[Bcma-l] Funding issues revisited

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:02:38 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CB67.39BC9577
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

June 10, 2008=20

Dear Colleagues:

One private comment that came to my attention is that what I have put
forward to date is a monologue rather than a dialogue with regards to
funding.  Bill Barkley was kind enough to provide the lobbying
instrument that the BCMA put forward in 2007 that does address the
issue.  However, it does take the stance that Government should carry
out the necessary structuring and administration of implementation of
any of the suggestions that they have proffered.  I question that a
Government agency will be effective, no mater how they structure
funding, and will always be subject to radical change associated with
the vote.  I think that we should settle on a model for the funding of
Culture, but one that takes out Government as the key to overseeing the
funding, except as contributors to the funding.  I believe that
establishing a body or utilizing an existing body (BCMA, CMA, Heritage
Society of BC, Vancouver Foundation, etc.) that is not directly linked
to Government is the key.  The following are the suggestions put forward
in that paper, again for peer review to stimulate a dialogue.  In the
long run, I think that establishing the model that will work for the
community as a whole should be agreed upon by the community and not from
Government.  Papers or suggestions that do not have a firm idea and
support of direction are difficult to support and there is no one in
Government who will spearhead development of a coherent plan.  Sometimes
it is easier to tell Government what to do, rather than to suggest that
they create another area that needs study - a way to push off actually
coming up with a plan.  After all, a complaint from a volunteer run
organization is easy to dismiss, especially when that organization is
seeking funding.  But, a concerted agreed upon plan that does not rely
on Government to operate would be much more attractive.  According to my
count, I am up to 4 cents.

From:
Towards A Comprehensive And Integrated Provincial Strategy For Culture
And Heritage

Possible Ideas: Elements That Need To Be Considered

In developing a comprehensive and integrated Provincial strategy for
culture and heritage, there are a number of ideas that we believe need
serious consideration.

o	Legislation: Legislation that supports, and provides an
inclusive vision for, culture and heritage; and, that provides a
framework for future capital and operational funding; is key to
recognizing governmentally and publicly the importance of culture and
heritage; and, to encouraging other organizations, non profit, public,
and private, to collaborate with culture and heritage organizations and
interests

o	Provincial coordination: Provincial leadership is essential for
ensuring effective coordination and collaboration across all Provincial
ministries and related public agencies regarding culture and heritage.
This means giving one Provincial ministry or public commission the
overall responsibility and authority to provide leadership for all
Provincial government efforts in support of culture and heritage

o	Provincial operational funding programs: Core funding programs
need to be much more inclusive of all culture and heritage organizations
across the province; and, more internally consistent, supporting
equitable funding levels. Core funding should be for three year periods,
subject to organizations meeting appropriate accreditation standards and
performance expectations. A clearer rationale needs to be developed for
operational funding programs, looking at tying revenues to specific
funding sources (eg. a % of the hotel tax) and at formulae for
establishing funding levels.

o	Provincial capital funding programs: At this point, there are
very few Provincial government funds to support capital restoration,
maintenance, and future acquisitions. Culture and heritage cannot be
sustained without adequate attention to capital requirements. Research
needs to be carried out to identify the gaps in capital funding

o	Provincial staff: Provincial ministries and public agencies need
sufficient and competent staff to carry out their public culture and
heritage responsibilities

o	Accreditation: Best practices and standards have been developed.
They now need to be brought into an accreditation framework for all
organizations working in culture and heritage. Such a framework would
help build organizational capacities and performances, resolve risk
management issues, further the reputation of culture and heritage
organizations, and support innovation and change. Accreditation
processes would also help build a better data base for the culture and
heritage field. Accreditation standards, processes, and levels would
need to be appropriate for different kinds and sizes of organizations in
the culture and heritage field. Provincial government funding should be
tied to accreditation

o	Capacity building: Local, regional, and provincial culture and
heritage organizations need resources to help them build their
capacities, including: Board governance, revenue development,
management, strategic planning, partnerships, succession planning, and
entrepreneurial actions. This would mean strengthening current programs
such as Arts Partners In Organizational Development, adding staff to
Provincial agencies and provincial associations who can work out in the
field as trainers and consultants, and developing strategic initiative
funding programs. More needs to be done to build regional networking and
training opportunities, and peer mentoring supports. The knowledge,
experience, and tools exist. The challenge is finding the resources to
allow organizations to use these well

