An arts conversation with Canadian Taxpayer Federations’ Scott Hennig
On Tuesday afternoon a Calgary City Council committee approved a bylaw amendment to help offset the costs of city services to festivals. Obviously Scott Hennig of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation didn’t agree with this kind of precedent and he made a comment about it on Twitter.
As an arts advocate who believes the small subsidy (compared to other industries) Canadians provide arts organizations is far outweighed by the return on investment and quality of life we get back, I took it upon myself to have a conversation with Mr. Hennig on Twitter about this topic.
Here is the full conversation to the best of my Twitter searching capabilities:
CalgaryCowbell: We want our cake and to eat it too. Low taxes = no money for city to provide services for festivals #yyc
ScottHennig: @CalgaryCowbell low taxes = citizens have the ability to fund festivals, arts, and other things themselves.
djkelly: @scotthennig Canadian arts would disappear w/o granting support. And with it the differences between Canada and US, followed by the border.
djkelly: @scotthennig It is in the city/prov/country’s interest to support the arts to attract and retain talent.
ScottHennig: @djkelly I don’t think it is in the “city/prov/country’s interest,” it is in citizen’s interest to support the arts, willingly and freely.
djkelly: @scotthennig Does that argument extend to garbage collection? Public transit? Road maintenance? And other things in the public interest?
ScottHennig: @djkelly there R some things that R difficult to fund directly & freely (ie. police) + there R things that R easy to do so (ie. arts).
djkelly: @scotthennig What makes the arts easy for individuals exclusively to fund? No country has been able to do it successfully. (Most don’t try.)
ScottHennig: @djkelly Most theaters have ticket offices, most buskers have hats, & most painters will sell their work. Plus most arts groups R charities.
djkelly: @scotthennig NP arts revenue model: 1/3 ticket sales, 1/3 donations, 1/3 grants. No arts group can survive on ticket sales alone.
djkelly: @scotthennig Eliminate grants and prices would triple and no-one would come. Same thing if we made every street a toll road.
ScottHennig: @nenshi @djkelly 99.7% of the Metropolitan Opera expenses covered by non-gov’t sources. But not the point.
ScottHennig: @djkelly vry doubtful. Lwr tax = more charitable giving. Plus, arts that nobody wld support wld disappear. Just like car companies…whoops!
djkelly: @scotthennig The increase of charitable giving created by lower taxes would not come close to offsetting the lost of grants.
ScottHennig: @djkelly True. But only to those who get a disproportionate amount of tax $. Other artists or charitable sectors would get more.
djkelly: @scotthennig Sorry, who currently gets a disproportionate amount?
djkelly: @scotthennig RE the Met: you cite an example from a city with 12M ppl. Your point doesn’t translate to Canada as it would mean no opera 4 us
ScottHennig: @djkelly Those arts who get more tax $ than the public would give them freely if given back their money back currently get a disproport. Amt
ScottHennig: @djkelly RE: Met, the point is that citizens will support the arts, and yes on a smaller scale so could any group of citizens in Canada.
djkelly: @scotthennig Sounds like that would take more $ in red tape & admin than it would save.
ScottHennig: @djkelly Not much red tape involved in cutting taxes.
djkelly: @scotthennig Can’t do the vast majority of operas on a smaller scale. A symphony and cast can’t be replaced by less ppl.
djkelly: @scotthennig Looks like we are having a 140 character problem as I apparently didn’t understand your proposal. Or you wanted a sound bite
ScottHennig: @djkelly Yes, and the Calgary Flames don’t play games in 500 seat arenas, but other hockey teams do.
ScottHennig: D djkelly Good convo. Gotta run.
djkelly: @scotthennig As a fiscal conservative I appreciate the CTF. Obviously we disagree on this issue though.
djkelly: @scotthennig Can’t DM back bc your not following me. Thanks 4 debating the issue. 2 often ppl lob insults at the arts & won’t back them up.
Unfortunately we were just getting warmed up when the end of the work day came and we both had to leave our computers. It is a worth while discussion and I hope to have the ability to continue the debate with Mr. Hennig in the future. Perhaps in person next time.
My comments to City Council on the future of Calgary
For those that follow my Twitter feed and my blog you know I have have had an entirely split focus for the past couple of days. My blog has dealt exclusively with the Doug Elniski issue while on Twitter I have posted dozens of tweets over the same time regarding the City of Calgary’s PlanIT public consultation process going on at City Hall.
PlanIT is an extremely important document laying out the ‘plan’ for how Calgary will grow over the next 60 years. As a result public input has been sought for quite sometime and ‘for’ and ‘against’ side are now providing their thoughts in person to Council. The ‘pros’ concluded last night after two days of presentations (about 110 people signed up to speak) and the ‘cons’ began immediately following (about 60 people signed up to speak).
