Calgary public art policy: city council to debate motion to suspend

If there's an issue city council seems to revisit almost as often as secondary suites, it's the city's public art policy.

At Monday's meeting, the agenda features a motion by Coun. Peter Demong to suspend the public art program for 2015. As he puts it, saving $2-4 million given the economic downturn is a symbolic goal.

Demong says he's "not against public art in any way, shape or form" but wants city council to show Calgarians it's aware people are losing their jobs and provincial cuts are coming. 

This may become just the latest change to a controversial program that has been tweaked several times since 2004, when council voted to dedicate one per cent of a capital project's budget towards public art. 

Among the changes in the years since:

• Public art money from transportation projects has been pooled rather than building in art to a specific overpass or road.
• Adding more public input to the process of selecting winners of public art competitions.
• Limiting the one per cent rule on big budget projects, in effect reducing the overall spend on public art.

This latest art policy debate comes after numerous recent controversies — including that infamous big blue ring on 96th Avenue N.E. (even arts-loving Mayor Nenshi called it "awful"), a sculpture at the Genesis Centre that burned holes in a nearby woman's jacket, and bureaucrats neglecting to set aside millions of dollars for public art on the West LRT line. 

But the contentious debate is being revisited amidst another simmering controversy that has council emotions running raw: allegations of councillor misconduct. 

The nature of what Mayor Nenshi has called three substantiated allegations against councillors remains a secret as do the identities of the offenders.The mayor's refusal to apologize for saying he's been getting public complaints about councillors getting "blotto" at community events has angered and disappointed many councillors who feel they've all been tarred by his comments.

Those feelings haven't dissipated yet. If the public art motion is part of a campaign of retribution, no one on council is publicly making that link. 

But pulling public art into the mix has further inflamed tensions in the group. Nenshi calls Demong's motion "terribly short-sighted."

Several councillors attended the mayor's luncheon to honour arts champions last Thursday, including some who intend to support Demong's motion. Their appearance at the event had one public art-supporting councillor literally swearing about their perceived hypocrisy, promising "the gloves are now off."

While this council has repeatedly found ways to do business despite disagreements and personal animosities, is yet again debating the divisive issue of public art literally the final straw for the ability of this group to get along? It may depend on the final vote or how the motion is amended.

A few councillors, including a couple who have not been fans of the repeatedly-amended one per cent policy, are not saying how they'll vote on Demong's motion. The way their votes go may depend on the tone of the debate and the actual savings. (Administrators are expected to comment on how much it may cost to cancel the program for the year if contracts have already been signed for this year's projects.)

But don't underestimate the level of anger harboured by those around the table. Right now, it's easy to find and it is being publicly expressed. The question is: can they get through this or is the well already poisoned?