Some common sense in the debate over public art

WHEN the regular 2009 legislative session ended in late April, no one left Olympia feeling good about removing more than 40,000 people from the Basic Health program, slashing higher-education enrollments and increasing tuition, and taking hundreds of millions of dollars from K-12 education.

We made nearly impossible decisions as responsibly and fairly as we could. Or did we?

By law, state agencies must set aside one-half of 1 percent of capital funds for the purchase of art. Taxpayers currently own 4,500 works of art valued at more than $17 million. While no one disputes that the Art in Public Places program has been successful in helping promote artists, it's a luxury we simply can't afford.

Early in the session I introduced Senate Bill 5693 to spare state agencies from being forced to purchase art. My legislation would have made the requirement optional for the next two years and freed up as much as $5 million. That money could have been used to invest in valuable public-works projects that will grow our economy and put people back to work.

Critics were quick to label the bill as an attack on public art. And even though the legislation was given a public hearing, it died in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

I respectfully disagree with members of the arts community who feel the Art in Public Places program should be sacrosanct. What message are we sending to struggling middle-class families across our state when we force our agencies to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on art while our children's favorite teachers are being handed pink slips?

We cannot ask others to sacrifice while we enrich those outside our state. Paying a New York artist $286,000 for a tree stump, as shown in a Seattle Times article April 28, will cause our citizens to question our ability to govern and manage their money. In these tough economic times, there should be no sacred cows — including the arts.

After my bill was killed, I sponsored an amendment to the 2009-2011 capital budget requiring the Washington State Arts Commission to restrict the purchase of art to artists living in our state. Nearly half of the artists we currently purchase from live outside of Washington. If we're going to continue to spend millions to subsidize artists during a severe recession, we should at least make sure those tax dollars go to artists living in our state.

Critics have asked Gov. Chris Gregoire to veto my amendment. That would be a mistake. I am not an opponent of the arts, merely a proponent of common-sense public policy that reflects the values of most of the people in this state.

Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, represents the 44th Legislative District.

The information in this opinion piece, originally published May 12, 2009 at 11:05 a.m., was corrected May 12, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. Steve Hobbs is a Democratic state senator representing the 44th Legislative District. A previous version of this opinion piece incorrectly identified Hobbs as a state representative.