To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

Meeting Information



Full_Commission

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 

MEETING OF THE AD HOC PLANNING COMMITTEE
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION

Thursday, February 19, 2009
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 70


Minutes

President Johnston called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m.

  1. Roll Call
    Committee Members Present
    P.J. Johnston, Arts Commission President
    René Bihan, Arts Commissioner
    Nínive Calegari, Arts Commissioner
    John Calloway, Arts Commissioner
    Jeannene Przyblyski, Arts Commissioner
    Sherri Young, Arts Commissioner
    Luis R. Cancel, Director of Cultural Affairs
    Kan Htun, Arts Commission Chief Accountant
    Robynn Takayama, Arts Commission Community Arts and Education Program Associate
    Kary Schulman, Director, Grants for the Arts
    Deborah Cullinan, Intersection for the Arts
    John Killacky, San Francisco Foundation

  2. President/Committee Chair’s Report
    President Johnston thanked everyone for attending, and for their generosity in devoting time to this process. He explained that he would call for public comment on each item of the agenda, and encouraged people to be concise and focused in their comments. He was hopeful that the meeting would provide a forum for healthy discussion and vetting ideas.

    President Johnston explained that the full Commission would meet on March 9, and that though its deliberations would be informed by this Committee, it was the responsibility of the Commission to pass a budget and formulate policy.

    Again, he expressed his appreciation for everyone’s participation, including the members of the public and the outside stakeholders.


  3. Executive Director’s Welcome and Report
    Mr. Cancel also thanked everyone who agreed to participate in the Committee, saying that it was helpful to have many people looking at a set of problems. He welcomed everyone’s comments and suggestions, while acknowledging that the Arts Commission is a microcosm of the wave of transformational change sweeping the planet, the nation, the state and the city. He said that the way things have been done for decades are being challenged by the new economic reality, unmerciful in its contraction. Mr. Cancel noted that steps being taken at the national level, focusing on infrastructure and investments in the future after many years of neglect represent a hopeful new direction that may bear fruit two, three, five, or ten years hence.

    Mr. Cancel observed that it is crucial that the Arts Commission and its constituency, the cultural community, need to pay attention to the debate on these investments, so that the arts and the cultural sector share in them.

    Mr. Cancel acknowledged that change often causes stress, fear and heightened sensitivity. He encouraged people to be mindful of this and not to read anything into his proposals. He added that his academic training and his decades of experience in running agencies led him to a cold and dispassionate analysis of the facts, although, of course he felt the pain of losing valued colleagues.

    Finally, he said that. as the person tasked with carrying out the Mayor’s directive, he looked forward to the Committee’s discussion of policies and priorities.


  4. Presentation of San Francisco Arts Commission Budget Status
    President Johnston began discussion of this item by explaining that the Committee would not be voting on, or deliberating in detail on the budget, but sought to understand the budgetary context for the agency’s priorities, including what is required by charter and legislation.

    Mr. Cancel reviewed the current budget. He explained that the General Fund is only one of five major funding sources for the Arts Commission. He explained that the Pops fund grows out of the 1932 charter mandate to support a symphony orchestra. Now, through the partnership with the San Francisco Symphony on its summer pops concert series, some forty percent of the revenue helps to underwrite Arts Commission operations. He explained that these two funds are essentially the only discretionary sources for the agency. The Hotel Tax Fund supports the Cultural Centers and Cultural Equity Grants, and there are specific limits on how these funds can be used. He explained that work order funds are transferred from other City agencies for specific purposes: while the lion’s share is for Public Art, WritersCorps also receives funding from the Library and the Department of Children, Youth and Families. He described the special revenue category as encompassing smaller, limited revenue streams, including grants (National Endowment for the Arts, California Arts Council and others), earned income, and Street Artist fees. These too, he said, have specific and targeted purposes.

    Mr. Cancel reiterated that the Mayor’s mandate was to cut General Fund spending by $400,000, not funds from any other sources.