Last night – at number 97 – I provided my thoughts. Below are my comments to council:
Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to speak. My name is DJ Kelly, I am an administrator in the not-for-profit sector and president of the Winston Heights/Mountview CA.
I’m happy to answer questions from the point of view of our CA but today I’m simply talking as an engaged citizen.
I wanted to begin, if I may, by thanking Council and Administration for showing vision in creating this document. I’m confident we can all agree, that no business or organization can possibly be effectively run without a big picture strategic plan.
I’m reminded once again of one columnist’s comment from sometime in the late 90s that Calgary is “the city that planning forgot”. With the approval of PlanIT no longer will we be able to be the butt of these kinds of jokes. PlanIT finally provides Calgary with the strategic growth plan columnists and citizens alike have requested oh so frequently.
I’m hopefully the cries of “those fools down at City Hall have no idea what they’re doing” will be, if not eliminated, at least lessened because of this document.
The benefit of speaking toward the end of the “for” or “pro-PlanIT” list is I don’t need to get into the reasons why you should or should not support PlanIT. Instead I can marvel at some of the fantastic comments made by previous speakers.The main one that comes to mind is Derek the Urban Studies student from UofC. I think he brought forward a perspective that many have not thought of when discussing PlanIT and it bears repeating: our generation will not live the same kind of life our parents and grandparents did. Just as they did not live the same kind of life as those a generation before them. There are no pioneers or gunfighters in our midst any longer.
None of us in this room are psychics. We cannot predict the future and should not purport to. Even the City’s own marketing for the PlanIT response process makes light of this fact. I cannot say what the city will need in 60 years, and despite the protests of others that I’m sure are coming, they cannot either.
Look at what we planned on 60 years ago. Those are the very things we are now struggling with and that people smarter than us have shown to be unsustainable. Even the poor bulging city budget shows that at the very least we need to think differently.
This is why the “spirit” of PlanIT is far more important than anything else. So long as we can agree with the points and goals laid out in the first few pages we are heading in the right direction.
The one thing we can say for sure is that PlanIT will change and grow over time. It will have to be a living document. There will be variations as we move forward. We do not need to approve the perfect plan this week. However I think PlanIT lays an excellent the groundwork for the future and I’m proud to live in a city with this kind of vision.
Another thing I think is important to note is that every speaker who has lamented the non-inclusion of the airport tunnel has self classified themselves as “in favour” of PlanIT. I’m encouraged that despite their disappointment, they still have the foresight to see what PlanIT can do for the city.
I am interested to hear the comments of those not in favour of PlanIT. From what I have heard through the press it sounds like the majority are from one single industry, whereas those who have spoken in favour appear to represent a large swath of industries. Having PlanIT receive such wide-spread support leaves me further encouraged.
Personally I’m more concerned with the City’s track record of follow through on ambitious plans. My thoughts on that can be found in tomorrow’s post for Alberta Venture’s Think Alberta,
I won’t get into them today other than to say I encourage City Council to have the courage of our convictions, approve this big picture plan, and get on with the process of building the better city I know this council wants.
Questions followed from Ald McIver about my statements around implementation. I answered that, yes, indeed I do see this as the major concern facing council moving forward and regardless of what planning document we approve it will continue to be the major issue and Council and Administration has serious work ahead of them. More background on that is in my Alberta Venture Think! Alberta post that will be available at 1pm today. (I’ll cross post here following that.) Part II goes up on Friday.
Ald Chabot congratulated me on my timing for showing up shortly before my presentation time. I thanked the internet and the Council webcast. He followed up with another question but to be honest I don’t remember what it was. I remember it being akward and me not really understanding what he was asking. It felt adveseraly (is that even a word?) and I certainly didn’t mean for it to. Sorry if it came across that way!
Doug Elniski: how to do it right
My blog post from yesterday about MLA Doug Elniski’s comments about women and equality made on his blog, and about participants at the Pride Parade made via Twitter quickly became the most viewed post in this blogs history. (Practically doubling from the previous high!)
That post was particularly popular with Government of Alberta officials – at least that’s what the stats tell me. Or at least it was popular enough that I was invited to be a guest on both CBC Radio One’s Calgary Eyeopener and Edmonton AM to talk about my thoughts around Doug’s use of social media and what he said. Once the interviews are posted (if they’re posted) you’ll probably be able to listen to them online at those links.
The interviews were both quick and and I didn’t necessarily get to say everything I wanted, so I thought I’d share those thoughts here.