o	Municipalities: Municipalities are key to promoting culture and
heritage locally and regionally, through Official Community Plans; arts,
culture, and heritage plans; and, linkages with local tourism boards,
economic development offices, and chambers of commerce. Municipalities
need more freedom to use current funding resources (eg. development cost
charges and development bonusing) to support culture and heritage.
Municipalities need to be encouraged to promote and plan for culture and
heritage; and, to provide local funding opportunities for programs,
organizational operations, capital developments, and innovation.
Municipal associations such as the Union of B.C. Municipalities need to
be a part of developing the comprehensive and integrated Provincial
strategy for culture and heritage

o	Linkages and partnerships: Many local and regional organizations
(eg. health, recreation, education, economic development, and labour
development) need to be more closely linked to culture and heritage.
Coordination and collaboration across Provincial ministries needs to be
embedded locally and regionally in non profit, public, and private
spheres. Much more needs to be done to promote private sector supports
for culture and heritage

o	Federal government: The Federal government has clear interests
in culture and heritage at a national level; and, can be a source of
operational and capital funding. The Provincial government needs to find
stronger levers to assist local and regional organizations in culture
and heritage to tap into federal resources

o	Post-secondary institutions: Current professional training
programs related to culture and heritage need to be reviewed to ensure
that they are providing graduates with all of the knowledge and skills
they need to be effective in diverse culture and heritage careers. Of
particular importance, is ensuring that people have leadership and
management skills. More needs to be done to promote co-operative
placement programs to encourage young people to consider careers in
culture and heritage

Comments and suggestions:

Three key elements that were brought forward in the above are Capital
and Operational funding and an Accreditation program.  Accreditation was
one of the topics at the Canadian Museums Association meetings this
spring.  I kind of looked in horror at this as an issue, especially when
terms like 'best practices' are bandied about.  There are many small
museums that might not fit a particular standard at the outset of any
revitalization of the distribution of funds.  I would think that the
best way to handle accreditation would to automatically place all
registered groups as being accredited and then provide funding to meet
standards.  New and developing groups would then seek funding for the
development of these standards so that they enter with established
standards as their foundation and existing groups would be funded to
meet standards.  This would predicate some of the funding in terms of
Capital and Operational expenditures.  Accreditation might mean an
evaluation process that establishes exactly what 'standards' are in need
of funding for a particular institution.  The above paper suggests that
the best way to proceed is to have a Government agency decide on
elements for funding.  I would suggest that an independent body take
over this action.  However, judging by the lack of dialogue and one
comment that was negative to the idea of a Foundation (without an
explanation of why), it would seem that the 'community' as a whole does
not want to enter into a dialogue.  That is fine, but do not complain
about the lateness of distribution of grants, as the paper that has been
put forward by the BCMA and from which the above has been extracted does
not appear to have had an impact on changing anything.  So long as
Governments have a direct decision making element in funding we will
wait until June each year and wonder whether we have pushed the right
button on the web form in order to achieve both the needed and required
funding.

If we were to push forward with the suggestions in the paper, then there
needs to be the dialogue and input to the suggestions.  For example
there are several points that I would disagree with, or have difficulty
understanding how they would be implemented (especially without an army
of 'experts').  The one thing we do not need is to over bureaucratise a
system for funding Culture.  We don't need  all of the funding being
eaten up by administration - which is one of the aspects associated with
achieving funding for Young Canada Works and Canada Summer Jobs, that
has lead me to the idea that we can unite around a platform that
requires less time and personal action to achieve funding.  It is also
why when I examined the above suggestions that I shied away from them as
being good suggestions - I have worked in bureaucracy for too long to
like it or think that it is good method of dealing with the issues.  It
is not just the administration paid by the Federal Government for these
later two programs, but the recruiting, hiring and training plus the
application and reporting that is part of these programs - often by
small groups with a limited interest or ability to follow bureaucracy.
To that end, I question an accreditation system that would envelope a
new or expanded Government organization. =20

