"Council staff also researched oversight of other jurisdictions' arts programs, as shown in
Attachment 6
. These jurisdictions include the cities of Seattle and Bellevue and Pierce
and Snohomish counties. Except for Seattle, the other jurisdictions have internal arts
programs housed within larger executive departments with staff support provided by the
departments. Seattle has an executive Office of Arts and Culture with a director
appointed by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Council. All of the jurisdictions
have appointed arts commissions with members ap
pointed by the executive and
confirmed by the council. Pierce and Snohomish counties' arts commissions include
members appointed to represent each council district."
This appears to state that the proposed change brings 4Culture into alignment with the way other publicly funded arts organizations are managed.
Can you possibly explain why the current management setup is superior to the way similarly funded arts programs are managed around the region? Please. Really don't understand why an organization that receives nearly all revenues via public dollars would not be directly accountable to the Executive and Council.
#4 4Culture used to be a County Department. It was spun off into a Public Development Authority specifically to have more autonomy away from political influence and to create a legacy fund the preserves dedicated funding for arts, culture and heritage funding in the County. Previous to the PDA, the elected officials were influencing grant decisions based on getting votes rather than recipients based on merit. Also, anytime they wanted money, the first place they looked was the arts department. Creating the PDA protected the funding against this, while still having to report on its operations, spending and impact. The result of the creating the PDA has been more efficient, effective and equitable use of public dollars. Undoing this great legacy change will only be an increased waste of tax dollars.
The fuck.
"Council staff also researched oversight of other jurisdictions' arts programs, as shown in
Attachment 6
. These jurisdictions include the cities of Seattle and Bellevue and Pierce
and Snohomish counties. Except for Seattle, the other jurisdictions have internal arts
programs housed within larger executive departments with staff support provided by the
departments. Seattle has an executive Office of Arts and Culture with a director
appointed by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Council. All of the jurisdictions
have appointed arts commissions with members ap
pointed by the executive and
confirmed by the council. Pierce and Snohomish counties' arts commissions include
members appointed to represent each council district."
This appears to state that the proposed change brings 4Culture into alignment with the way other publicly funded arts organizations are managed.
Can you possibly explain why the current management setup is superior to the way similarly funded arts programs are managed around the region? Please. Really don't understand why an organization that receives nearly all revenues via public dollars would not be directly accountable to the Executive and Council.
According to the Ordinance, "modest oversight" equals "Council chooses the board, and approves the budget."
The Ordinance was developed by only the 6 sponsors with no input from the other 3 or anyone from 4Culture.
Please keep reporting on this story.