This is written with deep respect for the staff of the city’s cultural services department, the staff and board of directors of the Arts and Heritage Foundation (AHF) and our city council. I have lived in their shoes and I have no doubt that the public art gallery, heritage sites and museum, all city-owned facilities, and their programs should be run by the city of St. Albert.
My point of view is based on my experience: four terms on city council, 12 years as the city’s cultural services director, four-plus years as the executive director of the AHF. I have been the recipient of national awards for gaining efficiencies in municipal operations in this field and have travelled the country speaking on this topic. My experience gives me a complete perspective on this matter. Through this I have gained appreciation for those who work to build a community that is culturally rich.
To be very clear: This issue is not about staff or personalities, it is about structure and it is about the city’s mandate to deliver these services efficiently.
Since its inception 34 years ago, the city’s cultural services department has been a leader in cultural development across Canada. Originally the public art gallery was within the visual arts division of the cultural services department and was a good functioning unit, just as the Arden Theatre and performing arts programming work well together within the same department.
For the past several years, the city has outsourced its gallery and part of the visual arts programs to the AHF. Program delivery is divided and the public is confused. With excellent staff on both sides the system still does not work. The structure is wrong. There needs to be one point of contact for the public to book classes and a more efficient use of space and instructors. This would be possible with the gallery and programs returned to the city.
Restoration of the heritage sites is inefficient, not because of the staff – they are also outstanding – but because of the structure. The heritage sites are city-owned, so the AHF staff have three masters, each with its own policies and procedures – the province, the AHF and the city. It is duplication, and it wastes the time of both city and AHF staff. The museum and heritage sites would be better served under city operations.
I have heard several arguments for keeping the contract with the AHF: the city cannot get grants; the volunteers will quit; the sponsors will not be on side if it is city-run; there will be less community involvement.
Once again the city’s cultural services department has led the way in addressing these issues. Started by the Children’s Theatre, the Children’s Festival and Arden Theatre have “Friends of” societies. It is a good structure and has been recognized by the province. For example, the International Children’s Festival is championed by the Friend’s Society, a non-profit organization that advocates, raises funds and advises. This system works. Why? Because it brings many major sponsors on board, raises well over one million dollars and involves 800 volunteers annually. It is a city-run program that brings the community together at no cost to the taxpayers.
Were the city to end the contract with the AHF, and were the museum heritage sites and public art gallery to fall under city operations, the city would likely continue with this successful “Friends of” model. The support group would not be divided between arts and heritage, two very different entities. When the focus is on one cause, it magnifies and clarifies the support. Example: “We support the gallery” fundraising is better identified. People know where their donations are going, while corporate sponsorship is clearly defined.
No other city-owned facilities for broader public access are run by an outside organization. The Arden Theatre, arenas, swimming pools and Servus Place are all city-owned and operated. There are reasons for this: synergies, economy of scale, in-house resources, unified financial systems and the potential for a seamless operation with facility management, programming and registration. But there is a more important reason: Accountability. It is the city’s mandate, their job, to deliver services. The City is accountable to the taxpayers. The AHF is not.
The City gives $1.397 million to the AHF annually to run the heritage sites, museum and the public art gallery. The issues before council are: Do we renew the contract with the AHF? Is it the most efficient and cost-effective way for the delivery of cultural programs? Why do we have an outside agency run city-owned cultural facilities when all of the other city-owned facilities are operated by the city? What is sustainable and where is the economy of scale? Although fear is running rampant in the city, it’s not about removing funding for these programs, it’s about who runs it.
It is a challenge, and it is now up to city council to make the right decision.
