Council May Put Art in Place Back in Budget

City Manager Gary O’Connell’s budget recommended ending the Percent for Art fund, but that’s not keeping Council from continuing to fund the Art in Place program. Several members of Council want to provide the $5,000 annual allocation by way of their $85,000 reserve fund, rather than going through the traditional funding process, John Yellig reports in the Progress. There are no shortage of folks in this town who are seriously opposed to Art in Place getting either public funding or public space, though there are also many people (myself included) who believe that public art is important in a “world class” city. (We’ve had debates about Art in Place before.)

Rob Schilling is, of course, opposed to this allocation, but he’s refusing to say whether or not he supports Art in Place. In fact, he’s generally opposed to the use of the reserve fund, telling the Progress: “It became very clear to me that this is something the city manager sets aside so the council can pay off their friends. It was like handing out candy on Halloween.”

3 Responses to “Council May Put Art in Place Back in Budget”


  • ” this is something the city manager sets aside so the council can pay off their friends. It was like handing out candy on Halloween.”

    If I were a reporter I`d be on this comment like a teen on a celfone. Further, Rob Schilling must be willing to support his comment with details as to recipients, amounts, and the entire basis for his comment or he would not have made it (I think).

    I am amazed at the lack of followup to a comment like this.

  • Schilling has made a serious accusation. If he can back it up (and perhaps he can), he should do so. If he can’t, he ought to apologize.

  • I thought that I heard Kevin Lynch refer to this as a “slush fund” a few years ago during a basement budget meeting (apologies to KL if someone else said it) — after which Blake Caravati corrected his terminology (apologies to BC if someone else did the correcting). It is an ambiguous little fund whose monies are understood to be allocated in certain ways without actually, you know, coming out and allocating them. I find the Schilling phrasing to be less polite, but saying the same thing as either KL or some Democrat said about it at a public meeting years ago. I’m by no means a Schilling fan, but I feel no need to launch an investigation into this.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog