What we learn from the “Public Square”? Consultants are everywhere!
The first speaker at last night’s debut installment of the Richmond Times-Dispatch’s “Public Square” was a consultant… or something — he went on and on, waving around papers and claiming to have a whole lot of experience and expertise. For one thing, he told the crowd, he’d worked on the Sixth Street Marketplace. And, you know what, he still believes in that project! The gentleman reported that he had seen the city auditor’s report of the VAPAF and could find no problem with the foundation’s performance so far. He had no idea why the mayor was so concerned about this venture. Full steam ahead…
Near the end of last night’s town hall meeting, another stood to speak in favor of the project. He was a NEW consultant for the Virginia Performing Arts Foundation and was proud to, y’know, speak up as a citizen about it — forget all that paid consulting stuff. Thanks for sharing!
In between these testimonials, the assembled throng got some very nice speeches on the ways that art can teach children, can enrich spirits, can intoxicate imaginations, can take us to better places, make us richer and more tolerant people.
No arguments here. But unfortunately the issue before us now is how a bankrupt Carpenter Center, a forsaken Landmark Theatre and a hole-in-the-ground that wants to be an unstudied, too-small music hall can help to foster good art. Or help the children. Or do anything at all.
There were tough questions and comments too. Many wondered about the financial viability of the venture. And we heard from actual Symphony musicians — one for, one against the project. Whatever you wanna say about the Times-Dispatch and their “Public Square” idea, this was a breakthrough. The arts center debate has long needed to hear from actual working artists involved with the complex.
(VAPAF FUN FACT: Did you know that the arts groups in the Alliance for the Performing Arts are normally forbidden from being critical about the foundation’s project. It’s in the APA bylaws!)
I’d tell you more about some of the views expressed — including Scott Burger’s fiery speech about the Times-Dispatch’s close relationship with the VAPAF— but supposedly the newspaper is turning all of this into a documentary or something.
Brad Armstrong didn’t speak. He left the foundation’s spinning to the always-genial Jim Ukrop, who took the audience back to the early days of the arts center — when propping up the expanded convention center was the concern, not “the children.” [Richard Serpa, the Richmond Symphony musician who was critical of the project, would reference Ukrop in his comments: "You heard him. This isn't about the arts, it's about downtown."]
There was a whole lot for the foundation to spin. Or just neglect to talk about. Yesterday, the city auditor confirmed what critics have argued and members of city councils past and present have long denied: The Virginia Performing Arts Foundation has been improperly disclosing its finances to the City of Richmond; it has attempted to bill the city for salaries, social events and other non-pre-construction costs; and it has been improperly counting the fundraising pledges that it has received.
As for those “allowable” expenses — that 94% figure you’ll be hearing a lot about— the auditors admitted that there was a bit of a grey area there. For that, we can all thank… guess who?? The wonderful City Council that pushed through the meals tax hike in 2003 to greenlight this mess!
[Auditors] blamed some of the issues regarding the foundation’s expenses on the vague wording of the 2003 ordinance that committed $27.8 million to the arts center. The amount includes $12 million for “pre-construction” costs, which would include such expenses as architects’ fees and demolition.
The auditors said the ordinance leaves to interpretation whether certain expenses would qualify for reimbursement. The report said some expenses submitted appear to be “’soft costs’ that could be included in ‘pre-construction activity,’ but appear to be more administrative in nature.”
The auditors said some of the costs could be argued either way and they reported no evidence that the foundation intended to submit expenses that would be declared unacceptable.
Business as usual, the Sixth Street Marketplace dude might say. Just business as usual.