Meeting Information

Community_Arts_and_Education_Committee

COMMUNITY ARTS, EDUCATION, and GRANTS COMMITTEE
March 11, 2008
4:30 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70
San Francisco

Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 4:31 p.m.

Commissioners Present: P.J. Johnston, Maya Draisin, Sherene Melania, Sherri Young

Staff Present: Nancy Gonchar, San San Wong, Ebony McKinney, Lucy Lin, Weston Teruya

President Johnston took the following item out of order on the agenda.

1. Cultural Center Report
   Cultural Equity Grants Program Director San San Wong reported on the Native American Cultural Center funds. Ms. Wong reminded the Committee of previous discussions by this Committee and the Executive Committee on how to continue to serve the Native American community in light of the problems with the Native American Cultural Center. At its February meeting, the Executive Committee authorized the transfer of funds originally designated for the Native American Cultural Center from the Community Arts and Education Program to the Cultural Equity Grants Program for disbursal to Native American artists and organizations.
   
   Ms. Wong informed the Committee of her discussion with Ron Rowell, Program Officer for Social Justice at the San Francisco Foundation, and John Killacky, Program Officer for Arts and Culture at the San Francisco Foundation, about the Native American grants program. Mr. Rowell is part of the Mayor's Office's Working Group on American Indian Concerns that is doing a feasibility study for the development of a new American Indian community and cultural center, with a focus on identifying sustainable business models. The Mayor's Office gave $10,000 for the feasibility study. Ms. Wong explained that when she looked at the information on the feasibility study, she saw that it could benefit from a stronger arts and culture component. She offered to work with the Working Group to add an arts and culture component to the study, and was able to partner with The San Francisco Foundation to match the Arts Commission contribution of $5,000. Additionally, the results from the joint Arts Commission and Grants for the Arts study about cultural spaces in the City would also provide useful information to the Working group. Ms. Wong said that this feasibility study could provide information about Native arts activities and needs that would be valuable to the Arts Commission's ongoing discussion about its Cultural Centers program.
   
   Vice President Draisin wanted to know the source of the funding for the feasibility study.
   
   Ms. Wong replied that funding is from CAE's Cultural Centers designated funds from next year, with an advance from the Cultural Equity Grants Program.
   
   Commissioner Young asked what the community wants and needs, and whether the cultural center for Native Americans will be a physical building or a virtual center.
   
   Ms. Wong replied that the Mayor's Office is currently investigating what is needed. She explained that in her experience with capital campaigns and in planning buildings, the specific needs of the arts, such as sound and lighting, are not always taken into consideration. Ms. Wong urged the American Indian working group to take the arts needs into consideration in looking at building a cultural center.
   
   Commissioner Young asked about the funding situation for the other centers.
   
   Ms. Wong's understanding is that discussions about next year's fund allocation amounts for the Cultural Centers begins in April. She said that CAE Director Judy Nemzoff would be able to provide more information about the funding allocations process, and about the ongoing evaluations and policy discussions of the Cultural Centers. She said that money allocated for the Native American cultural center will help determine what the needs are. She said that the results of the Working Group's feasibility study could help inform the Arts Commission's direction around support for the Native American arts community and the historic Cultural Centers funds that were originally designated for the Native American Cultural Center.
   
   President Johnston explained that the three virtual centers have been operating out of SomArts. Since the Native American Cultural Center is no longer a sub-grantee of SomArts, the Committee must look forward to how to address all the Cultural Centers, both virtual and physical. President Johnston noted that if the Commission participates in the discussion with the Mayor's Office working group, the Commission could logically answer the physical or virtual question.
   
   Vice President Draisin asked for public comment.
   
   London Breed, the Director of the African American Art and Culture Complex (“AAACC”), requested the Committee take into consideration what the original legislation states about the funding for the Cultural Centers. She said that the relationship of the physical Cultural Centers with the virtual centers has never been explained by the City and the City Attorney, which has led to infighting. She asked the Committee to provide guidance to move forward clarifying the legislation.
   
