Letter: It's Time for an Independent Audit of Art Gallery Finances & Attendance Data
David McLeish shares his observations and recommendations for a critical and independent look at the gallery's finances.
LETTER
To the Editor,
My recent letter in The Owen Sound Current alleging that City of Owen Sound staff have been disseminating misinformation regarding attendance at and support for the Tom Thomson Art Gallery generated a lot of discussion.
See for reference:
City staff are public servants. They are hired rather than elected and are responsible for delivering various programs and services, advising City Council on policy, drafting bylaws, and ensuring Council follows the law.
They are expected to be nonpartisan and impartial. Both are critical to ensure ethical governance and the public’s trust.
The City has a Code of Ethics for Municipal Employees (Policy#CMA64), but curiously it makes no reference to honesty, truth, misinformation, or facts. The only references to integrity are that employees “must respect the integrity of the Code” and that “business gifts should be discouraged.”
Ethics is referenced 21 times, but 20 of those are when the title of the document (“Code of Ethics”) is referenced.
I recommend that this code be updated.
Public servants are expected to provide evidence-based advice to leaders and are held to a high standard that not only depends on their nonpartisanship and impartiality but also on their integrity, transparency, accountability, and respect for diversity.
In this manner, the public can have trust in the information and advice that they provide to the politicians.
Sadly, a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) noted that less than half (48 percent) of Canadians surveyed indicated they trusted the public service. All the more reason for public servants to hold themselves to the highest standards.
As my friend Dieter Heinrich so eloquently noted:
“If the idea of progress is movement toward a more harmonious, just and peaceful society, that requires a culture of truth, a culture that is clear-thinking, fact-based and reality-centred.
Even if we might twist someone with a lie to our point of view in this or that instance, it is a manipulation that not only disrespects the other person, but also entails a practical risk of being discovered, forfeiting our credibility, and undermining the quest for a culture and politics of facts.
In facts, and the respect for facts, there is a power to unite us.
Arbitrary creeds and claims, and random falsehoods lead to division, dividing us into as many irreconcilable, conflicting, frivolous "teams" of beliefs as there are creeds and falsehoods.”
Much of the discussion resulting from my letter coalesced around a consensus that the cost of the Tom Thomson Art Gallery needs to be questioned, that a $25 million expansion is unnecessary, and that, as noted in Miranda Miller’s subsequent op-ed, there is clearly a disconnect between the community and programming at the Gallery.
At the end of the day, I recommend that City Council hire an independent auditor to review the Gallery’s finances and attendance data.
Using a zero-based budgeting approach, they should develop a defensible business case for the Gallery and make evidence-based recommendations regarding the level of funding the City should provide, the need for additional storage space relative to the current collection, and whether the collection should be thinned.
Only in this manner can the public have trust in the resultant department and program. Given Council’s recent willingness to allocate $100,000 to Vision 2050 planning, this should not be a problem.
Sincerely,
David McLeish
Related:
Letters to the Editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of The Owen Sound Current and its editor or publisher.
The TT Gallery officials once had the idea of relocating the Tom Thomson Gallery to an entirely different site, at one time to the mold-ridden former Courthouse without due research. Recently it was the “more modest” proposal to expand the gallery on its present site. As far as I know no assessment was made of need, and a proposal was sought from only one contractor. This is not good management.
As an artist with works in their permanent collection, I fully understand the need for improved and larger storage space. This is a serious problem that should not be addressed by major culling of the collection. A MUSEUM IS ITS COLLECTION. An offer by me of a work by a Georgian Bay artist of a Georgian Bay scene was refused some years on the grounds that there was no more storage space. There should be room for new works related to our location and history. Council should NOT decide on the future of the collection. Nor should financial experts. Nor should City staff. Who? Let’s discuss that.
You have provided Council with a brilliant and persuasive argument for the independent audit of the Gallery and the development of an effective Code of Ethics for staff. As you point out language such as: “business gifts should be discouraged” are not binding and can result in preferential treatment of some developers.
This is one case where I support the use of an outside consultants for the Audit and the development of a code of ethics. To ensure independence when developing the code of ethics the consultant should directed not to have any discussions with staff.
In addition to a “Code of Ethics” there is also a need for an independently developed staff “Code of Conduct”. I have watched staff, on more than one occasion, present arguments on an issue without being invited to present an opinion by a member of the Committee. Staff attend Committee meetings as a resource for members and their uninvited participation in discussions has improperly swayed members‘ decisions in the past.
On the Art Gallery issue, it is obvious to any independent observer that staff have not been using any reliable method of accurately counting Gallery visitors. As you have pointed out their visitor data is contaminated by multiple entries and exits by staff and now also by visitors to the Visitors Center. The annual numbers that they have presented, in the order of 30,000 visitors, cannot be supported and should not be given any weight by Council. At best this figure is a biased guess.
If you haven’t done so already I suggest you submit your letters to Council so they are recorded. Although, based on past behaviour, they will be ignored by the current Council, they will serve as a valuable resource for the next Council which we all hope will be more responsive to residents’ needs and more resistive to staff influence.