    Mr. Cancel reviewed the budget document in detail, answering Committee members’ questions about how to read the it. In response to a question, Mr. Cancel explained that the Hotel Tax Fund changes with tourism, so that if there are many visitors staying in hotels, that fund increases even if the rest of the economy is down. The Budget Office determines the percentage allocated to each department, rather than the dollar amount. He explained that workorder funds for Public Art rose or fell with the number of construction projects the City undertook.

    Noting that in some cases, the proposals used different funding sources than were used for the same items in the current year budget, members asked how much flexibility there was for funds from a particular source to be legitimately used for different purposes or positions. For example, could Public Art dollars reasonably be used for general agency purposes? Mr. Cancel explained that bond funds, in particular, are very stringently determined. Noting the length of the contracts, Mr. Cancel described how Public Art staff has a complex and meticulous budget matrix tracking every funding source and the exact limits for when and how it can be spent, tracking multiple projects over several years. He said that, for example, Public Art bond funds could not be used for Gallery staff positions.

    Commissioner Przyblyski observed that funding the Public Art Program Director’s position solely from project bond funds, as proposed, limits her ability to work on broader policy issues not tied to a single project.

    The Committee discussed trends in funding sources over the next few years. Mr. Cancel explained that the budget was based on three-year projections, and anticipated that several sources would begin to “sunset” after that. On the other hand, he said, the City hopes to receive funds for infrastructure. Committee members noted several large projects underway, which they expected to continue for some time: Hetch Hetchy, General Hospital, and Central Subway.

    Committee members also discussed the impact of the sharp downturn in hotel occupancy (perhaps 40%) on future Hotel Tax revenue; Mr. Cancel explained that he anticipated a midyear correction from the Budget Office, and did not expect the final number until August. The Committee agreed that this is the beginning of a long-term process, and planning must address both the short and the long term.

    Mr. Cancel reiterated that the mandate from the Mayor’s Budget Office, repeated again and again since October, was to cut $400,000 from the budget, with no cuts in programs; that is, to cut from personnel. The three alternatives he proposed, even including required increases for the three redefined positions, meet that goal.

    President Johnston called for public comment.

    Jeff Jones, Executive Director of Queer Cultural Center, argued that two items had been glossed over. First, he said, the language of the Charter does not specifically name the San Francisco Symphony, and that there is potentially more leeway to work with a different symphony orchestra. Secondly, he said, the Public Art Program funding is mandated by ordinance, passed by the Board of Supervisors. In Los Angeles, he said, income derived from the same source supports the entire cultural affairs department.


  5. Discussion of Priorities of San Francisco Arts Commission
    President Johnston noted that, while the discussion could go in many different directions, the task here was to look at the changes proposed and their ramifications on the community and the people on the Arts Commission staff, keeping a firm grasp on what the Arts Commission is required to do.

    Mr. Cancel reviewed the chart listing the various programs and their initiation by Charter, legislation, or the Commission’s own initiative. Civic Design Review, Collections management, Community Arts and Education, the Cultural Centers, the Pops and the Street Artists Program are mandated by the Charter; Cultural Equity Grants and Public Art are mandated by legislation; Gallery programming, WritersCorps, Programs in the Community and Festival grants, and Art on Market Street are Commission-initiated.

    Robynn Takayama introduced herself as the Shop Steward for SEIU, the largest union at the Arts Commission. Citing her training and experience as a radio programmer in listening, learning and synthesizing, she explained that in preparation for this meeting, she had spoken individually with over half the staff and would be expressing their collective knowledge and wisdom. She distributed a summary of staff ideas to address the current budget crisis.

    Commissioner Przyblyski commented that while the mandate was to cut expenditures, she had received several ideas for raising revenue, including raising the Civic Design fee, and selling items from the Collections. She noted that in this economic climate, only the best items in the Collections would sell, and this Commission would not want to be remembered for selling off the City’s best artworks. She added that other agencies are also considering raising fees.

    President Johnston said that the Commission had discussed revenue at its retreat, including the formation of a new subcommittee, which he still supported. He thought this was a difficult time politically to increase fees, and doubted that significant new revenues could be generated in time to avoid the cuts called for.

    Ms. Cullinan said she was overwhelmed by the amount of inforrmation and the number of really smart ideas she had received, and that this indicated the need for a larger process than could be accomplished at this meeting. She thought that the Committee needed to lay the groundwork for further discussion, but also needed to deal with the matter currently before it.

    Commissioner Bihan echoed her comments, and thought the Commission had underexploited resources. He mentioned the suggestion to moving the Street Artist licensing to the office of the Tax Collector.

    President Johnston reiterated that, by law, the Street Artist Program was completely funded by the Street Artist fees, and had no net impact on the agency’s budget.

    Ms. Takayama suggested that, like WritersCorps, it had some administrative costs borne by the agency.

    Mr. Cancel said that until recently, the budget did not fully reflect the true costs of the program, and that the agency as a whole was partially subsidizing it. After a complete review of overhead costs, it became clear that the Street Artist fees were not covering the full costs of the program. Those fees are being increased over a two-year period to fulfill the mandate that the program be revenue-neutral to the City.

    President Johnston argued that even if there were some “invisible” expenses associated with the program, like cutting checks or holding Committee meetings, they wouldn’t go very far towards addressing the budget shortfall. He reiterated that the Mayor has directed every department head to cut 25% from their budget.

    Mr. Cancel said that he was eager in the coming months to pursue possible revenue sources in preparation for the next round of cuts, as the recession continues. He thought that the agency must be proactive in pursuing all likely opportunities. President Johnston affirmed that he will form the revenue committee.

    Mr. Killacky reported that he had heard someone describe recessions as sometimes having a V-curve, and sometimes a U-curve; hopefully, the current one is not an L-curve. He thought, at best, that the bottom of the U-curve would stretch out for as many as three to five years.

    He wanted to see the bigger vision for the agency, and a discussion of streamlining and efficiencies that could be realized in a merger with other City agencies like Grants for the Arts, or the Department of Children, Youth and Families. He recalled the eighteen months he spent with the Arts Task Force, and its discussion of a merger, the “elephant in the room” that still must be addressed.

    President Johnston urged participants to focus on the priorities and mission of the agency, and read the mission statement aloud: “The San Francisco Arts Commission is the City agency that champions the arts in San Francisco. We believe that a creative cultural environment is essential to the City’s well-being. Our programs integrate the arts into all aspects of City life. The Commission was established by charter in 1932.”

    He reminded participants that, however the Arts Commission’s priorities might be interpreted or ranked, the task at hand was to meet the Mayor’s mandated cut from General Fund spending.

    Ms. Takayama pointed out that although the Arts Education Program Manager’s position was not funded by the General Fund, it had been proposed to be cut as a consequence of reallocating funding sources for other programs.

    Mr. Cancel described his approach as parental, doing his best to protect all of the programs as a parent would all his children, while still meeting the financial goal. He explained that the first two proposals do preserve all programs, although Proposal B would diminish one program in the next funding cycle. Noting that the proposal to eliminate the Arts Education Program Manager had generated the most controversy, he said that he was grateful for the push-back which had prompted him to dig even deeper into the problem. He added that all of the options required restructuring and rethinking staffing; the loss of the Deputy Director is a big, big sacrifice, and a loss to all of the stakeholders that cannot be diminished.

    President Johnston asked for comments first from the Committee and then from the public. He noted that, as a public agency dealing with the arts in San Francisco, it is important to have healthy and open communication with the stakeholders and the community at large. He added that although the lengthy Arts Task Force process didn’t resolve all the problems, he did not want to duplicate work that has been done or is being done elsewhere. In this economic climate, he said, while trying to preserve current programs is a priority, the agency’s ability to deliver services is definitely impacted.

    Commissioner Przyblyski said that the questions raised about programs, funding sources, merger and other issues call for long-term strategic discussions, which she argued should be begun immediately.

