Newspaper columns are designed to include personal opinion. It is the only place in the newspaper where personal opinion should appear.

My column is my opinion. It does not represent the institutional opinion of this newspaper; that can be found in editorials composed after editorial board discussion. So if a reader disagrees with my column, he or she is disagreeing with me, not the newspaper.

What is unfortunate today is that it seems fewer and fewer people can agree to disagree. If I write something you don't agree with, I'm wrong, according to your perspective. If you agree, I'm right, according to your perspective. Neither, however, makes what I write wrong, or right, on the surface, but I try to base my opinion on fact, or at least use facts to support my point of view.

I own and take responsibility for what I write, but I do not try to use my beliefs to influence news reporting. Case in point: Gordon Weixel reported in Friday's newspaper how the Bismarck Park Board tabled the issue of United Tribes Technical College's annual public sculpture project. Gordon and I have never talked about how he or I feel about the subject. Nor would I, in advance, dictate how an event or meeting should be covered.

A newspaper's editor will, from time to time, have informational discussions in the newsroom with reporters, or edit, in advance, complex or potentially controversial stories. Or, he or she will review something already published, most often if there are complaints about factual errors. But, for the most part, my day-to-day relationship with Gordon and our other reporters consists of morning hellos and occasional and brief conversations.

Now, I've said all that to say this: The Bismarck Park Board made a terrible mistake when it tabled the UTTC annual public sculpture project.

Fact: There is a formal agreement for a series of six sculptures.

There once was a time when a handshake or verbal agreement was a person's bond, but apparently not any longer. There is certainly a legal question about honoring an agreement, and it is my understanding legal opinions are now being sought. If the agreement is abandoned, making UTTC whole financially might be a consideration. But what about the moral or ethical considerations of not honoring an agreement? What lessons are we teaching our students, our children?

There are reasons reported for not going forward. But really, they are only excuses, which have effectively killed the project for now, possibly for good. Part of the "wisdom" (quotations marks are used for a reason) cited for tabling the project is that an arts policy needs to be completed. The Dakota West Arts Council, however, has admitted having a difficult time with the issue, even to developing a process. It will be encouraged to work as quickly as possible, but there is no deadline, and the earliest a draft is expected is the end of summer.

Park board member Paul Quist made the motion to table approval of the sculpture. He said he believes the vast majority of city residents favor ending the agreement. He said he has received about 50 phone calls and had other conversations with those against the sculptures. He says people tell him they don't like the sculptures, they would like to see them spread out into other areas, taxpayer money should not go to the sculptures, they'd like more diversity (something other than eagles) and they want green-space conservation.

Fact: There are about 100,000 people in the area.

Fact: One sculpture was primarily cited as a non-favorite.

Fact: If people want the sculptures spread out into other areas, it seems to imply they like the art but would just like it in a variety of locations.

Fact: The average cost of the sculptures is reported to be about $15,000 - and two-thirds comes from a Lewis and Clark grant. This is one of the cheapest taxpayer-supported projects around. And if the agreement is abandoned and UTTC is made whole financially, it will be done with taxpayer money. Wouldn't it be nice to get something for the money?

Fact: If people would like something other than eagles, it's likely UTTC or some other group would accommodate them after this agreement is honored.

Fact: The green-space conservation argument should be a nonstarter considering all the green and brown spaces already available.

Based on the facts and the Park board action, some conclusions can be drawn, rightly or wrongly, and they suggest community discussion.

Is there politics involved (on many fronts)? Is there jealousy by other arts organizations that UTTC had such an agreement? And then there is the elephant in the room - is racial-bias rearing its ugly head once again?

The right thing to do would be to go forward with the UTTC commitment for two more sculptures - and also go forward with an arts policy. Consider this: the financial costs are minimal for the art, especially compared to the high costs of further fractured community relationships.

In my opinion, it would be wrong (and foolish) not to do the right thing.

What's your opinion?

(You can reach Editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@bismarcktribune.com and go to www.bismarcktribune.com/blog/?w=thepaper&e_id=2671/ to read his blog.)