   Commissioner Johnston agreed that the legislation is unfortunately unclear. He noted that the Committee needed to figure out the future for all the centers, virtual or physical, and that legal advice is necessary.
   
   Commissioner Melania made the following motion:
   Motion to transfer funds from the Hotel Tax Fund in the amount of $5,000 to Grants for the Arts for the San Francisco Mayor's Working Group on American Indian Concerns, to support a feasibility study for the development of an American Indian Community and Cultural Center.
   Motion passed unanimously.
   
   
2. Cultural Equity Grants Program Director Report
   Ms. Wong reported that the Native American Arts and Cultural Traditions grants program is underway, and that the application deadline is April 1, 2008. The program has had two grants workshops and there have been a number of one-on-one discussions with potential applicants. Ms. Wong looks forward to the exciting projects coming in and estimated that 15 to 25 applications would be submitted. She commented on seeing an aesthetic diversity, and expects to have a better idea of what artists are thinking now.
   
   Ms. Wong invited Commissioners to the grants review panel, which will be held on April 28, 2008. She also invited the Commissioners to a roundtable policy discussion on Native American arts scheduled for April 29, 2008. This event is to be co-hosted with The San Francisco Foundation.
   
   Ms. Wong explained that the motion to approve the grantees will be on the full Commission's agenda for May 5, 2008. She said that although this motion will not first come to this Committee because of schedule constraints, the motion will be sent out in advance of the full Commission agenda for the Commissioners' review. The accelerated schedule is required in order to get all of the monies encumbered before the end of the current fiscal year.
   
   Turning to the Cultural Equity Grants Program motion, Ms. Wong reported that the Organization Project Grants (“OPG”) panel process took three weeks. Ms. Wong presented and discussed the supporting materials with the Committee.
   
   Ms. Wong said that the Organization Project Grants will fund close to 50% of the requests overall. She explained since the Individual Artist Commissions this year went to support performing arts, she increased the number of OPG awards to visual, media, and literary organizations.
   
   Ms. Wong briefly described the panel process to Commissioners. The grouping for visual, literary, and media applications was divided by organization budget size. Applicants with a total score of 101 and above received some level of funding. The panel decided to tier support (funding organizations with slightly lower scores at a slightly lower level) in order to add a few more organizations, and to recognize the high quality applications that got top ranking.
   
   Ms. Wong explained that the other grouping, for the performing arts, required special attention. This pool was split into two budget sizes and further divided into applications with new work and those with festivals or series. The rationale was that new work reflected a single artistic vision, while festivals or exhibitions take a curatorial approach, or comprise an assemblage of artists and take place over a longer period.
   
   Commissioner Melania inquired about the Manilatown application. She asked if Robynn Takayama, the Community Arts and Education Program Associate, is in conflict since she is named as part of the project.
   
   Ms. Wong explained that it is not a conflict because Ms. Takayama is not involved in the Cultural Equity Grants Program deliberation or grantmaking process.
   
   Commissioner Melania pointed to an application under the performing arts category. She had been impressed with a Liss Fain performance she had seen and wondered why they will not be funded.
   
   In reply, Ms. Wong read out the working draft of panel comments for Liss Fain's application.
   
   Commissioner Johnston said that he had a number of questions but would like to hear public comments. He asked if the visual, literary, and media applications, regardless of size, were reviewed by the same panel. Commissioner Johnston read the panelists' names out loud and asked Ms. Wong to explain the process of panelist scoring.
   
   Ms. Wong directed the Commissioners to the handout of the published guidelines. She explained that there is a list of review criteria by which the panel judges each application. Because the criteria are published, all applicants know what the judging criteria are. The narrative questions are to help applicants provide enough information so the panel can review the application based on the published criteria.
   
   Ms. Wong directed the Commissioners' attention to the second handout, the score sheet. She pointed out how the panelists' score is taken directly from the published guidelines.
   
   Vice President Draisin asked how the criteria are weighted.
   
   Ms. Wong replied that the recommendation of the post-panel review policy discussion was to have different weights in the future, particularly around artistic or project merit. But, because these guidelines have already been published, all the criteria were equally weighted by this panel.
   
