Reference to ‘bureaucracy and pomp’ rankled reader

Dear editor,

It was with great interest that I read your article on Bonn Svensson and his involvement with the Spitfire project.

Dear editor,

It was with great interest that I read your article on Bonn Svensson and his involvement with the Spitfire project (Record, Dec. 7).

The history of this gentleman appears to be well-researched and no doubt documented. He clearly played a large part in what is still an ongoing effort to preserve history.

I do, however, take exception to what I believe is an unfortunate turn of phrase regarding the museum’s structure. It is alleged that his acceptance of the “bureaucracy and pomp of the military structure at the museum” did not extend easily.

Having been involved with the museum for a short period of time in the past, I can attest that all I saw was a group of individuals who donated a considerable amount of time and effort to preserve a heritance for all to enjoy. All of this is unpaid, except for the heavy bill of personal time involvement.

Their effort has resulted in a museum which all can be proud of and has drawn accolades for its professionalism and appearance.

With any organization, there is bound to be a bureaucratic structure. To lack organization is to ensure failure.

Whether there may be also pomp is a function of how the organization operates, and who is involved with its operation. I personally did not see evidence of this pomp, and I fear that this turn of phrase does a disservice to those who work so hard to see the museum continue.

As stated, I believe that the article is well written. It is this phrase to which I object.

M.C. Bush,

Comox