Our Provincial and Federal Governments are centralized and have a
tendency to develop solutions that do not address the wider communities.
There are sub-cultures that live in Victoria and Ottawa that have little
to do with the rest of the country, but thrive on being the experts, as
they are connected to that central hub.  I would expect that another
method of distribution of funds should have a different model for the
general structure to alleviate the central core element in the
distribution of funds that have been noted from year to year.  While
there appears to be some change in this direction, central Government
controls tend to breed central Government elites.  However, they also
tend to support the issues to Government, which might be a good argument
to retain this as an element for the redistribution of taxes to Culture.
But, they also tend to negate the abilities of people outside of the
hub.=20

Again, I address this issue in the hope that we can establish a platform
and a model for the redistribution of taxes in support of Culture that
will work for our community and the general public at large, rather than
make suggestions to Government and wait for them to come up with the
solution.  I have other suggestions, but think that the need is for a
dialogue to hone already established ideas and that the BCMA paper is a
good place to start.  As has been pointed out to me, that paper received
little feed back from the community.  Perhaps there just isn't a
community out there.  Or, perhaps we are dealing with so many crisis's
that we do not have time to consider the issues that help create the
crisis.=20

W. (Bill) G. Quackenbush, Curator
Barkerville Historic Town,
Box 19, Barkerville, B.C.  V0K 1B0
Telephone: 1-888-994-3332; ex. 25
Fax: 1-250-994-3435
bill.quackenbush@barkerville.ca
visit - www.barkerville.ca for general information

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CB67.39BC9577
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>Funding issues revisited</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">June 10, 2008 </SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">Dear Colleagues:</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">One private comment that came to my =
attention is that what I have put forward to date is a monologue rather =
than a dialogue with regards to funding.&nbsp; Bill Barkley was kind =
enough to provide the lobbying instrument that the BCMA put forward in =
2007 that does address the issue.&nbsp; However, it does take the stance =
that Government should carry out the necessary structuring and =
administration of implementation of any of the suggestions that they =
have proffered.&nbsp; I question that a Government agency will be =
effective, no mater how they structure funding, and will always be =
subject to radical change associated with the vote.&nbsp; I think that =
we should settle on a model for the funding of Culture, but one that =
takes out Government as the key to overseeing the funding, except as =
contributors to the funding.&nbsp; I believe that establishing a body or =
utilizing an existing body (BCMA, CMA, Heritage Society of BC, Vancouver =
Foundation, etc.) that is not directly linked to Government is the =
key.&nbsp; The following are the suggestions put forward in that paper, =
again for peer review to stimulate a dialogue.&nbsp; In the long run, I =
think that establishing the model that will work for the community as a =
whole should be agreed upon by the community and not from =
Government.&nbsp; Papers or suggestions that do not have a firm idea and =
support of direction are difficult to support and there is no one in =
Government who will spearhead development of a coherent plan.&nbsp; =
Sometimes it is easier to tell Government what to do, rather than to =
suggest that they create another area that needs study &#8211; a way to =
push off actually coming up with a plan.&nbsp; After all, a complaint =
from a volunteer run organization is easy to dismiss, especially when =
that organization is seeking funding.&nbsp; But, a concerted agreed upon =
plan that does not rely on Government to operate would be much more =
attractive.&nbsp; According to my count, I am up to 4 cents.</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">From:</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"><B><FONT SIZE=3D5>Towards A Comprehensive And Integrated =
Provincial Strategy For Culture And Heritage</FONT></B></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"><B><FONT SIZE=3D4>Possible Ideas: Elements That Need To =
Be Considered</FONT></B></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">In developing a =
comprehensive and integrated Provincial strategy for culture and =
heritage, there are a number of ideas that we believe need serious =
consideration.</SPAN></P>
<BR>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"><FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New">o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"><U> Legislation</U>: Legislation that supports, and =
provides an inclusive vision for, culture and heritage; and, that =
provides a framework for future capital and operational funding; is key =
to recognizing governmentally and publicly the importance of culture and =
heritage; and, to encouraging other organizations, non profit, public, =
and private, to collaborate with culture and heritage organizations and =
interests</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Provincial coordination: Provincial leadership is =
essential for ensuring effective coordination and collaboration across =
all Provincial ministries and related public agencies regarding culture =
and heritage. This means giving one Provincial ministry or public =
commission the overall responsibility and authority to provide =
leadership for all Provincial government efforts in support of culture =
and heritage

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Provincial operational funding programs: Core =
funding programs need to be much more inclusive of all culture and =
heritage organizations across the province; and, more internally =
consistent, supporting equitable funding levels. Core funding should be =
for three year periods, subject to organizations meeting appropriate =
accreditation standards and performance expectations. A clearer =
rationale needs to be developed for operational funding programs, =
looking at tying revenues to specific funding sources (eg. a % of the =
hotel tax) and at formulae for establishing funding levels.

