Foss's reasons...
Tue, 19 Oct 1999, 02:56 pmLabrug6 posts in thread
Foss's reasons...
Tue, 19 Oct 1999, 02:56 pmEMAILNOTICES>noIf you have read today's West, then you have not doubt seen the FRONT PAGE SPREAD! It's all about Foss, and it paints a very ugly picture.Apparently he spent $31 840 of Taxpayer dollars on lavish artworks and $20 548 on furniture for his office. Is this the real reason why he was unwilling to assist arts groups in need? Or is just a cure for his "Headache" that he claims the old furniture gave him?Mind you, the desk (solid Jarrah) is environmentally friendly as it would have been burnt otherwise. Yes, thank-you Mr. Foss for saving the Jarrah.A total of $59 100 was spent altering and updating Mr. Foss's office between 1993 to 1997. Hey, I don't see a third as much in a year of wages!"Senior Liberals have advised Mr Court that Mr Foss is a magnet for trouble and a political liablilty and should go despite the intellectual grant he brings to the cabinet." Ahhh! So that's why they hired him!
- Quote from West Page 4.Are they finally waking up to the Reality of Mr Foss? Have they finally decided that he is not working out and must leave? I guess we all saw this coming really, but then again, we've got our eyes open.Jeff "Staring Intently" Watkins
- Quote from West Page 4.Are they finally waking up to the Reality of Mr Foss? Have they finally decided that he is not working out and must leave? I guess we all saw this coming really, but then again, we've got our eyes open.Jeff "Staring Intently" Watkins
Re: Foss's reasons...
Wed, 20 Oct 1999, 08:40 amEMAILNOTICES>no> Although he did spend alot of money on the jarrah desks etc,
> i still think that he did do good for the artist of this state, by
> buying the local art. ANd despite what people say about getting it
> loaned, its better that he buyed it, becasue he like gave the artists
> some money (even if it was taxpayers).Fair enough I guess, but there are MORE PRODUCTIVE and SMARTER WAYS to be supporting the Art Industry, and that's not by building up a personal collection. That's only a one-off type of thing - Buy the Picture then keep it. Not sound politics to me.Buy supporting Art based groups and Galleries, Funding Exhibitions, Organising Auctions, and allowing Grants to Local Artists (my mother is a Potter, Painter with Parkinson's Disease who hasn't been allowed a grant even under the disabled policies) Mr. Foss would do much more good to the local art community than simply buying art he PERSONALLY liked. What he was really doing was satisfying his personal EGO and trying to pass it off as supporting local art, and what really bites is that he was building a "PRIVATE COLLECTION" (as quoted from West) with TAXPAYER DOLLARS! That is simply not on. If he was doing out of his own pocket, then best wishes to him. He wasn't. He used money WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT! and it is expenditures like this that only increase tax levels on us and decrease funding for other areas such as road maintenance, or in WA's case, a Bell Tower that I question the necessity of.As I said, there are better ways that would be more productive and cheaper, for the taxpayer that is.> I think though, its definately time for him to go.I'm glad we agree on that ;-)Jeff "One for All, Not All for One" Watkins
> i still think that he did do good for the artist of this state, by
> buying the local art. ANd despite what people say about getting it
> loaned, its better that he buyed it, becasue he like gave the artists
> some money (even if it was taxpayers).Fair enough I guess, but there are MORE PRODUCTIVE and SMARTER WAYS to be supporting the Art Industry, and that's not by building up a personal collection. That's only a one-off type of thing - Buy the Picture then keep it. Not sound politics to me.Buy supporting Art based groups and Galleries, Funding Exhibitions, Organising Auctions, and allowing Grants to Local Artists (my mother is a Potter, Painter with Parkinson's Disease who hasn't been allowed a grant even under the disabled policies) Mr. Foss would do much more good to the local art community than simply buying art he PERSONALLY liked. What he was really doing was satisfying his personal EGO and trying to pass it off as supporting local art, and what really bites is that he was building a "PRIVATE COLLECTION" (as quoted from West) with TAXPAYER DOLLARS! That is simply not on. If he was doing out of his own pocket, then best wishes to him. He wasn't. He used money WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT! and it is expenditures like this that only increase tax levels on us and decrease funding for other areas such as road maintenance, or in WA's case, a Bell Tower that I question the necessity of.As I said, there are better ways that would be more productive and cheaper, for the taxpayer that is.> I think though, its definately time for him to go.I'm glad we agree on that ;-)Jeff "One for All, Not All for One" Watkins