) contribute toward a $24M upgrade when the trustees can’t even fulfill their responsibilities under the Trustees Act 1956 and Charities Act 2005.  It’s pretty simple, fill in a Notice of Change and send it to the Charities Commission WITHIN THREE MONTHS.  While your at it please ensure your finances are filed by the due date.  There is no way I support any funding toward the outdated museum without compliance.  What else hasn’t been done?

I suggest you get onto that Chairman Ludlow.

 

Invercargill City Council Catch 22

Cracker has been discussing the issue of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust and the possibly orchestrated letters to the editor.  The issue of bias has arisen and it reminds me of the first time I spoke before Council.  I was so naive that I used the wrong term when trying to express that anything the Bluff Community Board wants from the Bluff Community Charitable Trust they get and vice versa.  I called it conflict of interest when I should have said bias and/or pre-determination.  I have up-skilled since then but even then I knew the legal opinion wasn’t factoring in all the relevant information.  The lawyer only assessed the request based on the law whereas the the client (ICC in that instance) has policies imposed upon them by law.  The lawyer, I believe, should have factored in the Governance Statement and it’s requirements.

When ICC’s policy statement regarding Outside Organisations is applicable to someone appointed by council to a Trust, the problem arises.  ICC policy states that ‘people (not just Crs) appointed to other organisations must represent Council views’.  It’s all well and good on a committee,working group or incorporated society.  Trusts are very different though because trustees have requirement to act ‘in the best interests of the Trust’.

Council decisions aren’t usually in the best interests of any Trust, ask the Scottish Hall trustees, read the Bluff Community Pool Trust Deed, just look at the white elephant that is Bluff Town Hall (the examples are probably too long to list).

Cr Esler has a conundrum.  While he has written to the paper expressing his view as a ‘member of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery Trust Board’ he may not have factored in that he only holds that position as a local government elected member.  Once council have made any decision relating to moving the i-site he will have to publicly sit down and shut up BUT what happens at those trust board meetings is where he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t?  It’s a catch 22 created by council and they probably don’t give a s#!t but it does make me wonder?

BTW – As the i-site is what looks like a business arrangement between ICC and their joint committee Venture Southland and a rental scenario with the museum trust and we have Pottinger, Esler and Ludlow on those varying groups, shouldn’t they all be singing the same tune?

Haven’t got time to do the links right now, will try later…18 month old just put PC on standby now climbing all over me!

The horse has bolted

I’d mentioned Cracker’s post about the Pyramid on Gala cafe and that ICC were advertising for staff and now it seems that even though the proposal is obviously going ahead we have it in Public Excluded at Tuesday’s Policy meeting.  Bit late isn’t it?  Shouldn’t we have sorted ‘negotiations’ out before advertising the positions?

Given Darren’s attempt’s to calm concerns on Paddy’s blog, I wonder why bother with negotiations if you’ve already committed to the proposal.  What sort of position are you to negotiate after the horse has bolted?

I also wonder why we have the Museum Trust if they only ‘monitor the management contract, currently held by ICC’.  The fact that in 2010 the Trust received $1,071,486 in grants from ICC and Southland Heritage Committee (partly funded by ICC) and the contract to manage the facility is $1,071,486.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that it isn’t an arm’s length transaction based on the actual costs involved with managing the facility.  Puhleeease!  They get to keep the $6,000 bequest though, how fortunate!

So if they got $2 million, would it all of a sudden take $2 million to manage it?  Looks dodgy to me.