Chimczuk - Saying no for all the wrong reasons
Kind of a defunct blog (which saddens me greatly) but I’d thought I’d use this to follow up an issue that I’ll probably put on my facebook,
I saw this release from the Chimczuk directors which I posted about previously here
“Chimczuk Directors Reject Lord Proposal”
What is most disturbing is the reason given
“Since there is no recommendation that any building be built, we cannot see any justification for using the Chimczuk funds in this endeavour, and would certainly not allow for the name “Chimczuk Museum” to be used under this guise.”
Chimczuk’s will according to this post said
“Build a Building to be known as the Chimczuk Museum, for use as a Cultural Museum and Archives and Library.”
“Build a Building” may seem straight forward to this self appointed arbitrar of the name, however, it is pretty much known that a stand alone building with a single use not only could not be built for 3 million, it would be revenue and cost prohibitive as a marketing draw and operations wise respectively.
So now this unelected, board accountable to no one, is implying that existing buildings cannot be used to house a museum. That additions to buildings may not fit, that regardless of the information known now about clustering attractions as a marketing draw, they will decide. I may be right or wrong but the point is that they may be as well and its the bias I am concerned about
There is bias of this unelected, unaccountable board, which I believe are anonymous as I’ve only seen Dr. Wonham’s name published. The fact that they only publish their press on a bloggy newsy thingy that belittles and demeans the mayor and council in absolute terms, has me infer that it is the political leaders that are affecting the boards decision and not the proposals itself. I Remember that it was this same bloggy/newsy/thingy website that constantly talks about perception of conflict being as important as the conflict tself when discussing relationships the mayor has. If Dr Wonham’s red bat phone leads only to a square cave then it speaks volumes of the prism he looks through when hes views any proposals.
The Chimczuk money was left to the city of Windsor and I would rather see its use determined by the elected leaders who have to answer to the public every 4 years. Who knows what the future will bring when determining how a museum or archives is built, to be restricted to the conditions decades ago would be ridiculous.
Post Feedback
The city’s position is that a business needs the permission of the executor in order to appropriate the deceased person’s name. Since the city is the executor, that’s not likely to happen. Therefore, this group is irrelevent.
According to documents filed with Revenue Canada, the directors are Wonham, Linda Balga and Eric Buchholzer.
Problem is that the will stipulates the name Chimczuk Museum be used which they have registered. I believe they could cost the city significantly in legal fees if they challenge it. At that point i wonder if the citizens of windsor get out the torches and pitchforks.
What I’m saying is that they don’t have the legal right to trademark Chimczuk’s name without the estate’s permission. That won’t happen because the city is the executor. If it goes to court, Wonham and company can pay the city’s costs when they lose.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Are you saying that you can legally trademark the name without the estate’s permission?
Possunt quia posse videntur
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Would it be insufficient to name a wing in the museum after Chimczuk? $1 million is not enough to build a stand alone building, nor $3 million I would guess.