5 Ways Bentonville Changed Public Art Policies After Mural Controversy

The City of Bentonville has overhauled its approach to public art following last year’s controversy over a trailside mural.

The City Council unanimously approved a revised public art ordinance and related policies Tuesday.

Months after the All Bike(r)s Welcome mural was completed in October 2024, residents submitted complaints to the city, arguing that it amounted to advertising for All Bikes Welcome, a nonprofit organization. Some complaints also alleged that a transgender flag had been covertly embedded in the artwork — a claim the artist denied.

The ensuing debate dominated multiple City Council meetings, exposed policy flaws, and ended in a compromise with the artist. At the time, Mayor Stephanie Orman pledged to make changes to ensure a similar situation would not occur again.

In the months that followed, a review of the city’s policies and procedures was conducted by the Public Art Advisory Committee — now renamed the Public Art Advisory Board — in coordination with city staff.

While there are many murals and sculptures throughout Bentonville, the public art policies only apply to artwork located on city government-owned property, such as parks, trails and public buildings.

Here are some of the most significant changes:

1. Every procedural step is now documented.

Longstanding informal practices are now formally documented in a 16-page public art policy that lays out how artwork is selected, approved and maintained.

As The Bentonville Bulletin previously reported, earlier policies left significant room for interpretation — and confusion.

2. Artwork can only be “reconsidered” once in a 12-month span.

Previously, if 10 residents submitted written complaints about a piece of public art, city staff would notify the artist and attempt mediation. If no resolution was reached, the matter would go to the City Council, which would decide whether to keep the artwork as is, modify it or remove it.

Now, a single complaint is enough to trigger the “reconsideration” process, but each piece of art can go through the process only once within a 12-month period. Under the previous policy, there was no such limit, meaning residents could hypothetically trigger a never-ending cycle of complaints and hearings about a single piece of art.

The new policies also clarify that similar complaints about the same piece of art will not be taken up again. Any new complaint must “raise a concern not previously evaluated.”

3. Complaints will be evaluated against specific criteria.

A resident taking personal offense to a piece of public art is no longer, by itself, grounds for altering or removing it.

Complaints will now be judged against specific criteria:

❝

Review and approval process: Was the art selected, approved, and acquired in accordance with the review and approval process of the public art policy?

Legal compliance: Has the artwork been found to violate local, state, or federal laws or the city’s public art policy?

Public safety: Does the artwork pose a physical safety hazard to the public or interfere with public infrastructure?

Condition: Is the artwork significantly damaged, deteriorated, or degraded visually or structurally beyond what was originally approved?

Artistic merit: Does the request raise substantive questions about artistic quality or intent of the artwork? Is the request based solely on subjective dislike?

Extent of concern: Does the reconsideration request represent a significant community concern? Is this a single complaint or a recurring issue raised by multiple residents?

4. The Public Art Advisory Board will review complaints first.

Under the new policies, the Public Art Advisory Board now has a formal role in reviewing resident complaints.

While the all-volunteer board — which includes several working artists — has been responsible for commissioning public art, it previously had no role in the complaint process.

Now, the advisory board will review resident complaints first and issue a formal recommendation to the City Council, which will continue to make the final decision on how to respond to resident complaints.