It takes two to tango.
The Arts and Heritage Foundation will face the proverbial music Monday night as city council decides its fate. There’s been a not-so-behind-the-scenes battle going on between the two as the city mulls over whether it should renew the stewardship agreement with the foundation.
Is the battle about money? No. The city allocated nearly $1.4 million for the foundation to run the museum, art gallery and heritage sites this year. If the city were to take the operations of these entities over, it would still have to budget a similar figure.
Is the battle about efficiency? Hardly. To suggest that the city could run these facilities and deliver cultural programs more efficiently than a community-based foundation that must work with the envelope of money the city gives it and fundraise for the rest is pure folly. If bureaucracy has an antithesis, it is efficiency.
Is the battle about egos and personalities? You bet. Folks on the foundation side have openly stated they don’t like how the organization is being treated by the city, citing a “servant-master” relationship. City officials have publicly stated the city’s relationship with the foundation has been strained for years and communication channels have not always been respected.
Has the Arts and Heritage Foundation done a good job over the years? It is clear the AHF has had its successes. The foundation built the train station, raised $419,000 towards the restoration of Grain Elevator Park, provided $125,000 towards the restoration of la Maison Chévigny, and contributed $650,000 towards the restoration of the Little White School House. The foundation has managed to balance the books while making positive contributions to our community.
Where the foundation went off the rails was its proposal to build a new art gallery at a $4.6 million price tag. It’s not that the concept doesn’t have merit – the building would fit with the city’s proposed Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan – it’s that the concept got bogged down somewhere in those “communication channels” the city refers to. What was intended to be a beacon for the downtown core somehow got twisted into an expensive wheelchair access ramp.
The bottom line is the foundation does and can continue to do good work. It’s in the community’s best interest for both sides to step back and get focused on what’s best for our community. Find a way to take the personalities out of it and cobble together a new agreement that taps the best of what each entity can offer. Let’s not let petty squabbles stand in the way of what is obviously a beneficial arrangement for St. Albert.
