Tension between advocates for open government and the Walton Arts Center will apparently continue.
For years, a crucial point has been in dispute: Is the Walton Arts Center a public entity subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, which gives the public a right to review documents and attend board meetings?
Why would the public have an interest in decision-making at the Walton Arts Center?
The arts center was not created as a private entity. With that there is no dispute. TheUniversity of Arkansas and the city of Fayetteville joined forces to create the arts center. Was it because the mayor or UA chancellor wanted to see “Guys and Dolls?” No, it had far more to do with public interest in economic development,reviving the Dickson Street area and strengthening Northwest Arkansas’ amenities. The arts center was designed to breathe new life into Dickson Street and improve the quality of life of the region, making it more attractive to companies and employees who want to relocate.
Does anyone believe decisions by the arts center’s board don’t continue to have an impact on the public? It’s also worth mentioning the $3 million the city and UA contributed for construction and $1.5 million each contributed for an endowment.
Twenty years have passed since the arts center’s birth from public parentage. Today’s Walton Arts Center leaders are resistant to public responsibility.
They recently asked Attorney General Dustin McDaniel whether it must comply when the public seeks information or wants to attend decisionmaking meetings.
McDaniel said it will likely take a judge to decide. McDaniel acknowledged the arts center a public entity when it was created as an “agent for the University and the City to construct, manage, operate and maintain a Center for the Arts.”
In the years since, the arts center board has expanded beyond the original UA- and cityappointed members. McDaniel also noted the arts center makes much of its money today from fundraising and other independent sources of revenue.
Our skepticism is born of pretty simple questions: How can two entities supported by taxpayer money create and provide funding for a third entity that’s not public? Can it be justifi able that an “agent” created by two public bodies can evolve into privatization? Can this apply to situations beyond the arts center?
The attorney general says the movement toward independence could make it private. The problem, to us anyway, is that the Walton Arts Center doesn’t appear to demonstrate any movement away from the benefits of public fi nancial support.
Key, according to McDaniel, is the extent to which the arts center is “intertwined” with the functions of government. Well, how’s this: It wouldn’t exist without it and it keeps coming back for more. Just last week, the arts center asked for another $8.5 million in public funds for its expansion and renovation of the Dickson Street campus. That sounds a lot like someone’s having a great deal of cake and eating it, too.
Peter Lane, the head guy at the arts center, appears most concerned that donor information might become public. Private foundations can certainly raise money for a public entity without triggering public scrutiny. Just ask the Razorback Foundation.
But decisions of expenditures and expansion plans and the like? We think that’s the public’s business.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 01/19/2013