Festival loss in dispute

I read the front page of your recent edition as to the Oyster Festival.

I should declare that my business has in the past provided sponsorship.

It was always my understanding this was a community event designed to raise the profile of the area and its businesses and to raise money for cancer.

It was never designed to make a profit as such.

It normally breaks even or has a small loss covered by the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

Council sponsorship does not require a profit and is not a requirement of or part of the sponsorship agreement.

The agenda item, as published, refers to reports which were submitted to Council in January and reveal that the so called loss was as a result of Council deducting, without notice, what they said were overdue fees from 2009 ($2692.00 for parking, road closure, food inspection) from the 2012 sponsorship.

These fees are the subject of legal dispute which was at the time subject to a request for arbitration.

The festival generates turnover for local business not itself, something that Council and your paper is well aware of.

That is its purpose.

Ask the organisers.

Your article appears to be seeking to convey that something is amiss which is far from the truth.

Council is not out of pocket, the so called loss is less than $1K and is covered as always, something they are well aware of.

I would also invite you and your readers to look at the further investment losses recorded recently in Councils financial report for January - $20 million.

A bit rich for them to now be attacking a local event run by volunteers.

Is there a hidden agenda here?

Email, 7 Mar 2013

Katie Smith, Woy Woy