On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 05:29:58 -0800, Jack Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Have the lawyers/vultures begun to circle? From your description one
>hopes that there is a good director's insurance policy in effect.
>
>Jack C. Thompson
>Thompson Conservation Lab
>Portland, OR
>
>www.teleport.com/~tcl
I'm the donor....:-) as my mother was the original donor re: the contents....
federal
records indicate the "Mrs. Faulkner should be "induced" to include the
contents". My
mother was of the understanding that she would be given a tax receipt and the
contents
would be acknowledged as part of the "original" contents. This was not done
because,
under a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government, no funds would be
made
available unless the contents were "included"....
I was there.... and a witness to the negotiations.. I would like to take the
opportunity
to stipulate that this is not about "money". From 1973 until 1994 ('til I went
to the
media), the original contents were presented to the public as coming from
another family
who never even lived in the house....
The site was built in 1883, French Victorian, 9,000 square feet. I wish it was
possible
to upload photographs of the restoration of the interior undertaken between
1971-1973 that
is now presented as the "original" house.... bearing in mind that it hadn't
been
changed... I have photographs from c1883, 1968 (which were taken for
submission to the
National Monuments Board) and the "restoration".....
It is amazing to me, as someone who has "records" how much condonance there is
to
duplicity in our history. "That's" what it's all about....
Never mind the personal issues....:-) As to suing.... sure I could. (and I do
have a
case...).. but, why would I victimize a whole town for the actions of a few...?
My
mother was lied to, stolen from... you have no idea.... but suing a city is not
the
answer... Unfortunately, after attempting to deal with federal, provincial and
local
authorities in order to address these issues privately - I'm not interested in
public
spectacle - it is certainly, after 25 years of attempting to co-operate and
resolve things
privately, it seems I may have no alternative.... I think the better solution
is to write
a book. I certainly have the documentation, both from the family and the FOI
act.
As an example, my mother sold the house for $45,000 because she was told (and I
was there,
19 years old) that the roof needed replacing (shale) and that monies were
needed for that.
She said, fine.. because her purpose was to have the site preserved in its
authenticiy...
I should note that she also had offers for the land and could have gutted the
house and
made much more money....
The roof was presumably replaced between 1971-73 (when the house opened to the
public). I
have a letter from a curator in 1986 stating that all copper eavestroughs,
soffits - the
roof (again???) had been repaired. On November 2, there was an article in a
local paper
stating that the roof was leaking and the second floor gallery had collapsed...
How long
is copper supposed to last???? The total cost of the roof repairs now will be
$300,000
(1/2 provided by the federal government who, presumably, have been
"maintaining" the
structure all along....?" and $150,000.00 to a town with a population of
27,000. So,
what's been going on with the funding????
The drawing room ceilings are cracking (the frescoes are ranked, according to
the Canadian
Conservancy Institute, 4th of their kind in Canada....
I haven't even started to get personal.....:-) about missing personal property
that I have
recently discovered is in possession of the museum.... however, they wrote to
my mother in
1974 and said they had nothing.... and, mention is made of missing property in
the
Ontario Archives....
I wish I could upload photos here.... If the name Jeanne Minhinnick is
recognized by
anyone in this NG, she toured the site shortly after it opened and said that
"any
atmosphere had been destroyed"....I have the letter. Besides, I'd like to get
some
professional opinions on authentic restoration.....:-)
Anne
|
