Councillor Donna Macdonald - as she will - chimed in with: The CHC makes those decisions, and those decisions are made in accordance with a by-law. This although she a) - is not
an active member of the CHC but the Cultural Development Commission (CDC), whose job - if anybody's at city hall - this color-decision actually should have been, seeing that the Funky Monkey is not a "heritage building", and b) - there is no such by-law. She seemed to be giving the shop - her shop - away, what with little cultural developing and heritageing being done then and now and these two commissions seemingly in a bit of a territorial dance. Or not!
Now - Councillor Macdonald does have Nelson's Arts & Culture Portfolio as well, and she could have been coming from that angle (whatever it may be) - but according to the city's Cultural 3-Year Action Plan - "The City of Nelson does not have a clear understanding of who and what comprises our cultural sector." The city's lack of a clear understanding of culture is the arrhythmic heart of its Comprehensive Cultural Policy - and this extensive and generally vague paper leaves much room for interpretation. And the paint-job - though funky - wasn't art.
So! What!
While Kim Charlesworth - the CHC's regular member from council and with the same portfolio - did not enter into this.
This non-existent by-law and Nelson's Heritage security-blankie were eloquently addressed subsequently in the Nelson Daily News by Alice E. Mayrhofer, former chair of the Downtown Business Association and former city councillor.
A whammer - "I believe we have now exhausted the idea of heritage".
I am writing about this in connection with Chris Shepherd's Was it a conflict of interest? Is it a big deal?, The Nelson Post, 26. Aug, 2011. He was looking at what was perceived by some council members as a possible conflict of interest or bias in regards to an issue before council and Councillor Bob Adams.
I will not look under rocks but present info which is openly available to show a little of the interconnectedness of some fixed points at city hall with other fixed (and sort-of fixed) points in the community - strings leading anywhere/everywhere and sometimes into seemingly knotty situations.
For me there are several jumping-off points in this article and responses to it:
1.
Shepherd says "...but when it comes to process and our government, I think it's important to follow rules exactly."
I agree, provided there are clear rules and processes - in the "cultural sector" this is not clearly the case. I will stay with this sector as an example, because that's where my interests mainly lie - Nelson's culture consciously and comprehensively being de/refined as a growing-up process. I wish.
Usually rules and processes are initially locked-in with the best intentions, but when they lack focus - thus practical applicability - and/or foresight, they may be tweaked bit-by-bit in avoidance of the drudgery to articulate a need/vision, set it down in bullet-proof form and work it through council as an amendment. Yawns all around Chambers.
In Nelson politics are very personal, and business is very personal, and the personal can't be just dropped when it comes to either. A small-town thing. You see Blue Velvet? The social scene is very personal in a different way, because with the interconnectedness of it all "out there" - necessitating a lot of smiling - socially Nelsonites tend to belong to very private cliques, in which they can safely let hair down and gossip flow. Nelson runs on conservative furtive. Sulky, too!
2.
Shepherd says "What of other groups that have members of council as members?" This - again - in relation to possible conflict of interest between council-business and councillor. There are such groups with members who are councillors - the RDCK Board, the Library Board, the Capitol Theatre, the Touchstones Board and others of no interest in this particular scenario. A city-hall construct.
Donna Macdonald (CDC):
RDCK Board (Alternate)
Library Board
Capitol Theatre (Alternate)
Touchstones Museum Board
CHC (Alternate)
Kim Charlesworth (CHC):
Library Board (Alternate)
Capitol Theatre
Touchstones Museum Board (Alternate)
CDC (Alternate)
Although the 2010 Annual Report lists Councillors Macdonald/Charlesworth as liasons with the Nelson & District Arts Council, "job descriptions" of these two councillors on the City's website do not mention this. There may be a connection through their web-site mentioned and nowhere explained Arts & Culture Portfolio - but who knows!
