Bureau has strong critic

Press, 4 March 1978, Page 7

Bureau has strong critic

The auctions of the Christ.-! church Convention Bureau; had been “stealthy, reprehensible, and a shallow attempt to pre-empt the functions of the Canterbury Public Relations Office,” said the director of the Canterbury Progress League (Mr Angus MacKenzie). Mr MacKenzie told the annual meeting of the local iward of the Counties Associ-

ation that the Public Relations Office of the league was “better equipped than any other body in the province to run conventions.” “How was the Counties’ Association to know whether the public relations office was more deserving of! county funds than the convention bureau?” asked Mr J. M. McKenzie (Heathcote). “You are the lolly you want us to lick. Why couldn’t vou work together?’” Mr MacKenzie replied that he deplored the existence of the bureau, but could see no reason why the two organisations could not work closely together.

“The convention bureau is not going to increase the use of the Town Hall one iota the way it is going about it,” he said. The chairman of the meeting (Mr C. N. Mackenzie) said: “We need one body, not several hiking off on their own lines. Two or three bodies each doing the same thing weakens the whole situation.”

“If things come together a little bit, some of us will see some light,” said Mr R. H. T. Thompson. "All we hear is one group explaining that the other group is incometent.”

“I see this as a political i situation,” said Mr J. M. McKenzie. “It is running into another musical orchestra business. They will end up chopping off their noses to spite their faces, and they will get nothing from us at all.” “It might come to the point where we are back to supporting the Canterbury Progress League only; not its public relations arm.” said the chairman. The meeting was disturbed that no county had been invited on to the committee set up two weeks ago to study the public relations needs of the metropolitan area. It decided to write to the Christchurch City Council “expres’sing its concern that rural local bodies had been ignored,” agreeing to continue its support at least at

present levels to the Progress League and its Public Relations Office, -.nd to review support when the special committee’s investigations were concluded.

Mr I. M. Inch, chairman of the Canterbury Progress League, said that most of the local-body money received went into the public relations function.

Mr MacKenzie said that the Public Relations Office was geared to increase support of local-body venues, as its executive representation comprised 12 local-body officers in 15 positions. It was also a non-profit-making body, not intending to take a commission from conventions.

The Convention Bureau, however, gave 10 of its 11 executive places to private enterprise. “Is it right for ratepayers’ money to finance private enterprise?” he asked.