    The Committee turned to the question of furloughs as a way to reach the mandatory spending cuts. Some expressed the concern that agency-wide reductions will hurt all of the programs, and asked whether it would be better to cut some programs completely than to do all of them less well. Ms. Takayama reported that the unions will not agree to furloughs unless they will save jobs. Mr. Cancel and President Johnston agreed that this could not be guaranteed, and further, that there was no guarantee that any savings generated by Arts Commission staff furloughs would accrue to the Arts Commission’s budget.

    Committee members noted that the agency was expected to continue to do everything it has been doing, despite reduced resources.

    The Committee asked Mr. Cancel to discuss his vision for the agency. He explained that when he was recruited, he made clear to the Executive Committee in its role as search committee that he is and has long been a very vocal advocate for arts and culture in the public sphere, not a quiet administrator. He understood from that Committee that strong advocacy was a priority for new leadership. He believes that vocal and forceful advocacy is what will best serve the cultural sector through the recession, by keeping public support for the arts high.

    Commissioner Bihan noted that in a period of economic contraction, advocacy is more important than ever, and he cited Richard Florida’s Rise of the Creative Class on the importance of mobilizing public support for the arts.

    Mr. Killacky thought staff had submitted great ideas, and thought that, although the agency will have to contract, many of those ideas could be integrated into the long-term planning process.

    Acknowledging that the loss of jobs implied some restructuring, Commissioner Przyblyski pointed out how the economic choices are policy choices; if planning is the priority, should cuts be taken from management?

    The Committee questioned whether this was the time to settle on a formal restructure, or whether that should develop as a result of long-term planning, and as the City’s financial situation for the next fiscal year becomes clearer. The Committee discussed the question of long-term versus short-term planning and values, and observed that values are proposed for the Arts Commission by a variety of stakeholders, including elected officials, other City departments, Commissioners, staff, and the community.

    President Johnston called for public comment.

    Jessica Mele, Performing Arts Workshop, appreciated the benefit of a strategic planning process and welcomed advocacy leadership, for the arts overall and for specific concerns like arts education. She asked about collective advocacy, beyond the role of the individual leader, and suggested that furloughs could buy some time to do more thorough planning for reorganization.

    Jeff Jones, Queer Cultural Center, recalled the Arts Task Force, saying that it concluded by a 19-2 vote that the City should have a single cultural affairs department, with the Arts Commission as the lead agency. He said that the community wants the Arts Commission to take leadership and be the driving force. He lamented that the Committee was discussing cutting Arts Commission staff rather than consolidating with Grants for the Arts, which he argued that the Mayor had proposed years earlier and the Arts Task Force had endorsed.

    Belinda Taylor, of Teaching Artists Organized, spoke to advocate for the Arts Education position. She echoed Mr. Cancel’s call for strong advocacy in times of financial stress, and also called for greater partnership and collaboration with the community.

    Heather Holt, of the Arts Commission Gallery’s Advisory Board, described herself as a complete believer in advocacy and outreach, having worked with more than 150 artists over the last decade. She thought it was a mistake to cut the Development Director’s position in light of the need to reach funders.

    There was no further public comment, and President Johnston called for a break. He said that he would not call for any action to vote on a proposal at this meeting, that this Committee had its hands full asking the appropriate questions. He said that he would make a full report to the full Commission, whose duty it was to act on the proposals.

    The Committee took a short break at 12:48 p.m.


    The meeting resumed at 12:55 p.m.
  6. Discussion of Reorganization Proposals and Consideration of Reorganization Proposals
    President Johnston combined items 6 and 7 on the agenda, Discussion and Consideration of Reorganization Proposals, reiterating that the Arts Commission is responsible for approving any reorganization proposal, not this Committee. He thought it clear that the proposal eliminating the Arts Education position would be withdrawn from consideration.

    Mr. Cancel argued that it was impossible to reconcile the directive of the Mayor’s Budget Office to reduce General Fund expenditures with the ability of the Arts Commission to deliver its programs and services, without a staff reduction. In consultation with senior staff, he shifted positions to other funding sources as much as possible, but eventually came to the hard decision to do without the Deputy Director. That inevitably led to rethinking how the remaining staff operates. He took this opportunity to publicly thank Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) staff for their guidance with regard to complex Civil Service rules and job classifications, and he noted DHR’s endorsement of the proposals from that standpoint.

