Why did you not want the media at the meeting? To the point of

postponing it if they did not leave?

It was never a question of not wanting the media to be there. It was simply that

we were taken completely by surprise at the prospect of a fair exchange of

views among members being transformed into a public spectacle which might

have frustrated any reasonable deliberation.

In any event, the media found less obtrusive means of monitoring the

proceedings which were entirely appropriate to the situation.

There was never any question of postponement, but only of unnecessary delay

in attending to the important business on the agenda if the question had been

opened for debate.

With your motion defeated, what is your next step?

It is always important to have a ‘Plan B’ which we do. We are committed to the

idea of the gallery being able to manage its day-to-day affairs without having to

run to and from the Board or management for approval. We can only say that

the new plan takes in to account the continuing operations of the gallery. We

are not walking away.

Why are you unhappy with the progress of the WKP Kennedy Gallery

Advisory Committee? Why does it not meet the needs of reorganizing

the gallery?

There has been no progress. The Chair of the Gallery Advisory Committee

conceded that when she stated categorically at the meeting that the Gallery

Development Working Group was satisfied with the status quo. It came as no

surprise. The working group was composed largely of Board members opposed

to any meaningful change. It was not widely representative of the visual arts

community as it should have been. The recommendations in the facilitator’s

were exactly the ones which the Board sought from the outset.

The Board clearly has a different model in mind for the gallery which is not in

accord with the principles, guidelines and best practices governing other public

art galleries. A good example would be that the gallery is soon to become a

wedding venue! This is completely contrary to the role of a public art gallery or

what the founders had in mind.

I understand there is a plan for a new curator. Are you satisfied about

this?

A director/curator is the gallery’s biggest and most important investment. He or

she must be highly qualified in curatorial experience and related education. A

primarily administrative position, or curation by committee, is unacceptable.

It should also be kept in mind that public art galleries generally are open to the

public without charge. In our case, the Kennedy Gallery does not enjoy the

advantage of box office ticket sales. And unlike a private gallery, a public art

gallery is not expected to turn a profit.

How do you feel about comments made by Jerry Knox and the city's

approach to arts funding through the Capitol Centre?

We were somewhat surprised to see the City take centre stage, something it had

earlier indicated it was reluctant do. But the situation on the ground has

changed rapidly since, and it is satisfying to have fully engaged the City’s

interest. Whatever their approach, we have no reason to doubt that it is

anything but sincere. We welcome their involvement.

Regardless of the City’s current views, all of the constituent members of the arts

community must eventually unite and take the lead themselves by presenting its

case directly to those who make the decisions. With or without an official

cultural plan, only the arts community has the energy and vision for advancing

North Bay’s cultural life.

Will you bringing the motion back to the table and if so, when can you

do this?

In retrospect, our motion was dead on arrival. Although we believe it was

absolutely the right approach, DNR is the order of the day.

Any other comments you would like to add?

The Board claimed it had only two days to study our single-page, 6-paragraph

motion. That was misleading at best. In truth, the Board had 6 months to study

the underlying plan outline which was the foundation for our motion. The Board

could have formed the special committee itself months ago which we urged

them to do in accordance with rules in the Capitol Centre bylaw. Instead they

resorted to a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy which, as you witnessed at the AGM,

enjoyed considerable success.