   Ms. Wong described the point scoring system which only uses the numbers 1-4-7-10 in order to provide a better spread and read through all the criteria.
   
   Vice President Draisin asked why the score of 101 was chosen as the cutoff point.
   
   Ms. Wong explained that each panelist scored each application, and the scores were averaged for the application. Once all applications had been reviewed, they were ranked in order by their average scores. The panel then considered how much funding was available: $548,750 for this grant cycle.
   
   Commissioner Young pointed out that arts education organizations are still not eligible for the OPG.
   
   Ms. Wong responded that this topic is still being discussed. Some of the questions are: what is arts education in this context? Is it after-school programs or artists in schools? Ms. Wong said that although she has seen some applications come in, they have not fared well because they do not have professional teachers. She said that there should be more assessment of what is taking place in the field.
   
   President Johnston called for public comment.
   
   Supervisor Mirkarimi shared some concerns with the Committee. He is proud that the San Francisco Black Film Festival is celebrating its tenth anniversary. He explained that in District 5, there is a focus on reinvigorating the Fillmore area. He would like to see support for positive events like the Black Film Festival in the area, and he wouldn't be here if there were other events happening in the Fillmore. Since the African American Art and Culture Complex is closing for renovation for four months near the end of the year, the AfroSolo festival will not be held there this year. The Supervisor asked the Committee to buttress funding that leads to activities in the Fillmore. He added that the San Francisco Black Film Festival deserves recognition and is strategically important in this community. He explained that the Film Festival's events will be held in District 5, at AAACC, the Kabuki Theater and Yoshi's. He urged the Committee to consider those points.
   
   Ms. Breed said that she was disappointed when she learned that the San Francisco Black Film Festival was not going to be funded. She said that what the Festival's Artistic Director, Ave Montague, does is extremely important to her district. Ms. Breed argued that the point scoring system is not in the best interests of African American groups. She said that she sits on the challenge committee to look at the whole district and saw that the whole city was not benefiting from the community challenge. Ms. Breed was glad to see AfroSolo recommended for funding but would like to see the San Francisco Black Film Festival also receive funding. She asked the Committee to reconsider, saying that they have the power to override the decision of the panel. Finally, she said that AAACC does not benefit from the festival, but they support it.
   
   President Johnston said that he has worked with the festival for a long time. He agreed that the integrity of the panel point system is clear, and the panelists are well-qualified. He went on to say that the loss of OPG support for the festival after several years of grants concerned him a great deal. He suggested that a consideration of equity was absent from the Cultural Equity Grants Program, arguing that some communities of interest are served by cultural programs that have repeatedly received funding, while others do not. He called for the Committee to think about what happens in a community when cultural programming is lost for months and there is a program that would otherwise have served the community during that time. He asked how the Arts Commission programming would address those issues, and what would best serve the people of San Francisco.
   
   President Johnston said that he has not seen the panelist comments that might address these concerns, and he did not want to second-guess the judgments of these well-qualified and prestigious panelists. Instead, he questioned the point system and the final score. It was hard for him to understand, without seeing the panelist notes, how the Festival fell out of the running.
   
   Vice President Draisin agreed that the panel process is thorough, but noted that several organizations had fallen below the cutoff score. While acknowledging the shortage of funds, she found it disconcerting that the Commission is not funding some very solid organizations that would do a great job. She said that in looking at the list, it struck her that many very strong organizations were not being funded, and she had not seen that in her four years of service on the Commission.
   
   President Johnston said that no one is guaranteed funding, that this is a competitive grant and there are lots of deserving organizations. While the Commission would like to spread its grant funding as widely as possible, he argued that it is difficult for an organization not to be funded after having relied on Arts Commission funding for several years. Noting for the record that he does not serve on the Black Film Festival's board, nor have any other interests in the organization, he was concerned that they were not funded, in light of the Festival's importance to the community.
   
   Commissioner Young asked how many of the African American organizations who applied were recommended for funding.
   
