A thorny debate over a museum funding request broke out at last night’s city council meeting. The grant is for $75,000 in matching funds, and the process by which it’s come up has attracted public attention. KUCB's Lauren Rosenthal reports.

On Tuesday, council voted 4-1 to advance a controversial budget package that includes a grant for a renovation at the Museum of the Aleutians along with money for new power transformers and for emergency planning.

As soon as the package came up for discussion, councilor Tom Enlow tried to amend it.

"I want to amend the motion to remove the Museum of the Aleutians grant funding of $75,000 out of this package and put it in a standalone [ordinance] for approval," he said.

Enlow said he wanted a budget amendment that would cover all of the money the museum needs from the city — not just the $75,000.

Enlow said he had struggled with the museum’s grant request since councilor and museum director Zoya Johnson presented it at the last meeting.

But that wasn’t the first time Johnson asked council to support the project. At a meeting in 2010, she presented plans for a broad redesign of the museum’s permanent exhibit. She says that council made a verbal commitment to provide $75,000 in matching funds.

With that pledge, museum staff went on to raise more than $370,000 in outside grants to build the new designs. But the museum is still short by $202,000. Now, they’re asking the city to supply matching funds and fill the remaining gap to keep the project alive.

Enlow said he admired the design and commended museum staff for their hard work. But he challenged Johnson’s claim that council verbally committed $75,000 to the project two years ago.

"I have gone back through the audio tape of that meeting. I cannot find a verbal commitment to that money," he said. "I cannot find any kind of formal commitment for the council for that $75,000. And because of that, I’m not comfortable inserting that grant request funding in this package. I would like to see it come back as a standalone ordinance."

Councilors Zac Schasteen and Roger Rowland said they also listened to the audio recording of council’s original discussion. Neither one found a verbal commitment to fund the museum on that tape.

Rowland followed up by saying the lack of clear commitment was on him. Mayor Shirley Marquardt had been absent at that meeting in 2010, so Rowland served as mayor pro tem in her place. He said that while council seemed supportive, he failed to shape their feelings into a directive to the manager.

"You want to get a consensus of the group. Madam Mayor, in my listening to the audio, I did not do that at that meeting. And I say that to my shame," Rowland said. "Evidently, maybe staff picked up on — that yes, we’re moving forward. But we can’t base this on what we think and what we remember. We have to go back to the hard copy and what I heard, and I did not hear a commitment to the money. Now, do I think the intent of the council was to go ahead? Yes. But we’re getting into a very subjective area."

But city manager Chris Hladick said council was getting stuck in the weeds, debating the difference between committing money and appropriating it. He told councilors that they weren’t really being asked to fund a commitment from the 2010 council. Instead, they were being asked to appropriate money for the first time. 

"I think you make a good point. From now on, we won’t do shaking of heads," Hladick said. "We’re not doing that anymore. It’s gotta be pretty solid. But just to make a commitment of that, to go get the money, is not unheard of. So if this was all somehow my fault, I’ll just take the blame for it. But still, we’ve gotta figure out what to do."

As council got ready to vote on putting the museum grants in their own package, Johnson asked to recuse herself. She pointed to a publicly "perceived" conflict of interest.

Mayor Shirley Marquardt pulled up a four-page memo from the city attorney, Brooks Chandler. The city asked him to weigh Johnson’s potential conflict of interest against state and city code. If Johnson’s salary was going to come from the city grant funds, then she would have a clear conflict of interest. She recused herself from a vote on museum funding in June for that reason. But if that wasn’t the case this time around, Chandler said Johnson was required to vote.

Johnson said the grants wouldn’t fund her salary — and on that basis, Marquardt denied Johnson’s recusal and told her to vote.

The conflict of interest question dragged on a little longer, though. Schasteen challenged the city attorney’s interpretation of the state law. He asked council to vote on whether Johnson could abstain. But Marquardt said city code doesn’t allow for that kind of vote. In a follow-up interview, Marquardt explained that the city attorney’s determination has been treated as the final word on conflicts of interest in the past.

While conversation around the funding request was heated, the merit of the project wasn't up for debate. During the meeting, all five councilors said they support the redesign.

Only two community members signed up to speak during the public comment period. Michelle Cochran and Sharon Svarny-Livingston both asked council to fund the project. Cochran warned council against prioritizing capital spending projects over the museum request.

"I get it — that we have a lot of really hard funding issues to face in the future," Cochran said. "But I sort of liken this to the point where school districts and cities have to say, in their programs, 'We’re going to have to cut art and music and physical education because we can no longer afford those things.' It is always to communities' detriments that that happens. I would ask you to look at the museum in the same sort of light. It is to our detriment not to fund a well thought-out plan."

Cochran also complimented Johnson for her commitment to the redesign, and said she believed Johnson has done a good job of balancing her duties as a director and councilor.

Svarny-Livingston sits on the museum board. She said she wants the public to understand that the board has to approve all of Johnson’s grant applications and funding requests. The board fully supports the museum’s current request, even though it’s outside the city’s regular nonprofit grant cycle.

The amendment to separate the museum funding into its own package broke down in a 3-2 vote — Enlow, Gregory, and Schasteen voted for it. Johnson and Rowland voted no. However, because city code requires a supermajority, the amendment failed. Councilor Dennis Robinson was excused from the meeting.

Rowland moved to amend the budget package again, so the grant would be refunded to the city general fund if the museum fails to come up with enough money to build the new design. He also specified that city funds only be used for the redesign project — not staff salaries. That amendment passed unanimously.

Council then returned to the entire funding package — museum, police, and power transformers in all. They voted 4-1 to pass the ordinance on to a second reading and public hearing at the Nov. 8 council meeting. Schasteen was the dissenting vote.