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Provincial capital funding programs: At this =
point, there are very few Provincial government funds to support capital =
restoration, maintenance, and future acquisitions. Culture and heritage =
cannot be sustained without adequate attention to capital requirements. =
Research needs to be carried out to identify the gaps in capital =
funding

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"><FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New">o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-ca"><U> Provincial staff</U>: Provincial ministries and =
public agencies need sufficient and competent staff to carry out their =
public culture and heritage responsibilities</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Accreditation: Best practices and standards have =
been developed. They now need to be brought into an accreditation =
framework for all organizations working in culture and heritage. Such a =
framework would help build organizational capacities and performances, =
resolve risk management issues, further the reputation of culture and =
heritage organizations, and support innovation and change. Accreditation =
processes would also help build a better data base for the culture and =
heritage field. Accreditation standards, processes, and levels would =
need to be appropriate for different kinds and sizes of organizations in =
the culture and heritage field. Provincial government funding should be =
tied to accreditation

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Capacity building: Local, regional, and =
provincial culture and heritage organizations need resources to help =
them build their capacities, including: Board governance, revenue =
development, management, strategic planning, partnerships, succession =
planning, and entrepreneurial actions. This would mean strengthening =
current programs such as Arts Partners In Organizational Development, =
adding staff to Provincial agencies and provincial associations who can =
work out in the field as trainers and consultants, and developing =
strategic initiative funding programs. More needs to be done to build =
regional networking and training opportunities, and peer mentoring =
supports. The knowledge, experience, and tools exist. The challenge is =
finding the resources to allow organizations to use these =
well

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Municipalities: Municipalities are key to =
promoting culture and heritage locally and regionally, through Official =
Community Plans; arts, culture, and heritage plans; and, linkages with =
local tourism boards, economic development offices, and chambers of =
commerce. Municipalities need more freedom to use current funding =
resources (eg. development cost charges and development bonusing) to =
support culture and heritage. Municipalities need to be encouraged to =
promote and plan for culture and heritage; and, to provide local funding =
opportunities for programs, organizational operations, capital =
developments, and innovation. Municipal associations such as the Union =
of B.C. Municipalities need to be a part of developing the comprehensive =
and integrated Provincial strategy for culture and heritage

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Linkages and partnerships: Many local and =
regional organizations (eg. health, recreation, education, economic =
development, and labour development) need to be more closely linked to =
culture and heritage. Coordination and collaboration across Provincial =
ministries needs to be embedded locally and regionally in non profit, =
public, and private spheres. Much more needs to be done to promote =
private sector supports for culture and heritage

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Federal government: The Federal government has =
clear interests in culture and heritage at a national level; and, can be =
a source of operational and capital funding. The Provincial government =
needs to find stronger levers to assist local and regional organizations =
in culture and heritage to tap into federal resources

<P DIR=3DLTR ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

o&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Post-secondary institutions: Current professional =
training programs related to culture and heritage need to be reviewed to =
ensure that they are providing graduates with all of the knowledge and =
skills they need to be effective in diverse culture and heritage =
careers. Of particular importance, is ensuring that people have =
leadership and management skills. More needs to be done to promote =
co-operative placement programs to encourage young people to consider =
careers in culture and heritage

