Executive_Committee
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 SPECIAL MEETING of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Friday, April 17, 2009
11:00 a.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70
Minutes
Commission Vice President Maya Draisin called the meeting to order at 11:15 a.m.
- Roll Call
Commissioners Present
Maya Draisin
Cass Calder Smith
Sherri Young
Participating by Telephone
PJ Johnston
Commissioners Absent
Jeannene Przyblyski
Staff Present
Director of Cultural Affairs Luis R. Cancel
Public Art Program Director Jill Manton
Cultural Equity Grants Program Director San San Wong
Commission Secretary Sharon Page Ritchie
- Arts Commission Strategic Planning Process
Mr. Cancel began by thanking Commissioners for their participation. He introduced Teri Jourgensen and Amy Lilley of the Department of Human Resources.
Ms. Jourgensen thanked the Committee for inviting them. She briefly reviewed her working assumptions about planning for the agency, noting that it will be important to clarify who the Arts Commission’s stakeholders are: the Mayor, local nonprofit arts organizations, other City departments, and possibly others.
The Committee and staff discussed the distinction between a cultural plan addressing how the arts serve the city, and a strategic organizational plan, addressing how the Arts Commission uses its resources. Ms. Wong asked whether the proposal incorporated an “environmental scan,” considering challenges, resources and needs in the arts community. The Committee agreed that it was important to have feedback from the stakeholders early in the process rather than simply asking for ratification after the fact. President Johnston pointed that while it is important to have stakeholder input, it is the responsibility of the staff to complete the final draft of the plan, and of the Commission to give final approval of the document.
Ms. Jourgensen led a discussion based on her assessment questionnaire. In response to the first question, about the general purpose of the proposed strategic plan, President Johnston thought that the goal of the exercise is to provide guidance and direction for this agency which has a variety of explicit legislatively mandated responsibilities, very limited resources and a broad set of priorities. The agency’s mission statement must be broad enough to encompass placing public art at the Airport, licensing street artists, and funding San Francisco arts organizations.
In response to the question of why now is the time for strategic planning, the Committee cited the budget crisis, and corresponding loss of key staff and resources, and the necessity for restructuring. Mr. Cancel reiterated that stakeholders must be part of the process, as they will be impacted or called upon as partners. Vice President Draisin noted that this discussion would be helpful to the relatively large number of fairly new Commissioners. Ms. Wong noted that there was some expectation from the arts community at large that planning would take into account the plan written by the Arts Task Force, and Ms. Manton added that the City had adopted an Arts Element in its General Plan some years ago, which included a series of recommendations which could be revisited.
President Johnston recalled that work on those two documents was very intense and important, and that a great deal of empirical data already exists there. He noted that virtually all the stakeholders participated in the Arts Task Force. He added that he would like the current process to focus on how the Arts Commission does its job over the next three or five or ten years, and not engage in the philosophical discussion about the place of the arts in San Francisco that took place within the Task Force, except as that influences the agency’s practical operations and functions. Mr. Cancel suggested that a shorter planning horizon would allow for a more practical and flexible plan; President Johnston agreed that it wouldn’t make sense to spend a year on a plan that would only be good for three years.
The Committee discussed how best to incorporate community stakeholder input, noting that too wide-open a format would be chaotic, but that there must be a forum for their perspectives and concerns. Commissioner Young hoped to be able to prioritize the agency’s activities, feeling that it has been trying to address all the needs all the time. Ms. Manton cautioned that the impact of operating with a sharply reduced budget can’t be overestimated; staff is already working very hard, despite any popular notion of “fat” in government.
The Committee discussed the challenge of looking at individual committees and programs, while creating a holistic overview of the agency.
In identifying stakeholders, President Johnston thought it would be helpful to have Ms. Jourgensen’s perspective as someone familiar with City government and the governmental process, who has looked at what other departments are doing. He noted that the Arts Commission is not an independent nonprofit, but a part of City government.
Mr. Cancel named a number of possible stakeholders, including other agencies or departments that fund the arts (Grants for the Arts, the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, the Mayor’s Office, the Planning Department, the Recreation and Parks Department, Department of Children, Youth and Families), as well as the Board of Supervisors, local foundations, the Cultural Centers, arts groups, and arts educators.