Although the 2010 Annual Report lists Councillors Macdonald/Charlesworth as liasons with the Nelson & District Arts Council, "job descriptions" of these two councillors on the City's website do not mention this. There may be a connection through their web-site mentioned and nowhere explained Arts & Culture Portfolio - but who knows!
The alternate takes over when the permanent member is absent. Even though an alternate is not a regular member attending regularly, surely she/he must be and is in the loop - just in case.
To keep things here (at least) as simple as possible I will call the organizations listed above (and on the city's website under the councillors' names) "Tier1" - the most rarefied - and those in a still close but somewhat wider orbit around city hall "Tier2".
Community Heritage Commission By-Law NO. 2684, amended as BY-Law NO. 2773, states under 2.j:
"For the purpose of this section, an alternate shall mean a member that (sic) may attend meetings and have all the same rights as a member of the commission, in the absence of the appointed member ONLY." ONLY is capitalized in the by-law text.
Despite this very emphatic by-law rule, Councillor Macdonald - alternate - has attended CHC meetings as participating member, even though the appointed member from city council was present.
She has also repeated her unsupportable claim that the CHC is making color-decisions according to a by-law and was corrected again - this time by Stephen Fowler, President - Nelson & District Arts Council (Tier2, possibly Tier2+), CHC member, CDC member.
Aside from members from council, the CHC and CDC can have members which are members of each other. Some of these members - at the same time - are basic members or members in leading positions or board members in several of the same organizations the two members from council above are interchangeably active in - directly/indirectly. Deep breath! Then - a small number among the basic members are as well the actual hands-on, go-to members of just about all there is going on projectwise - period - in culture-town. No spotlight on them. You got all that? Told you I'd keep it simple!
And above all, political, economic, social ambitions - thus agendas - hover. And smile as fast as they can.
The extraordinary speed with which the heron swizzle-stick was put through council-paces by a single person - without due process and transparent paper-trail made public - may have gained impetus through this all-in-the-family. City hall closed ranks; leading members of two Tier1 organizations wrote testimonials to soothe the public with formulaic nothing new - filling-in no blanks. But prominently published in the Nelson Star - not as letters of support but as Cultural Commentaries on the Editorial Page (see earlier post below - Nelson: Pigeon feed).
Attempting to make it all palatable to the plebs and seem legit.
"Conflict of interest" and "bias" - I can't go there directly here with their legal impli/application, but I have concerns along non-legal/dictionary lines, and when -
3.
according to Chris Shepherd - Councillor Macdonald talked about "an issue of bias" in relation to Councillor Adams and the Nelson & District Housing Society - I got real excited like!
Most of the club-members' activity is self-contained, not generally known to the public. Not necessarily secret - just exclusive. This sort of info is scant officially - but going it big as gossip when discovered. There is an overall disconnect between city hall plus adjuncts as an organism and the public. No inspiration coming from there! Without info made public there's no need for accountability, yet the public has to take responsibility for this as well - it doesn't demand to be informed, it doesn't demand accountability. And this well-established factor is built into city hall's decision-making.
I am - and surely most Nelsonites are - at least vaguely appreciative of what council is doing for the city, but what the Royal City's administration needs to do in this context - to appear transparent and user-friendly - is a public accounting of all groups and boards council members and commission members are involved with locally - official and private.
Now back to Front.
When the Funky Monkey's colors became electrified last year - the NDCC was still covered in dried blood (see earlier post below - Nelson: (T)arting-up the place). Then a most amazing thing happened more recently: the NDCC changed colorwise from dried blood to Pharmasave-at-Easter, and the Funky Monkey changed from funky electric to - dried blood! You noticed? A switcheroo! I don't know what's behind the Funky Monkey's move and who signed-off on it, but I have a little something to tell about the NDCC color-thing.
A sample illustration of the preceding:
The RDCK (Tier1) - with the CDC's and Touchstones Board's (Tier1) Councillor Macdonald as its alternate - gave the job to come up with "lively" colors to David Dobie, Touchstones Board (Tier1) as well as CDC member.
