Full_Commission
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FULL ARTS COMMISSION
Monday, November 21, 2008
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Port of San Francisco, Pier 1
The Embarcadero at Washington Street
Bayside Conference Room
Minutes
President Johnston called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
- Roll Call
Commissioners Present
P.J. Johnston, President
Maya Draisin, Vice President
René Bihan
Nínive Calegari
John Calloway
Topher Delaney
Lorraine García-Nakata
Sherene Melania
Cass Calder Smith
Sherri Young
Commissioners Absent
John Kriken
Alexander Lloyd
Jeannene Przyblyski
Dede Wilsey
Pop Zhao
Christina Olague
Consultant
Christina Sutherland, Principal, Sutherland-Edwards Consulting
- Welcome and Introductions
President Johnston announced that Commissioner Przyblyski would not attend the meeting because she was ill.
He noted that there had been many changes on the Commission and in the agency since the last retreat, and he thanked everyone for attending.
Ms. Sutherland introduced herself, explaining that she specializes in organizational development services, primarily for nonprofit organizations, and that she facilitated the Commission’s July 2007 retreat. She noted that while one issue, executive leadership, that dominated the discussion then has been resolved with the appointment of Luis R. Cancel as Director of Cultural Affairs, many of the same issues are still important: the role of the Commission and Commissioners, particularly in the current budget climate, and a strengthened sense of shared purpose and goals.
Commissioners and staff introduced themselves briefly.
- Arts Commission Orientation and Review
Mr. Can cel gave an overview of the Arts Commission’s programs, listing which were mandated by the City Charter or legislation, and which were initiated by the Commission. Civic Design Review is mandated by Charter language requiring review of all City-built structures. The Public Art Program, one of the nation’s oldest, is funded by legislation requiring that two percent of the budget for any civic construction projects be used for art. These artworks become part of the Civic Art Collection, which contains some 3,000 objects. The Street Artists Program was established by legislation in 1972, and allows some 400 artists and craftspersons to make a living from their work. The Cultural Equity Grants Program (“CEG”) was created by legislation to serve the city’s historically underrepresented communities. Community Arts and Education (“CAE”) encompasses four core areas, three of which come from the Charter: the City-owned Cultural Centers, Arts Education, and the Neighborhood and Festival Grants programs. The fourth, WritersCorps, is the flagship of a national program created by federal legislation. The Summer in the City pops concert series with the San Francisco Symphony is also based in Charter language.
The programs initiated by the Commission and not legally mandated by the City and County of San Francisco are WritersCorps, the Gallery and the CAE grants (although the Charter calls for the Arts Commission to “promote a neighborhood arts program to encourage and support an active interest in the arts on a local and neighborhood level, . . . [and] establish liaison between community groups and develop support for neighborhood artists and arts organizations”).
There was some discussion of what mandates mean for the Commission, and how these mandates intersect with the requirement to make cuts specifically to General Fund expenditures. There was some discussion of the creation of a nonprofit “Friends of the Arts Commission” and what that might require. In response to a question about changing mandates, it was explained that changes to the charter must be passed by two-thirds of the voters, and that legislation must be passed by the Board of Supervisors.
There was a discussion about the differences between Mayor Brown and Mayor Newsom and their relationships with the City’s more than fifty commissions.
Ms. Sutherland reported that while her interviews with both Commissioners and staff revealed a desire for a strategic plan across all program areas, this meeting was not a strategic planning retreat. Commissioners and staff discussed the difference between planning for a nonprofit or a business which can set its own focus and spending priorities, and planning for a governmental agency, within its political and budgetary constraints. Staff noted that individual programs have done some of this kind of planning which they can bring to the agency as a whole. There was discussion of the value of a five-year plan, a one-year plan, and a two-year plan done by other kinds of organizations. Ms. Sutherland does not recommend that nonprofits and governmental agencies plan beyond three years because there are so many factors they cannot control.
Ms. Gonchar pointed out the need for short-term planning as well, to guide the budget process beginning in December; she urged the Commission to move forward quickly, but not hastily. This budget planning would be a separate discussion from the long-term questions of the Commission’s mission, vision and strategy. Some frustration was expressed, particularly with the drafting of a mission statement, with concerns that this ground had been covered already.
President Johnston and Mr. Cancel reiterated that the real work of planning should happen in the Executive Committee meetings, and that this would make best use of the significant time commitments already made by Commissioners.
The mission statement, as it appears on the Arts Commission’s website, was read to the participants: “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 (Charter sections 5.103 and 16.106).”
The organization chart was distributed, and there was a request for preparation of a chart overlaying the budget and funding sources with the mandated priorities. Ms. Sutherland read from the 2007 retreat notes a description of the role of a Commissioner, and reported that the core values of equity, access and quality had been distilled from the discussion.
