April 14, 2004

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to The Almanac Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2004

A conflict on public art revision?

The idea was advanced by the city's Arts Commission, whose members hoped the law would sprinkle small public art projects around the city on private property, a welcome addition to downtown, where commercial activity covers virtually every square foot. But since its passage, the owners of two of the first projects to come under the new law -- John Conway, who is renovating his Chevron station, and Milton Borg, who rebuilt his 7-Eleven -- objected to being required to spend the "1 percent for art" for their projects. They also were unhappy that they had to find an artist to design and implement the art.

For many months, the council seemed to ignore the pair's complaints about the law, but last week the law was reconsidered. On a 4-0-1 vote, members agreed to have city staff rewrite the law to allow all building owners to pay a fee to the city in lieu of installing the art, if they so choose. Under the current law, a property owner must get approval from the Arts Commission to pay the fee rather than install the artwork himself or herself.

But the council took one giant step further: At the request of Mayor Lee Duboc, members agreed, with Paul Collacchi abstaining, to make the proposed change in the ordinance retroactive, and thus permit the Chevron station to abandon its project by simply paying the fee to the city. Mr. Conway announced after the meeting that he would indeed cancel his art project, a mural to be painted by youngsters from the East Palo Alto Mural Art Project.

From the start of last week's discussion, Ms. Duboc and council member Mickie Winkler, who made the motion for the amendments, seemed aware of Mr. Conway's strong opposition to the ordinance. But when Ms. Duboc specifically asked City Attorney Bill McClure whether an ordinance change could apply retroactively to the Chevron station, it was clear that Mr. Conway's project was being singled out for special treatment.

Why should Mr. Conway be given special consideration, when others went ahead and followed the rules? Why did Ms. Duboc make such a strong request to relieve the Chevron station from the new rules?

The answer is not clear, although we find it disturbing that Mr. Conway is president of Menlo Park Matters, a political action committee formed last year, originally to support Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc. Since that time, Menlo Park Matters has been less visible, but it continues to carry Reg Rice and Michael Meyer as vice president and treasurer, the same roles the two played in the Menlo Park Neighborhood Association, the campaign committee formed to elect Ms. Winkler, Ms. Duboc and Nicholas Jellins in 2002. The campaign committee was disbanded about the same time Menlo Park Matters was formed in early March of last year, with Mr. Conway as president. At the time, the Chevron station owner told supporters that if the group attracted a lot of members, it could give Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc the support they need.

Ms. Duboc's interest in allowing Mr. Conway to escape his obligation to install art on his property presents at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. No other business with a project in the pipeline has objected to the ordinance.

The council has every right to overturn any ordinance and change the rules going forward. But to apply such changes retroactively to such a select group, particularly including a supporter who had been widely quoted as opposing the ordinance, strikes us as unfair. And although Menlo Park Matters seems to have taken little overt action since its formation last year to advance the causes of Ms. Winkler and Ms. Duboc, the councilwomen's efforts on behalf of Mr. Conway send a message that it pays to have friends on the City Council.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.