    Mr. Cancel identified three core functions within the agency: grantmaking, program and service delivery, and financial/administrative support. He proposed reorganizing the agency according to these three major silos. After evaluating the talent pool within the agency, he met with three people he had identifed to head each of the three areas. He added that he expected a lot of fine-tuning and ongoing evaluation to flesh out the reorganization, and that it had never been his intention that the structure initially proposed would be the final form. In light of his focus on continued advocacy, necessitating perhaps half his time spent outside the office, it would be impractical to have all the people who had previously reported to the Deputy Director now report directly to him. Agency operations would grind to a halt, or he would have to significantly reduce his advocacy activities.

    Mr. Cancel wanted to reassure staff and Commissioners that the potential creation of a grants unit, or the transfer of the Community Arts and Education (“CAE”) Grants to an overall grants unit was by no means any threat to these programs. His intention was to create efficiencies in the granting process so that funds could flow more efficiently to better serve the Arts Commission’s constituency. He expected this to allow CAE staff to pursue additional new initiatives, and he expressed his enormous respect and appreciation for CAE Program Director Judy Nemzoff’s expertise.

    President Johnston asked whether Mr. Cancel’s preferred alternative would include the elimination of the Deputy Director’s position, and transferring half of the full-time-equivalent position of the Cultural Center Facilities Manager’s position to capital funds work order. Mr. Cancel agreed that this was his preferred alternative.

    The Committee discussed the fact that the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) charges the Arts Commission a premium for the Cultural Center Facilities Manager, 106% of his salary. Though working full-time for the Arts Commission, he is an employee of DPW. The Committee reluctantly agreed that this high cost was still worth paying, because of the DPW resources and contacts to which he has access, and because of his long experience with that department.

    Committee members expressed other concerns, including a request to explicitly call out the loss of .25 FTE or more in other programs because of the reorganization; the Public Art Program was mentioned specifically. Ms. Takayama reported a number of staff concerns. While all three options include cutting the Deputy Director’s position, there is no reduction in the agency’s workload, so the workload for other positions is increased. She reported that SEIU would be concerned with workload issues, particularly if people are working out of their job classifications. Ms. Takayama noted that reclassifications have not been approved by the Controller’s Office. She reported that staff expressed concern about taking on new initiatives with fewer people. Staff also expressed concern that trifurcating the programs might create more, not fewer, bottlenecks. Staff wanted to know how the existing staff members would fit into the proposed reorganization, and wanted to see job descriptions for the new organization chart.

    President Johnston noted that Mr. Cancel had explained that much of this would have to be fleshed out over time, and President Johnston agreed that he would like to see more detail with regard to job descriptions for the reorganization.

    Ms. Schulman praised the documents as excellent work, saying that she had never seen the Arts Commission laid out so clearly. Speaking as a City staffer, she said that she was very concerned with giving up the Deputy Director’s position, particularly in light of the emphasis on more advocacy, strategic planning, and partnering with other City agencies. She argued that the position serves as the repository of a great deal of administrative information; of projects, tasks or initiatives that come into the agency and then are delegated throughout the agency. She echoed the staff concern that, while the three “silo” directors are highly regarded professionals, there will be no one serving as that central repository. She noted that the staff is extraordinary, and are willing to make some short-term sacrifices to buy some time. She also observed some salary and classification inequities in the budget which should be addressed. She added that her observation about the loss of the Deputy Director as organizational hub was without regard to any particular person.

    Ms. Cullinan concurred, cautioning against making decisions based on the strengths and weaknesses of particular people rather than on the health of the organization.

