|
As the one-year anniversary of the Grand Theatre reopening approaches, the city is looking to rework how it manages the restored landmark. But not all is amicable in the local art world.
Simmering tensions came bubbling to the surface Tuesday night during a discussion about how the city will run its downtown cultural showpiece, the Grand Theatre Center for the Arts.
At a council workshop where elected officials went over some of the fine points of changes they might make at the theater as it heads into its second season, one issue stuck out above the rest — the rewriting of a contract the city has with a nonprofit that spearheaded renovation of the theater, a site that not long ago was an aging downtown eyesore.
 Artwork graces the inside of the refurbished Grand Theatre Center for the Arts in downtown Tracy nearly a year after its reopening. The city is looking to modify how it runs the historic venue. Glenn Moore/Tracy Press
A majority of the City Council wanted the theater and other cultural arts activities to be run from the city manager’s office rather than the parks department, which runs the airport, manages the city’s parks and hosts many classes for kids and adults, to name only a few of its obligations.
"I don’t like it being buried" in the parks department, Councilwoman Evelyn Tolbert said.
But it was the discussion of the contract with the arts group that stirred the most fiery debate.
One year into a five-year contract that automatically renewed itself last year, the city is rewriting the agreement.
Part of the reason is that the original contract discussed what the arts group was supposed to do leading up to remodeling of the theater. Now that it’s built and the first season has come and gone, the agreement should be changed, both sides say.
But there seems to be an undercurrent of tension between Councilwoman Suzanne Tucker and the person most often identified with the arts group — president Ann Langley. Sources who know the relationship between both women say it’s not amicable, though the reason why is unclear.
Under the original agreement with the city, the arts group raised $1 million for the theater and is supposed to raise $30,000 annually from now on.
Sparks flew a bit when Tucker, who in the past few months served on a subcommittee with Councilman Steve Abercrombie to iron out possible changes at the Grand, brought up the fact that the alliance has yet to give the city an accounting of where its money has come from.
"And we’ve asked for that several times now, in writing," she said.
The councilwoman went on to say if the group fails to live up to its end of the agreement, the city should consider canceling the mutual contract.
That brought a quick response from arts group board member Mike Souza, who jumped to the podium to point out how much money the group has given the city and how much work its volunteers have done to make the revamped theater a reality.
"I think that’s a below-the-belt shot, Suzanne," he told her.
But the city has to be accountable to taxpayers, Tucker said, since more than $25 million was used to remodel the building.
That exchange prompted Mayor Brent Ives to call the proposed contract "too punitive," and praised the work of the arts group.
"In my mind, we’re getting a good deal," he said. "Most people want something to partner with the city. Then ALA wants to give us a check."
But Tolbert, a lawyer, said the city needs to have a contract with the group so the responsibilities of each are spelled out.
"We do need a contract," she said. "… Any time you’re dealing with public funding."
The council will re-examine its contract with the arts group and hone in on other changes at the Grand during the next few months.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
"And we’ve asked for that several times now, in writing," she said.
The councilwoman went on to say if the group fails to live up to its end of the agreement, the city should consider canceling the mutual contract. But the city has to be accountable to taxpayers, Tucker said
That is astounding retoric from Tucker, didn't she refuse to give up her emails to the LLNL a year ago when requested? Wasn't she accountable to the taxpayers? Unbelievable.