I’ll look into that publication for more detail. I have some ideas how this ought to be resolved to the satisfaction of both parties but I’d appreciate just an outline of what you feel would be reasonable. Bear in mind, the funder has legitimate concerns as to where the money is going. The corporation has concerns over someone effectively taking over the business.

Sounds politically messy…

The directors control and run the operation. Government provides funding for that operation for the public benefit. Unless that funding is “earmarked” – as in some government grants – it goes toward the general fund and applied within the discretion of the board and management. So long as they’re meeting their general goals, they’ve met their obligation as to application of funds.

While it plays to the public in a philosophical sense to claim taxpayers own it, it makes no sense at all in actual practice. Taxpayers fund many things over which they have no direct say. An independent corporation of any description is just that. While the hand that feeds you implies a close relationship, there is still that dividing line over who controls what. In this case, a local politician wants to have a line-item veto over how funds are applied in day-to-day operations, claiming he can “save the taxpayers money”. In effect, he wants to manage the corporation. Naturally, the directors dispute his authority to that. I believe funding has been severly curtailed as a result.

Just like to hear your comments and perhaps get some reference to authoritative sources that might clarify the situation.