Dear Editor:
Re: City rejects society's bid for compensation, The Record, Jan. 30. The Record broke the news on Aug. 30, 2012 that the city was ordered to release Burr documents.
Our silence has been deliberate as we were invited to have a discussion with the city around two key documents that the privacy commissioner's adjudicator ordered be released from the "Chamber of Secrets" that city hall has become.
1.) Document 1, an in-camera motion of city council of May 15, 2006 shows city council unanimously accepted, "in principle", the offer to leave the society's theatre assets, valued at $70,000, in situ in exchange for a $14,000 payment "... in the event the Burr Theatre ceases to function as a community theatre." The Burr Theatre is no more and the building is now a commercial enterprise, not a community theatre. We therefore requested payment of the $14,000 and the city has refused to honor the agreement because there was no formal contract signed. As noted in the Theresa McManus article, the society had other offers for its assets.
2.) Document 2, an Aug. 30, 2010 report from staff listing five options to deal with the society's requests for compensation of $14,000. The city pushed the "pause button" under option 5 to ". inform the Burr Society that it considers the matter closed. If it continues to escalate to legal proceedings, the city could then choose another option to settle the matter." Option 4 was the city "Grant the Burr Society $14,000."
Any staff and legal costs from that date forward are solely attributable to the city's decision to delay. The staff report states "For the amount of money in question the city would not want to engage in a legal proceeding to settle the matter."
Despite this remonstration, Legal costs have likely far exceeded the $14,000 at issue.
Attempts by council members to hide the truth behind "Burrgate" by parading the horribles of the dollars granted to the society, including bills for repairs to the city's crumbling building, fly in the face of the principle embedded in the staff report which opines that other payments made to the society should not be linked to payment for the society's assets.
Since the city has either abrogated the moral equivalent of a contract or denies that there is a legal document, it is the city, who back in 2006 and again here in 2013, that has circled the society to ensure, as referenced in your article, that "most of the meat is off the bones and carcass" because the city has done the equivalent of expropriation of society property without notice, due process, agreement or compensation.
The city's invitation for these discussions was the equivalent of inviting a gorilla to dance: it ain't over until this gorilla says so.
E.C. "Ted" Eddy, President of the Raymond Burr Performing Arts Society