    Commissioner Przyblyski acknowledged that Mr. Cancel had done an enormous amount of work on the proposals; when the Commission requested that he rethink his original proposal, he did so and came back with additional proposals. She observed that the only option discussed which did not involve cutting the Deputy Director’s position or a program was the option of furloughs; she discussed some of the difficulties with that option. Implicit in the reorganization, she said, is the fact that if the work is done by fewer people, each must do more work. Pointing out that the Commission was already late in complying with the Mayor’s directive, she urged the Committee to quickly dismiss any hypothetical or unrealistic options so that a decision could be reached.

    On the question of furloughs, President Johnston explained that it was important to have Ms. Takayama present, representing the union. He offered to work with SEIU to explore furloughs with the Mayor’s office, but did not believe that they offered a realistic answer. He agreed that the Mayor’s office was unhappy that the Commission had not yet submitted its budget.

    The Committee returned to the discussion of furloughs, under the City’s current voluntary program. Commissioner Bihan opposed the use of furloughs, describing them as reactive. He said that his company had tried them and found them a tremendous failure, having to lay off people in the end anyway.

    Commissioner Bihan suggested evaluating the positions in question as either primarily advocacy or policy positions, and characterized both the Arts Education and Facilities positions as primarily advocacy. Ms. Schulman pointed out that the important but internal Deputy Director position allows the Director to be the most effective advocate he can be.

    Commissioner Calegari asked about staff ideas and suggestions. Mr. Cancel thought that while some should be considered over the longer term, they did not really address the current crisis. Commissioner Calegari wondered whether Mr. Cancel had sought staff input before offering his proposals. President Johnston noted that Mr. Cancel does have the authority to lay off or eliminate positions.

    Mr. Cancel reminded the Committee that the City, unlike a private nonprofit, has very complex Civil Service rules that govern personnel decisions, and repeated that he had worked closely with DHR staff in formulating the proposals. He added that consultations with DHR will continue over the next several months, and that some positions will need to be reclassified.

    President Johnston said that the staff is extremely valuable, both in expertise and institutional memory. He believed that, even with the constraints of Civil Service, there will be better outcomes if staff are involved early in the decisionmaking process. He referred to Ms. Takayama’s comment that staff want to know that their input has been considered, even if they are not happy with the final decision.

    Commissioner Calegari asked whether the budget cuts could be made without committing to the reorganization immediately. Mr. Cancel replied that the Commission was obliged to make a budget decision immediately, and that the inevitable implications of the cut for the organization could play out over the next few months. President Johnston added that the full Commission would consider this action at its next meeting, and that even if they explicitly embraced one option, the structure might evolve over time.

    Mr. Killacky observed that every agency was forced to consider whether, without a dedicated revenue stream, they could continue to run their programs, and he specifically mentioned the Gallery and WritersCorps. Meantime, he said, if the Development Director is not there to raise funds, the community may not be able to afford these programs next year.

    In that vein, President Johnston predicted that Commissioners may raise the question of separating from the Cultural Centers.

    Ms. Cullinan said that, even in light of the City regulations, it will be beneficial to involve staff at an earlier stage. She was concerned that the reorganization will create more separation in the agency. She thought that strategic planning should be a priority, setting benchmarks to tie all the numbers in the budget back to the vision of the agency.

    Commissioner Przyblyski thought there were several good ideas submitted by staff, and that more will have to be done. She apologized to the public for having to leave the meeting at this time, and assured them that she would read all the comments sent to her. Commissioner Przyblyski left the meeting at 1:50 p.m.

    Ms. Takayama pointed out that WritersCorps is self-supporting, and that eliminating it would neither help nor harm the agency’s bottom line. She thanked Commissioner Bihan for his support of the Cultural Centers. She reported that staff supported the option to change the funding for the Cultural Center Facilities Manager’s position.

    President Johnston closed the discussion by thanking everyone for participating in a long and intense process. He appreciated that so many colleagues in the larger arts community could attend. He especially thanked Mr. Killacky, Ms. Schulman and Ms. Cullinan, assuring them that this was not the last time he would call on their help.

  7. New Business
    There were no reports or announcements.

  8. Public Comment
    There was no further public comment.

  9. Adjournment
    There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

5/3/09 spr