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">Comments and suggestions:</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">Three key elements that were brought =
forward in the above are Capital and Operational funding and an =
Accreditation program.&nbsp; Accreditation was one of the topics at the =
Canadian Museums Association meetings this spring.&nbsp; I kind of =
looked in horror at this as an issue, especially when terms like =
&#8216;best practices&#8217; are bandied about.&nbsp; There are many =
small museums that might not fit a particular standard at the outset of =
any revitalization of the distribution of funds.&nbsp; I would think =
that the best way to handle accreditation would to automatically place =
all registered groups as being accredited and then provide funding to =
meet standards.&nbsp; New and developing groups would then seek funding =
for the development of these standards so that they enter with =
established standards as their foundation and existing groups would be =
funded to meet standards.&nbsp; This would predicate some of the funding =
in terms of Capital and Operational expenditures.&nbsp; Accreditation =
might mean an evaluation process that establishes exactly what =
&#8216;standards&#8217; are in need of funding for a particular =
institution.&nbsp; The above paper suggests that the best way to proceed =
is to have a Government agency decide on elements for funding.&nbsp; I =
would suggest that an independent body take over this action.&nbsp; =
However, judging by the lack of dialogue and one comment that was =
negative to the idea of a Foundation (without an explanation of why), it =
would seem that the &#8216;community&#8217; as a whole does not want to =
enter into a dialogue.&nbsp; That is fine, but do not complain about the =
lateness of distribution of grants, as the paper that has been put =
forward by the BCMA and from which the above has been extracted does not =
appear to have had an impact on changing anything.&nbsp; So long as =
Governments have a direct decision making element in funding we will =
wait until June each year and wonder whether we have pushed the right =
button on the web form in order to achieve both the needed and required =
funding.</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca">If we were to push forward with the =
suggestions in the paper, then there needs to be the dialogue and input =
to the suggestions.&nbsp; For example there are several points that I =
would disagree with, or have difficulty understanding how they would be =
implemented (especially without an army of &#8216;experts&#8217;).&nbsp; =
The one thing we do not need is to over bureaucratise a system for =
funding Culture.&nbsp; We don&#8217;t need&nbsp; all of the funding =
being eaten up by administration &#8211; which is one of the aspects =
associated with achieving funding for Young Canada Works and Canada =
Summer Jobs, that has lead me to the idea that we can unite around a =
platform that requires less time and personal action to achieve =
funding.&nbsp; It is also why when I examined the above suggestions that =
I shied away from them as being good suggestions &#8211; I have worked =
in bureaucracy for too long to like it or think that it is good method =
of dealing with the issues.&nbsp; It is not just the administration paid =
by the Federal Government for these later two programs, but the =
recruiting, hiring and training plus the application and reporting that =
is part of these programs &#8211; often by small groups with a limited =
interest or ability to follow bureaucracy.&nbsp; To that end, I question =
an accreditation system that would envelope a new or expanded Government =
organization.&nbsp; </SPAN></P>

Our Provincial and Federal Governments =
are centralized and have a tendency to develop solutions that do not =
address the wider communities.&nbsp; There are sub-cultures that live in =
Victoria and Ottawa that have little to do with the rest of the country, =
but thrive on being the experts, as they are connected to that central =
hub.&nbsp; I would expect that another method of distribution of funds =
should have a different model for the general structure to alleviate the =
central core element in the distribution of funds that have been noted =
from year to year.&nbsp; While there appears to be some change in this =
direction, central Government controls tend to breed central Government =
elites.&nbsp; However, they also tend to support the issues to =
Government, which might be a good argument to retain this as an element =
for the redistribution of taxes to Culture.&nbsp; But, they also tend to =
negate the abilities of people outside of the hub.

Again, I address this issue in the =
hope that we can establish a platform and a model for the redistribution =
of taxes in support of Culture that will work for our community and the =
general public at large, rather than make suggestions to Government and =
wait for them to come up with the solution.&nbsp; I have other =
suggestions, but think that the need is for a dialogue to hone already =
established ideas and that the BCMA paper is a good place to =
start.&nbsp; As has been pointed out to me, that paper received little =
feed back from the community.&nbsp; Perhaps there just isn&#8217;t a =
community out there.&nbsp; Or, perhaps we are dealing with so many =
crisis&#8217;s that we do not have time to consider the issues that help =
create the crisis.

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN><A =
NAME=3D""><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">W. (Bill) G. Quackenbush, =
Curator</SPAN></A></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">Barkerville Historic Town,</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">Box 19, Barkerville, B.C.&nbsp; V0K =
1B0</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">Telephone: 1-888-994-3332; ex. =
25</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">Fax: 1-250-994-3435</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us">bill.quackenbush@barkerville.ca</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us">visit - www.barkerville.ca for general =
information</SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-us"></SPAN></P>

<P DIR=3DLTR><SPAN LANG=3D"en-ca"></SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8CB67.39BC9577--