As I understand it, OKC has a percent for art ordinance that sets aside a part of public building project money to be used for art incorporated in these projects. We can debate the merits of this but that is not really the intent of this thread. The intent is to question how rulemaking for spending this appropriated money is apparently being written to serve special interest, and those are not our interest, IMO.

Typically, when an art project is done for the public with public funds, a call is made for whomever might be qualified and inspired to submit proposals. The proposals and the proposers are then vetted by a selection committee and one is put to the council for a vote. It's not uncommon for the architect of the building project to be on that committee and/or have some input.

However, rumor has it, the city staff is or has drafted rules they are passing along to the arts commission that would follow other procedures. In the staff proposed rules, the project architect on a public project may elect to take the art funds in addition to their design fees and make the art.

I don't think we want that. We do not want to give special consideration to architect made sculptures, murals, etc over and above what artists or others might propose. Why would we want that? If the architects can't compete flat footed with other proposals we don't want them! That's ridiculous. What cabal has the city staff working for them?

This issue is supposed to be discussed at a meeting of the OKC Arts Commission on Monday. Maybe I misheard, but I don't think so.