- While I don’t agree with Doug’s comments I fully support him. He said something dumb and he knows it. He’s human, we all say dumb things from time to time. I’m impressed with his handling of the situation however; he did an excellent job apologizing with the openness and honesty that made his Tweets and blog so refreshing in the first place. It wasn’t simply the standard empty apology one has come to expect from a politician. I wish I had an audio link to it so you could here it. It’s worth a listen.
This is the main reason why I don’t think he should have deleted his blog. His honesty and engagement provided through the blog and Twitter – up until this point at least – I think should have allowed him a fair bit of patience from the public in this situation. If he would have apologized online and allowed us to see the process he was going through to make amends, I would not have been surprised to see come out on the other side with more supporters than before.
I really do think we want politicians who represent us and are willing to communicate and engage in what concerns us. We don’t need another “walled off politician”. I hope Doug won’t become that because of this error in judgement.
- I also hope this won’t discourage other politicians from communicating with constituents via these newer tools. As you can here in the Calgary interview, host Jim Brown mentions the Alberta PC party may be coming out with guidelines to monitor their party members online communications more closely. This concerns me a little.You can make as many guidelines or memos as you like to control a party’s members on the internet, but when it all comes down to it the only point guidelines will really set out is “don’t say dumb things”.
I would argue that is the same advice you would give to them if they are talking giving a speech, writing a newsletter, or talking casually to friends.
The point here isn’t that an MLA said these kinds of things online. The point is that he said them period. Social media is not the culprit in this situation. I hope the PC party doesn’t make the mistake of not seeing it the same way.
The only other option is to not allow your party members to converse with consituents at all. And I think that is a terrible choice.
- I did get to touch on this in Calgary interview, but for me when it comes down to it I want my elected officials to be engaged. I want them to hear what I and others are saying, and then make the decision they feel is in the best interests of their constituents. Social media provides direct access that no town hall or newsletter in a mailbox could ever give.In the future this kind of engagement will be expected of our political leaders. Currently about 40% of the population of Alberta is under the age of 30. These are the people learning to expect to know what their friends are doing on a regular basis. This is happening via text messages and status updates. There is no stopping it as it has become rooted in our culture. In 10 years about one third of the voting public will fall into this category and expect to know what politicians are doing on our behalf on a regular basis. To get elected you will NEED to master these tools. Our elected officials may as well lead the way and start on this course now. After all we elect them to be leaders.
PS – Please don’t just have a staffer update your accounts. We can tell the difference and will ridicule you and penalize you for your lack of transparency. Social media is about dialogue. If you are not responding you obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. And at the end of the day, remember this: who wants to elect a person who is non-responsive?
Doug Elniski: now just another walled off politician?
Did MLA Doug Elniski do something dumb? Yes. Was posting his thoughts online the mistake? No.
This is what makes social media such a powerful tool when it comes to politics: you get a chance to see inside the mind of our leaders and what makes them tick. And as you can imagine, when you get a chance to look inside someone’s mind you might not always like what you see.
The alternative to this is what we have been doing for generations. In that example, we elect someone without really knowing much about them and then either approve of what they do on our behalf or become belligerent and shocked when a massive scandal blows up.
I would argue social media like Twitter and Facebook allow us to get an inside perspective of what our elected officials do and think and that is a good thing. If they are corrupt or disengaged, status updates may give a peek at that attitude. If they don’t? Well they were just lying to us anyway so we’re no worse off then we were before.
Personally, I don’t agree with Doug’s comments. When I first read his tweets at the Edmonton Pride Parade I thought to myself, “Gee, I don’t think those are appropriate comments to say out loud.” And when I read what he said at a grade 9 graduation I thought, “That does not seem appropriate at all.” But you know what? He has a right to think and say those things. Just like we have a right to judge him based on what he said.
I would much rather an elected leader show me their true face and let me decide what to do with that information, than live a lie and pretend to be something they are not.
Where I really became disappointed with Doug was with his reaction to the controversy created by his remarks on his blog. Rather than apologizing on his blog and trying to help us understand why he made the remarks and what he is doing/going through in getting past them, he simply deleted the blog all together.
And in doing so left us all to wonder what is going on in his head and became just another walled off politician. And that is our loss.
Mad Avenue Blues
With the advent of free online news there something had to give. And unfortunately we are seeing the outcome of that now as companies such as CTV, Canwest Global and even the government supported CBC, struggle to update their business model so they can keep the news flowing.
There isn’t much in the way of solutions to this issue – I certainly don’t have the answer – but at least someone has written a fun parody song outlining the situation main stream media finds themselves currently in. Enjoy the song while hundred-year-old news organizations nervously laugh themselves into a huddled crying heap!
h/t to Ken Chapman
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
