In August 2009 the arts sector was faced with a significant cut to Gaming grants. As I write this it appears that those funds have not been restored in the new budget. Gaming monies have been used by many arts organizations to fund the vital administrative work that is necessary to keep them going. When the only paid staff person in a small artists run gallery has to handle all the day to day issues, negotiate the lease, do the bookkeeping, as well as the programming it is little wonder that some things fall by the wayside. Often Society Act compliance is at the bottom of a long list of priorities. A new structure with enhanced regulatory involvement in the sector does not alleviate the stresses on the sector – likely it could make what is already an issue into a problem. The priority of any Society Act reform ought to be modernization of the Society Act not enhanced regulation.
Share this blog
I agree. Modernization without regulation. Unfortunately in the gaming world the focus is on regulation without modernization. In this province we have a social policy that results in the highest poverty rate in Canada. So, the Gaming branch takes money from artists to feed school children. How bizarre is that? We should fix the policy – not punish artists.
I am wondering what artists and the Arts Groups think about this. Currently the Society Act requires that every Society must have at least one Director / trustee who normally is actually resident in British Columbia. Under the Business Corporations Act there no longer needs to be a local owner – someone who actually lives in British Columbia. Could the same rules apply to Society Directors?
The BC Law Institute’s paper recommends that the new Society Act accept the principle that no directors of any society must be residents. To quote recommendation number 29: “A new Society Act should not impose residency requirements on directors.” I believe that continuing to unbundle the concept of community accountability from a form of incorporation that really needs community accountability is just plain the wrong way to go. When do we stop automatically applying the globalization frame on everything? In this context, globalization means that no-one is actually accountable. I would like to know what others think.
We have to think about what a “society” is and although there can absolutely be communities of interest that transcend geography, particularly with the connectivity offered by on-line networks/communication – there is a threat that the accountability is not owned at the living level. My thoughts lean toward a flexible model that allows for “outside” expertise and yet maintains a requirement for local representation and participation. In the end it does depend on the specific mission of the Society in question. Maybe a minimum level?