Convention Bureau's constitution

Press, 13 April 1978, Page 16

Convention Bureau's constitution

Sir, — Your editorial

article does nothing to expose the constitution of the Convention Bureau and allow ratepayers to make their own judgment. I believe this is necessary because nowhere in the constitution of the bureau is the bureau obliged to direct conventions to the Town Hall. There are many cheaper venues in Christchurch from which members of the bureau can profit handsomely on the strength of ratepayers’ grants. In addition there is nothing in the constitution which guarantees that grant money will be used to reduce Town Hall costs. I have no objection to businessmen clubbing together to tout for business. I do object to a constitution which give them open slather on rate moneys with no guarantees to the ratepayer. —Yours etc., D. W. O. JONES. April 2, 1978. [The Town Hall Manager (Mr B. P. Connell) replies: “The Christchurch Town Hall is in business to sell space. Supporting ratepayers expect that every effort will be made to keep usage of this space high. Before the formation of the bureau the Town Hall was promoted extensively. The bureau coordinates accommodation, transport, and all services relating to conferences. As a member of the bureau the Town Hall has a competitive opportunity to secure business. Our advantage lies in the fine facilities we can offer. The alternative to non-participation in the concept would be non-co-operation from essential conference services and therefore loss of potential usage and revenue. The present constitution contains three representatives of the Town Hall board of management.’’]