Pickering has found room in its priorities for a wooden sculpture with a spending allowance of $30,000.

By John Meloche Pickering has found room in its priorities for a wooden sculpture with a spending allowance of $30,000. Residents should take a good look. It offers a revealing picture of how comfortably City Hall spends money that belongs to everyone else. The artwork hangs inside council chambers renovated under an approved project cost of approximately $3.3 million. Its polished wooden forms curl into two loops, joined by twisting, leaflike shapes. From a distance, it resembles an elongated figure eight. The city calls it Je Me Souviens and describes themes of memory, growth and time. I see an expensive flourish that council should have had the discipline to question. The authorized maximum was $30,000; the final invoice should be public. But the spending decision itself deserves criticism. Council looked at a room already receiving millions in renovations and decided an additional artistic centrepiece belonged on the shopping list. Why? Accessibility improvements have a practical purpose. Working microphones have a practical purpose. Security has a practical purpose. Council should explain exactly what justified this decorative purchase and why a less expensive option would not do. “Art is valuable” is an argument for appreciating art. It is an inadequate explanation for a particular public expenditure. And the sculpture is only one example. Council endorsed Heritage Tree for the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre at a net project cost of $112,566.43 in September 2025. A year later, it endorsed another artwork for the centre’s west garden at the same stated net project cost. Two commissions. More than $225,000. Somebody is doing well out of these investments. But is it the city? Residents deserve more than descriptions of cultural identity and attractive gathering spaces. They deserve evidence that the benefits justify the price.The approval rules make this spending even more troubling. A 2023 city report identified $25,000 as the threshold above which public art required council approval. The current purchasing policy sets that threshold above $100,000. Council’s answer to expensive art purchases should have been stronger scrutiny. Instead, the threshold for requiring its approval has quadrupled. Management approvals and budget controls remain. But individual purchases up to that higher threshold can proceed without the separate council approval previously required. That means fewer occasions when elected representatives must publicly defend these purchases. I consider that a retreat from accountability. If council is proud of this spending, let councillors explain each substantial purchase in public. Let residents hear the alternatives, the costs and the reasons for proceeding. Dorsey James, the chamber sculpture’s creator, also has several other works listed in Pickering’s public art collection. The city should publish a complete history of its paid commissions and restoration work, including payments to him and other artists. Residents should be able to assess the whole bill. A Public Art Reserve does not make spending painless. Money already set aside still requires judgment before it is spent. I lost the election. I have not lost my voice. Returning elected officials can expect me to keep examining these decisions. Winning an election does not turn wasteful spending into good judgment In my view, this is precisely where council needs to cut back: discretionary purchases whose public benefit has not been convincingly demonstrated. Publish the invoices. Disclose the maintenance costs. Restore stronger oversight. Defend the spending. City Hall can admire its sculpture. Residents should examine the bill.