Commissioners Delaney, Smith and Bihan initiated an extended discussion of how the Civic Design Committee operates, which was partially generalized to how all of the Committees, and the Commission as a whole, operates to represent the interests of the City and the cultural community. The Commissioners described how their training, which they try to use in service of the City on the Committee, is concept-based. They described some tension with other City departments in reviewing projects where a concept is not presented, so it is difficult for them to evaluate the success of the design. They discussed the importance of meeting with the departments early in the planning process, and seeing how the departments conceptualize their project designs, particularly in the case of large bond measures such as Hetch Hetchy. Commissioners recognized the very real budget constraints, and pointed out that architects are trained to use constraints as an opportunity. The Committee doesn’t generally suggest that the design teams need to spend more money, but rather would like to see them develop the design concepts, incorporating their constraints, more clearly. While the Committee often feels highly motivated to approve a project quickly, sometimes they can’t do so in good conscience.
Staff pointed out that City staff in many other agencies are interested in and capable of doing innovative work, and asked how to facilitate that. Staff proposed interagency meetings, and meetings with both this Committee and the Visual Arts Committee, to discuss some of these questions from a larger perspective.
Commissioners and staff discussed how the Commission as a whole can position itself more centrally, and can influence interagency discussions. Mr. Cancel said that he has been guided by the need to raise the Arts Commission’s profile, to ensure that the cultural agenda is taken into account in decisions made throughout the City.
The issue of both legislative and fiscal constraints and mandates on determining Arts Commission policy was raised again. Commissioners discussed how other Committees exercise judgment and leadership within the City’s greater arts ecology. Mr. Cancel mentioned working with the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development (“MOEWD”) early on the Bayview, and with the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Commissioners and staff discussed the importance of building networks and relationships with other City agencies so that they understand how the arts agenda intersects with theirs.
Ms. Sutherland pointed out that priorities must come from both staff and Commissioners. Staff and Commissioners added that the agency’s priorities must also consider the community’s priorities and the fact that the local arts community extends beyond the borders of San Francisco, partly because artists often cannot afford to live in the city. Staff raised the question of strategic alliances with other City agencies and with nearby cities and counties.
Both staff and Commissioners made the point that while it is important for department heads to agree on interagency collaborations, it is crucial that the staff who will actually implement these collaborations be present at the discussions. Likewise, while a Commissioner may have the ear of the Mayor, it is staff who carry out his directives and priorities.
- Commission Goals and Direction
After the lunch break, President Johnston began by briefly looking back over the last year. He noted that, though individual battles have seemed difficult, the Arts Commission has accomplished a great deal. He cited really good external communications, including press attention, and the Mayor’s Art Award, along with other events. Acknowledging that perhaps Committees had wished to produce even more, he praised the excellent results of their work, including the Louise Bourgeois Spider, Brian Goggin’s Language of the Birds, and the almost-complete turnaround of the deeply troubled Bayview Opera House.
Discussing the role of Commissioner, he noted that each of them was appointed by the Mayor to bring their unique perspectives and background to the Commission’s work. He emphasized the need for more interaction with and guidance from staff in formulating collective goals. He acknowledged that some will be more frustrated than others with the slow and incremental nature of governmental action.
Turning to the priorities in the current budget context, Mr. Cancel distributed a comparison of the General Fund expenditures in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 budgets, along with the Mayor’s proposed cuts. Including the complete loss of the Board of Supervisors’ addback, the net effect felt by the cultural community is a serious loss of $756,000. Mr. Cancel added that the Mayor’s hands are tied by the general economic downturn, which only looks worse for the coming year; and he insists that all departments will have to make aggressive staff reductions in order to balance the budget. Commissioners and staff agreed that in a small and lean department like the Arts Commission, cuts to staff necessarily mean cuts to programs. Ms. Gonchar pointed out that of the City’s total budget of about $6.5 billion, almost all is mandated; discretionary General Fund spending accounts for around $1.2 billion.
The Mayor’s ten pillars were discussed in relation to the Arts Commission’s programs. They are:
1. Panhandling and Homelessness
2. Health
3. Environment
4. Homicide and Violent Crime
5. Emergency Planning
6. Education
7. Poverty and Equal Opportunity
8. Transportation
9. Infrastructure, Planning and Redevelopment
10. Government Efficiency
Projects that address them include Mr. Cancel’s work with other departments and Shorenstein on the creation of an arts district at Market and Taylor Streets, and grants to arts organizations working in the Tenderloin (addressing panhandling and homelessness); public art placed in San Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda and other health care sites, where studies show art actively contributes to the health and recovery of patients; working with the Cultural Centers to reduce their carbon footprint (addressing the environment); and the affordable Street Artists program, which absorbs some unemployment by allowing artists to be self-employed (addressing poverty and homelessness). Several other Arts Commission projects and initiatives were named, as well.
The discussion returned several times to the point that in such a difficult budget climate, arguments about the economic and other benefits of investing in the arts fall on deaf ears, and elected officials feel that they are faced with a choice between the arts and AIDS patient beds, or mental health beds. Commissioners suggested reminding them that the Arts Commission is such a small part of the budget that it couldn’t fill the hole, and urging them to be judicious, while making it clear that the Arts Commission, too, is dealing with the budget crisis.