Ms. Jourgensen asked about the Committee’s target date for finishing the plan. Mr. Cancel said that if the finished document were in hand in November, it could be used in the budget process for the next fiscal year. President Johnston endorsed that as a realistic timeline.
The Committee further discussed the idea of stakeholders and stakeholder input; Committee members and staff agreed to give names to Ms. Jourgensen. In response to her question about priorities, the Committee identified equity, insuring that all stakeholders have equal access to the process, as a critical concern in dealing with stakeholders. The Committee affirmed that while input from the stakeholders will be important, it is the Commission’s role to adopt the strategic plan.
Mr. Cancel reported on an event which might serve as a model: a day-and-a-half-long event on civic participation around City Hall. The very large group of participants met in seven or eight discussion groups. On the second day, each group presented its vision to a panel of senior City officials, who listened and asked questions of the presenters. After further deliberations, that panel will issue its report with recommendations (President Johnston requested a copy of the report when it is issued, for use in the Arts Commission’s strategic planning process). President Johnston left the discussion at this point, 11:54 a.m.
The Committee discussed the model. In response to a question, Mr. Cancel explained that the list of participants was developed by the organizers of the event, and suggested that the Arts Commission might want to define clusters of organizations or interests for a similar process. Ms. Jourgensen approvingly noted that the structure clearly made visible the relationships of the various participants; the presenting groups were called upon to make their case to the senior officials.
Vice President Draisin noted that “the arts community” can be difficult to define: while the Commission frequently hears from some artists and organizations, it also has a responsibility to individual artists who are often underrepresented in the public process, and to the consumers of the arts in the city. She envisioned the stakeholder input part of this process as a continuation of work done before, including the web survey conducted in the summer of 2007, as a listening session to hear from the stakeholders. Ms. Jourgensen concurred, saying that the Commission would ask for the input and “close the loop” by going back to the stakeholders and reporting what they have done.
Ms. Jourgensen asked about conflicting views among the stakeholders. Ms. Manton said that there was not necessarily conflict, but that there is a tendency to see the individual programs of the agency rather than the whole agency. Others pointed out that there was potential conflict in some areas; for example, Civic Design Review could be seen as an obstacle by a department trying to quickly complete a construction project, or an arts organization might see itself as more deserving of a grant given to another organization. Commissioner Young observed that conflict can arise when groups feel that they have been left out; Ms. Jourgensen affirmed that this was the reason the Commission knew it needed to seek stakeholder input.
Staff pointed out that groups who have lobbied elected officials for funding and addbacks feel a proprietary interest in the disbursement of those funds. Staff also noted the tension between the legally mandated functions of the agency and the Commission-initiated ones; although the latter are often popular and highly visible, they may need to be subordinated to the mandated functions in a tight budget environment.
Turning to logistical issues, staff agreed that it would be better for Ms. Jourgensen to facilitate contacts with stakeholders than for staff to do so. Mr. Cancel said that staff should have an active role, contributing their visions and priorities to the discussion. Staff suggested that background information from staff for Ms. Jourgensen would be critical to the success of the larger stakeholder process. She proposed meeting with staff for each program.
Ms. Wong asked how much the process would be open to “throwing some things up in the air,” to rethinking how the SFAC Committees work, how the Commission solicits community input and policy discussion, and other questions. The Executive Committee wondered whether some Committees might be merged; staff noted that it has been helpful to have members serving on both the Civic Design Review and Visual Arts Committees. Commissioner Smith said that the Civic Design Review Committee has begun to discuss creating an annual design award.
Mr. Cancel said that the process highlighted the need for dialogue within the Commission regarding structure, workflow and other issues. Ms. Wong asked how much was open to discussion, whether legislative changes might be on the table. Commissioner Smith returned to the mission statement, suggesting it as a standard for evaluating all of the Commission’s activities.
Ms. Wong urged that the document have specific outcomes and benchmarks, a process for continuing input; she called for a “living” document.
Staff agreed to provide background documents to Ms. Jourgensen, who expected to deliver a proposal by the end of the next week. Mr. Cancel planned to present that proposal to the full Commission.
- Old Business
There was no old business.
- New Business
There was no new business.
- Public Comment
There was no further public comment.
- Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
spr 9/4/09
