Dear Editor,
In your editorial of June 21, 2010 you make a good case for a change of governance of Meaford Hall. You find it sad that “…the characterizations of the folks on one side of this issue as being wacky left wing radicals who are all about ideals, and lack any understanding of brass tack business practices, and those on the opposite side of the fence as being hoity-toity establishment types who don’t particularly care about anything other than ruling the roost, have not only been allowed to continue, but have been allowed to flourish…”
Yet, while endorsing a change you are also perpetuating the-above mentioned mindset, by insinuating that the Task Force’s recommendations might be “…initiated with some pretty flimsy business cases.”
It seems you are simply assuming that Anderson’s statement that “there is no clear and compelling business case for a major change” represents the conventional understanding. And you do it without going into the substance of the two reports, without pointing out their merits or shortcomings.
Personally, I just want to state my case against stereotyping artists as leftist, airhead idealists. In fact, they are much more like farmers, who have to be versatile and often work at other jobs to be able to afford to pursue their art. Like farmers they are at the mercy of climate: art climate and the latest trends. Or they are like small business people who have to learn fast how to survive in the business climate where big corporations tend to eliminate competition. Artists have also proven themselves at being most capable administrators, successfully directing educational institutions, art centers, art galleries and production studios.
Even just to mount an exhibition, they have to come up with a concept, proposal and budget, pretty much a business plan and they have to do a pretty good job of promoting their work.
As for the establishment business types, the perception is that even though they may be “hoity-toity” at least they understand the bottom line and you can trust them to come up with a good business plan and expect them to execute it. It is a perception that is widely cultivated in business circles, because “perception is everything” as their proponents often claim. It is more important to lobby the politicians for looser controls and manipulate (or buy) the media for impressive publicity, than to actually produce something worthwhile safely.
It is the brilliant business types who have put the world economy and ecology into a tailspin. I find it astounding that even after the era of ponzy- schemes, hostile take-overs, Bre-Ex, Exxon-Valdese, Enron, Nortel, Bank failures and the latest BP disaster people still trust them without any scrutiny. Must be because their never-ending self-promotion, misinformation and media spin works well
Naturally, it is not my intention just to turn things upside down, only to urge people to look for the truth by reading, researching, analyzing and thinking for themselves.
Read the two reports and judge them by their merits. The majority report favours community input, openness and accountability. Do they deserve a chance to prove themselves? The minority report favours the status quo. It is not easy to check the Hall’s performance during the last, almost four years, of administration. During the first few years reported amounts fluctuated wildly and it is at best a guessing game. The Foundation’s claims can be checked against the Revenue Canada reports, which are audited reports and available on the internet.
So, do yourself a favour, forget the stereotypes, try to find out the facts and how much resourcefulness, honesty and commitment each report projects. Find out more about the people who dedicated months of their time to come up with fresh, yet well tested ways to improve life and culture in our town and then make your judgment. You do have a choice!
Gita Kikauka, Meaford
+ 1 + 0 
