I would hope that these internal squabbles will not diminish the perception of the festival that the public has. Festivals are not organized to meet the needs of donors or organizers - they are created to perpetuate and share the music that is offered.

As a host of a radio show that depends on listener donations for survival, I know how important it is to please the donor. I do make every attempt to listen to what they have to say - requests for songs, suggestions for themes, guests, etc.   At the same time, I would not dare to let money determine the course of my program. That is not fair to anyone - most of all, the listener.   One of the reasons that I do not search our larger corporate underwriters is the fear that they will attempt to dictate the program.

What I am reading in this thread strikes me as similar.   I completely understand Gregs discomfort at being "shut out", and if his words are true - the organizers should have given him the courtesy of an explanation. At the same time, I do not think that a single donor should assume their money will give them a say in how things are run.   As Greg mentioned, it is a public trust - and the public trusts the representives that run the musuem. Public trust does not mean that money dictates the course of action. If anyone feels that trust is broken, then as Greg says - the money does not come.

I would hope that this can be settled in a less public forum. If the parties involved truly care about the festival then they will do what they can to solve these differences. Failure to communicate will bring an end to everything. You don't want to argue in public if you really care about the welfare of this festival.    Parents who are having marital problems should never argue in front of their kids - neither should organizers and donors.

I know my opinion was not asked for, but as a "fan" of this festival, it really hurts to see such bickering that is not necessary.