I found this color-scheme unsuitable, let him know and was informed by him that Nelson needed color, the NDCC staff liked it, and the Cultural Heritage Commission had signed-off on it.
So I go: Why not the CDC, as culture/arts/here/now - instead of the CHC, as heritage/here/yesterday? I mean - the weirdness of that logic, seeing that neither the Aquatic Center nor its new colors are heritage!
Dobie: "The CDC does not have a mandate to officially comment on colours for the city (other than unofficially, off the record and from a personal point of view), this vetting of facades is and was done by the Heritage Committee (sic) and recommended to the city that these colours be approved."
Which the city did without further - any, actually! - ado.
It is true that the CDC does not have a specific color mandate in the non-specific Comprehensive Cultural Policy. Actually - there is no CDC according to its by-law. No by-law! Yet the CDC has made its presence felt, without necessarily being bound or binding itself to a nailed-down "process" "to follow the rules exactly." They are big on art, and you have art - you have color, no?
Neither does the CHC have a by-law based color-mandate; its work is: by recommendation only running preservation and restoration of heritage stuff. But at least it has its very own by-law! Vague as well! The CHC has obviously also been tweaking that into something it wasn't initially and isn't now meant to be officially. Yet is today!
With Dobie's statement coming from nowhere - there is no color-mandate on the books anywhere! You want it? Anybody?
Oh yes, in the meantime, the Library (Tier1) has adopted the NDCC's (Tier1 through RDCK) complete color scheme for its new improved website - just as insubstantially Pharmasave-at-Easter (see earlier post below - Nelson:Cooking the books).
Currently the CHC has little to do but polish door-knobs. If there is no agenda - there is no monthly meeting. That little! While the CDC has created a niche for itself with stuff vaguely artistic - it specializes in tidying-up. So, could it be that these two commissions have placed themselves in a symbiotic relationship through their interchangeable members from city council and Tier1 boards - dividing work coming up when suitable?
Who's to know? And if so - who's to tell?
What rules, Chris, what process?
I have looked at these two commissions and an interconnectedness between them and some off-city-hall groups/individuals only. And not very deeply at that. There are more councillors, more groups, more commissions, more committees at city hall. Which mustn't be about personalities and convenience but clear rules and open processes run by/running it.
The job of city hall needs to be two-pronged: making stuff happen and constantly adjusting the rules and processes applied to that. The more foresight (imagination!) in crafting rules - the less need for amendments later on; the stronger the rules - the less room for interpretive contortion. With the public informed/involved all along! Only this will lead to sustainability - cultural growth.
I have looked at these two commissions and an interconnectedness between them and some off-city-hall groups/individuals only. And not very deeply at that. There are more councillors, more groups, more commissions, more committees at city hall. Which mustn't be about personalities and convenience but clear rules and open processes run by/running it.
The job of city hall needs to be two-pronged: making stuff happen and constantly adjusting the rules and processes applied to that. The more foresight (imagination!) in crafting rules - the less need for amendments later on; the stronger the rules - the less room for interpretive contortion. With the public informed/involved all along! Only this will lead to sustainability - cultural growth.
According to Who's in? Who's out?, Nelson Star, 7. Sep, 2011, councillors - who want to run again or haven't decided yet - want new faces at city hall. When Ubiquitous Donna says it's "advantageous to have some fresh people with new ideas and new issues and new energy", she needs to keep in mind the possibility people like that - the bright , young things - may replace her, based on exactly those attributes! Her and everybody else making the same rather disingenuous pre-election noises.
The current old faces, with old ideas/issues and low energy seem to need a fix to be able to continue for another 3 years. Nelson ought to think carefully before voting for someone who wants to make it on someone else's juice. But even if they manage to limp back in - using some foresight (imagination!) here - what if/when the new ones run out of energy because the old ones absorb too much of it - a Twilight-moment!
Anybody with decency out there - good with knots, too?
No comments:
Post a Comment