DOES VANCOUVER NEED A CITY ARTS COUNCIL?
What do we have now?
The Cultural Services Division of Vancouver City government currently administers a fund of just under $1.5 million, devoted to grants, operations, and awards for Vancouver artists and arts organizations. (Georgia Straight, Apr. 9, 2009) Cultural Services maintains a staff of 24, costing just over $1.5 million in salaries alone. Applications for funding are received and adjudicated by Cultural Services staff. Though the City has recently introduced a policy of appointing peer committees to advise on grant allocations, ultimate decisions, as well as policy directions, are determined by staff. The addition of advisory committees is euphoniously (you phoney us ly?) referred to as a “partial arms length” process. How can anything be “partially” arms length? It’s either arms length or it isn’t.
What is arms length?
Arms length simply means that decisions and policies about supporting arts and culture are made by a volunteer council that is free from political and bureaucratic influence. Good ol’ Wikipedia puts it like this: “An arts council is a government or private, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the arts mainly by funding local artists, awarding prizes, and organizing events at home and abroad. They are often arms length from the government to prevent political interference in their decisions.” Arts councils are augmented by committees, or juries, also volunteer, who review grant applications and advise council on the activities and needs within various artistic disciplines. This rather large volunteer organization, made up of people actually working in the arts, is supported by a small staff.
How do the other guys do it? Three examples
Here’s a notable example: The Toronto Arts Council, distributing $10.3 million in grants and operational funding, is run by a volunteer board, volunteer committees and a small complement of professional staff—15 to be exact! An advisory panel of distinguished artists and managers further assist with this work. Toronto Arts Council’s volunteer board and committees are made up of artists, other arts professionals, and arts supporters. To guarantee accountability, City Council appoints five of its members to Toronto Arts Council’s 29-member Board of Directors.
As we have pointed out earlier, the British Columbia Arts Council, based on the same model as the Toronto Arts Council and the Canada Council, operates with a staff of eleven. Back in Vancouver isn’t it a bit off kilter when staff salaries add up to more than the all the support money being distributed?
Vancouver is even way behind Winnipeg: In 1984, Winnipeg established the Winnipeg Arts Advisory Council, just what Vancouver is doing now—26 years later—to assist the City in determining funding to arts and cultural organizations, and to provide advice on cultural policy development. However, in 2002, at the direction of City Council, the Winnipeg Arts Council was incorporated as an independent arm’s length agency.
Vancouver’s Cultural Services continues to be in the grip of a large well-paid unionized bureaucracy.
What’s good about an arts council?
Two major advantages immediately come to mind. First of all a Vancouver City Arts Council would save money. Staff could be reduced and, as promised earlier by Geoff Meggs and Heather Deal, that could free up money to be delivered to artists. Second, and maybe even more important, arts council members would be well-known leaders in the community who can speak to the press, to the public, and to council members on behalf of the arts. They are, in short, our advocates. The public can see that they speak out of passion and belief, nothing to do with tax-supported salaries.
Where is Vancouver?
The more you look around at what other cities are doing the more you realize how far behind Vancouver is. And, to top it off, before the 2008 election, Vision Vancouver candidates Geoff Meggs and Heather Deal were promising the formation of an Arts Council as a major part of their arts platform. Their statements were seconded by soon-to-be-mayor Gregor Robertson. Since being elected Council has taken a number of bold steps in re-organizing City Hall, establishing bike lanes, and providing leadership in the greening of the city. Why this wait and see attitude about the Vancouver City Arts Council? It’s time the community spoke up, demanding that Councillor Deal, Councillor Meggs, and Mayor Robertson fulfill their promises. No more half-way measures that change nothing.
Does Vancouver need a city arts council? Yes!
Write:
Read more:
The Cost of Cultural Services
http://bit.ly/b1S7G4
Where is the Vancouver Arts Council?
http://bit.ly/9Wj669
Ok Tom, your arguments are swaying me into being more favourable to having an arts council in Vancouver.
I have to say, I’m torn in some ways though, partly because I have known some of the people who work in the Office of Cultural Affairs and they are great and do good work so it is not sitting right with me to appear like I’m picking on them and the great work they do.