Staff and Commissioners discussed how best to quantify the impact of each dollar spent on the arts, its return on investment, and how much economic activity disappears with each dollar cut from the cultural sector. Mr. Cancel talks about this at every speaking opportunity, reporting that this year, the Hotel Tax Fund contributed $180 million to the General Fund. He is working with the Convention and Visitors Bureau to develop better statistics on the arts as an engine of tourism.
Commissioners noted the impact of the recession in their own businesses, and discussed how they might apply similar coping strategies to the Arts Commission. Commissioners asked what would do the least damage; if grants are an economic multiplier, then maybe grants should be maintained and staff cuts made first. Commissioners considered the possibility and usefulness of trying to change some of the mandates, extrapolating from a business strategy of letting go of people or projects that don’t generate income or are less valuable.
There was a discussion of whether funds could or should be raised from other sources, such as private donors or foundations, at least for special projects like exhibition catalogues or the Mayor’s Art Award event. Commissioners emphasized the importance of multiple strategies, and requested from staff a range of proposed options for moderate and severe budget cuts, along with ideas for fundraising. Commissioners emphasized that it is unlikely to be possible to start any new programs or initiatives in the current financial and budget climate.
The discussion mentioned several nonprofit events and organizations as possible models for fundraising. Staff suggested that the entire agency needs to be reimagined: what does it need to do? The discussion moved on to whether to stop doing some things altogether, or to do some things less well; some Commissioners spoke in favor of doing fewer programs well rather than doing everything at a lower level. Commissioners expressed difficulty in valuing some programs over others.
Commissioners suggested approaching the reorganization and reimagining of the Arts Commission and its budget as a creative project, and they acknowledged the impossibility of having a frank discussion about reducing positions with staff in the room.
Commissioners returned to the importance of being able to articulate a clear and succinct message about the economic impact of investing in the arts, and a smart and proactive plan to deal with budget cuts.
The discussion returned to unfunded but mandated activities and programs. Staff said that if positions are cut, that likely means the corresponding programs can’t continue, and asked whether it made more sense to try to raise outside funds for those programs or simply allow them to lapse.
Commissioners discussed forming a subcommittee for fundraising, and the limits of the agency’s capacity in this regard, as there is only one staff position devoted to fundraising. Staff suggested that there is grant money available for maintaining the Civic Art Collection, for example, but that there isn’t sufficient staff capacity to pursue and manage those grants.
Staff noted that while budget cuts may mean reduced services and programming, the agency can still offer information and referrals to artists.
Commissioners Draisin, Delaney and Melania left the meeting during this discussion.
- Adapting Commission Structures Consistent with Priorities
After a short break, President Johnston explained that the Community Arts, Education and Grants Committee had requested a review of best practices and common practices, and the role of Commissioner discretion, in grantmaking. Ms. Wong presented the results of her research in conjunction with the Center for Cultural Innovation (“CCI”), who commissioned Quinn and Associates to survey the field.
Ms. Wong explained that some fifty grantmaking organizations were surveyed, including privarte, family, corporate and community funders. The report showed that staff-recommended grantmaking is prevalent in private grantmaking, while peer-review is most frequently used by local and regional governmental funders. Discretionary grantmaking is often done by family foundations where the founder is still living (e.g., the Getty Foundation). Other models include constituent committee review, donor-advised funds and open source grantmaking (“the American Idol of grantmaking”), the newest model exemplified by American Express and the Knight Foundation.
Ms. Wong explained that the CEG legislation includes language about a public process and peer review panels to advise the Commission on grantmaking. In discussing the theories of change under which the program operates, she said that alliance-building, visibility, education and advocacy are important in addition to the actual grants in furtherance of the legislated mission of moving toward cultural equity in funding. The report indicates that for each dollar that goes into grants, about four dollars of economic activity are generated.
President Johnston thanked her for the presentation, and asked her to present the material in more detail to the Community Arts, Education and Grants Committee. He suggested that the Arts Commission’s grantmaking process, while clearly in the peer panel review category, also had elements of the constituent committee, since grants are approved by the Committee and then by the Commission as a whole. There was a discussion of the role of the Committee in the grantmaking process. While some Commissioners and staff proposed that the role of the Committee was to certify the process and authorize disbursement of the funds, and not to modify the panel’s results, President Johnston suggested that the fact that the grants came up for a vote by the Committee implied that the Committee had the discretion to modify the panel’s results. Commissioners and staff warned that “set-asides” undermine the perception of fairness in the process.
Commissioner Calegari praised Ms. Wong and Ms. Nemzoff for upholding the core values of equity, access and quality, and for being a wonderful resource to the community.
Ms. Sutherland thanked the participants and said that she had identified some additional questions which would be part of her final report.
Mr. Cancel and President Johnston thanked everyone for their participation.
- External Communications and Role of the Commission, Director and Staff
This item was not discussed.
- Next Steps and Summary
This item was not discussed.
- New Business
There was no new business.
- Reports and Announcements
There were no announcements.
- Public Comment
There was no further public comment.
- Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
1/30/09 spr
