Re: DSRM is ....

["Trevor Edmonds" <trevor_edmonds@dingoblue.net.au>]

robson wrote...

> > > Well, Trevor?? Have I elaborated enough?
> >
> > You have not specified anything specific that DSRM has received
>
>
> I don't need to be more specific because it is all in your newsletters
> over the past 27 years.

Some examples?

> > > I meant assistance by Local Governments,
> >
> > Can't think of any apart from Bellingen Council aranging the loan for
the
> > land we have purchased. We repaid the loan (at comercial interest rates)
and
> > paid the council a fee.
>
>
> Donated Steam Roller? Loan for 3 acres/house?

The roller was going to scrap. We removed it at no cost to council, and
assisted with the replacement playground equipment. As for the loan, see my
comment above.

> > > State Governments
> >
> > Nothing in my time with DSRM.
>
>
> What about $1 for half a railway! If that ain't a State Government
> assisting DSRM what is!! and $200,000 to soon fix a road bridge!

A court settlement is hardly a donation. You forgot to mention the cost to
us from the actions of the State Government, which is far in exess of any
benefit we obtained.

> > > and Federal Governments,
> > The army did some earthworks for us in the 80s.
>
>
> and repaired some bridges, and moved some bridge timbers

These repairs have been lost with the State Government cancelling the lease,
and letting the line fall into disrepair.

> > > and Government agencies in cash, in kind and by waiver of various
> > > taxes and charges
> > None springs to mind, except the Electricity Commission donating
> > 2408 and 2414.
>
>
> ... and two wagons. What about being granted tax deductibility! Judging
> by DSRM's yearly donations that is a lot of tax revenue forgoed by a
> government agency. Who donated 3813? Who donated SHELL 031? Who donated
> the Simplex and a large number of wagons and wheels from Coffs Harbour
> Jetty?

We obtained tax deductibility because we met the criteria. The major
components of 3813 were donated to us by the RTM. The rest of 3813 was
obtained as part of a swap. You are right about the Simplex etc.

> > > What would you suggest? A national referendum?
>
>
> What?? You said "If you are not a member you do not get a say in how we
> spend our time and money". We are talking about a public newsgroup where
> the public is having a say. Lately that is a say about DSRM. Public
> institutions and governments HAVE assisted DSRM, so like it or not the
> public IS entitled have a say about DSRM.

If you are suggesting that the 'public' should have a direct influence in
our policies and priorities, than that requires some sort of structure. Or
are you suggesting that anyone should be able to walk in and tell us what to
do? It there is going to be a structure, the only place that will come from
is government. The State Government tried that when they cancelled the
lease. They promised that this action would get trains running in a year.
What they actually achieved was a legal mess that has been resolved by them
selling us the line etc, allowed the line to deteriorate, and put any
opening back years.

As I pointed out in my last post, if the agency supplying assistance wishes
to influence the beneficiary, then conditions are applied to the assistance.
If there are no conditions placed on the assistance, the beneficiary
determines how the assistance is used. The decision making process in DSRM
is vested in the Board of Directors (the same as most other
preservation/community groups). The Board of Directors is answerable to the
members.

If you are not happy with this arrangement, I suggest you lobby our
potential benefactors to ensure that any further assistance they may provide
to us meets the terms of your agenda.

Trevor