I would also point out that some of the work that is done by City staff is not directly related to arts grants so to attribute it all that way is not completely fair. Mind you, if you added in the other costs of staff (office space etc) it would be even higher.
I’m not being personal at all here, but rather questioning the system. There’s no doubt in my mind the bureaucracy has slowly grown over the years to the point that it’s probably sloppy and mushy and difficult to make significant changes within the department. Being unionized is also an impediment to change. [ If mediocrity is to be encouraged, a union will do it better than anything. Clearly, I'm not a union supporter, but nor am I a big business supporter so don't jump on me too hard ]
My questions are more around how do we get from here to there and how would we ever ensure that funding wasn’t cut to an Arts Council at the whim of a new city council just as the Liberal’s have cut the BC Arts Council?
At least with those people working in Cultural Affairs (and this is where a union is a good thing) it’s probably not easy to just axe them and the programs that they look after.
My ideal situation (I’m dreaming) would be to set up an Arts Council, close the Office of Cultural Affairs, hire the best people from there and don’t hire the “less than best.” Essentially, make it work like all the arts organizations that the City currently funds.
But maybe I’m just feeling mean today. Heaven help it if Government programs were run like the organizations that they support with the same crazy hoops they must jump through to get a $4.000 grant.
I guess I have to continue chewing on this idea.
We do not need a large bureaucracy to hand out grant money. Public servants have high incomes and high benefit costs…which is great and I support it. But we can also use them wisely and an Arts Council is a perfect way to better include a primarily non-profit board into the process both involving community and saving city tax dollars at the same time.
I am the co-chair of the Gay and Lesbian Business Association and only mention it as we hand out grant money using a completely arms’ length volunteer board. It is a good model and perhaps some of it is applicable to Art Councils situation. We convene a panel together once a year to complete the process of awarding the scholarships. None of the Board members participate on the panel just as I would suggest city employees should not have a vote. Now we only hand out 4 scholarships a year so we have neither the volume nor budget of Vancouver Arts Funding (which I believe to be about $1.5 million) but the point is that we do it with zero input from the Board of Directors other than as a supporting role. We monitor the process and help them be successful and with minimal time or expense from our employees. Everyone wins.
My understanding is that the bureaucracy supporting Vancouver Arts Grants is 21 people costing about the same as the funds distributed. This seems excessive to me. I believe administration costs should never exceed 20% of a budget. So I would plan for less than $300,000 to spent by the city for the entire management of this program. For many years I was a manager in the federal government and this was also our guideline. I think it is a good one. In any event, 50% administration costs ($1.5m to give out $1.5m) is not acceptable. There needs to be a better way and we can find it.
I think we need a better process for the Vancouver Arts Council. We are leading the way with some of our initiatives like bike lanes and I am proud to be a Vancouverite. Let’s do the same with our Arts Council and make it 75% community with 25% city government (mostly for accountability and transparency which I believe are the basis of good governance). If we want city employees to have a vote then so be it but let’s make it as arm length as we can.
Thanks for the opportunity to input.
Cheers…
Brad McPhee
28 Powell Street
Vancouver
With respect to a Vancouver Arts Council, I cannot say I think it will make a great deal of difference to the arts. In the end the politicians funding the arts council will be in control whether the organization is arms length or not, and I’m sure you have seen lots of evidence of that as indeed have I. Politicians certainly have a lot to do with appointments. The only model I can think of is an endowment. I wonder how the National endowment for the Arts is faring in the States. It has gone through lots of ups and downs I know— mostly, I think through uncertain levels of funding from the US Government.
The British AC came first, followed by the Canada Council, Ontario Arts Council etc. Each one modelled closely on the preceding one. All have done best when headed by a visionary, politically savvy Director. The Ontario Arts Council’s first, Milton Carman appointed in 1963 by Premier John Robarts, was such a man and still influences the arts through the programs and infrastructure he put in place. Every step of the way in the first ten years there was input and direction from artists of all disciplines. It remains for me the superior example by far. It did not merely dole out grants no matter how fairly, but set up systems under which the arts could flourish and grow.