SMAG art decision ‘premature’
I read with concern about recent decisions concerning the Southland Museum and Art Gallery (Southland Times, August 2).
I’m sorry to see that SMAG’s board accepts that the proposed ACI arts centre in Wachner Place will be the major art display space in Invercargill.
Cr Ludlow might think that this decision will not remove the AG from SMAG but I fear that this decision is crucial to SMAG’s future.
Why not wait until the SMAG review is completed?
Surely such an enduring and successful institution deserves its board going into bat for it.
I’ve recently donated art works to the SMAG collection, choosing SMAG because I’m Southland born and because SMAG is a combination of museum and art gallery. I wanted these items in public ownership, not private collections.
Museums usually retain collected items; art galleries have a nasty habit of selling off paintings to pay for the roof, staff wages or just because of current fashion in an ephemeral art world.
Numerous New Zealand art gallery collections have been pillaged by management of one form or another for a variety of transient reasons.
I’m concerned that SMAG retain ownership of gifted art works, not just mine, and seek a public response from the board. Janice Gill
Forest company
I already had a copy of the investigation from the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) and was interested to read the article in your paper (July 25) regarding council owned companies Invercargill City Forests Ltd and Forest Growth Holdings Ltd.
A ratepayer could rightfully ask why a company which was 49 per cent owned by ICC would buy up a series of forests in Wairarapa solely for the purpose of on selling those assets to a Wairarapa company owned by an Australian investment company, in contravention to our overseas investment law.
While the company claimed it did so on legal advice, we will never know who gave that advice and what was the advice, as it will be claimed as legally privileged.
There are two more important issues for our group.
Why does Dean Johnston, the company director and also ICC Director of Finance state that ‘‘paying the settlement was a better utilisation of company funds rather than continuing to litigate through the courts’’.
I find that statement outrageous.
The company has had a chance to put its position and legal advice to the OIO investigator and now tries to obtain the moral high ground by suggesting a court challenge could have been taken, but they are thinking about the costs (which impacts dividends / profits back to ICC if they lost in court). And to further state that the $50,000 settlement was already provided for by the company and would not affect ratepayers, is also outrageous.
Of course the company will have some funds carried over from a previous financial year, to cover any investigation outcome, via contingent liability accounting.
But the bottom line is that if the company had not breached New Zealand law, that funding and settlement of $50,000, could have been part of annual profit and dividend returns to ICC.
It is our view, that the forestry subsidy of ICC does not provide an adequate annual return to the council.
Nobby Clark, Invercargill Ratepayers Advocacy Group
A trend developing?
First Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, now Don Brash’s speaking engagement at Massey University has been shut down.
Is anybody sensing a trend? To all those who say Don somehow deserves this sort of treatment, here is a quote from renowned left wing thinker, Noam Chomsky: ‘‘If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.’’
Who will be next?
Nigel Sim