Sunday, June 6, 2010

The recent announcement that Jen Crawford  has been appointed to the Arts Centre Trust Board was both surprising and disturbing.  Those who were involved in the recent resource management hearings will be aware that she was the lawyer representing the applicants for the proposed music school. Her appointment has all the appearance of stacking the Board with yet another member who will promote the pro-development stance it has adopted over recent years.   Given all the bad publicity the Board has received since the music school proposal was made public, it would have been a smart move on their part to appoint someone with impeccable heritage credentials.  The Board is full of business and development oriented members but conspicuously lacks anyone who brings substantial heritage expertise to the boardroom.  That is one reason why they so completely failed to foresee the great groundswell of public opposition to placing additional buildings on the site.

Public statements by Director Ken Franklin since the music school was turned down indicate that development is still very much on their agenda. The Board may be chastened by defeat but they evidently remain unchanged in their determination to develop the vacant sites.  They prefer to consider the opposition as coming from a small, implacable group intent upon derailing their plans by fair means or foul. But in the end the decision was based firmly on the requirements of the City Plan.  If they continue to ignore the widespread public desire to keep the heritage buildings free from modern intrusions and retain the open space which allows the buildings to breathe and be seen clearly, they are setting themselves up for further battles. The public has clearly indicated a desire for greater involvement in decisions being made for the future of our Arts Centre. So it is not reassuring to be told that it would be a year to eighteen months before  “any announcements”  are made concerning new plans for the site.  There is no suggestion here that the Board intends to consult with the public.   

It is interesting to note that when Ken Franklin’s appointment as director was announced he stated: “We must earn the support of the people of Canterbury......To build community confidence we will operate with transparency, providing insight into our intentions, encouraging open debate…”    It is difficult to reconcile these words with the music school debacle where debate was stifled on the Board, leading to resignation of one member, where citizens collecting petitions against the proposal were threatened with trespass notice and where public interest groups opposing the plans are said to have subjected the Arts Centre to unprecedented  attack.. " Far from being open and transparent, Mr Franklin and the Board adopted a seige mentality and unless this changes it does not bode well for the future of the Arts Centre. Unfortunately the recent public skirmishes with the stall holders, who feel bullied and threatened, indicates that the Board have a long way to go to restore any public confidence in their administration.