   Ms. Wong referred to the Cultural Equity Grants legislation, which was intended to address several disparities in the funding of artists and arts organizations, including a lack of funding for organizations with budgets under $1,000,000. She pointed out that the OPG is one source of funding for these smaller organizations. Further, she reminded the Committee that, of the grants available to organizations (OPG, Creative Space and Cultural Equity Initiatives), only Cultural Equity Initiatives specifically targets underserved communities.
   
   Ms. Wong asked whether the Committee would like to see panel comments on the San Francisco Black Film Festival. She also offered panel comments on the two other festivals in the same applicant grouping. She said that the Committee would be able to see that the analysis done by panelists was consistent with the published criteria.
   
   President Johnston responded that he would want to see the full set of comments and was reluctant to pull out just those few, and that he did not want to pit organizations against one another. He would prefer to see the panel comments all together when they become public documents. He said that he would like to determine how the Committee can or should exercise its discretion, but he was not prepared to exercise that discretion by disrupting this grant process.
   
   Vice President Draisin said that she thought it was a slippery slope for the Committee to use that discretion. She posed the question of what to do about organizations that received higher scores than an organization the Committee wants to support.
   
   President Johnston asked Deputy Director Nancy Gonchar what precedent there was for the Commission to overrule or amend panel recommendations for funding.
   
   Ms. Gonchar replied that it has never happened in the twelve years since she has been at the Arts Commission.
   
   Commissioner Young said that this discussion should happen at the panel level. She recalled that, serving on a panel some years ago, she had insisted that an organization should receive funding. She asked how the Committee could now say that one organization is more worthy than another. She argued that sidestepping the panel ranking submitted to the Committee negated the panel review process.
   
   Commissioner Melania asked whether the Committee could receive a complete report on the panel and then discuss with the panel the funding decisions. Commissioner Young rejected that suggestion as susceptible to unfair advocacy for some organizations.
   
   President Johnston asked about the time frame to get funding out to the organizations.
   
   Commissioner Melania said she was concerned that some organizations that continue to receive funding are reaching the same communities. She said that, while on paper the ranking system seems wonderful, she was concerned that some of the lower-ranked organizations also seem very worthwhile.
   
   Ms. Wong said that Cultural Equity published the commitment that funding will not be less than 75%; that legally the Committee has to keep in mind what has been published and it is hard to change the funding percentage. She added that other organizations have the same score or higher than the San Francisco Black Film Festival, so the Committee would need to look at that whole pool of funding. She thought this was a useful discussion for developing next year's Cultural Equity policies, and pointed to the criteria regarding historically underserved communities or geographic areas or neighborhoods.
   
   Ms. Wong also pointed out that not all of the organizations have been funded previously by Cultural Equity Grants and that some are new. Finally, she reminded the Committee of the policy requiring organizations to “sit out” after three consecutive years of funding.
   
   Ms. Gonchar added that some organizations are funded by Grants for the Arts.
   
   President Johnston said that, for example, if five organizations in the same neighborhood score well enough to be funded, that could leave out other neighborhoods. He noted that it is a policy priority for both the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors to support revitalization efforts in the Fillmore district and would like the Arts Commission's funding process somehow to take account of that. He said he would like to see all the panel comments, but that he would not disapprove and undo the panelists' scores.
   
   President Johnston suggested passing the OPG motion out of this Committee and taking it up at the Executive Committee meeting. He proposed carving out a new or different source of funding to address the priorities of the Commission to serve as vehicles of the community. He said that on the one hand, a panel process with which the Committee has no involvement is good thing. But on other hand, he did not want to be a rubber stamp for something he did not agree with. He invited members of the public to the Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2008.
   
   President Johnston added to the next CAEG and Executive committee agendas a discussion on how to identify a vehicle for the Arts Commission to provide discretionary funding. He said that the panel review process is fair on its own terms, but he questioned whether it is fair on a macro level.
   
   Commission Young cautioned that this Committee would be delaying funding for all the organizations if it did not approve the motion.
   
   Ms. Wong said that staff would not have panel comments ready for the Executive Committee meeting.
   
   President Johnston withdrew the motion and referred it to the Executive Committee for consideration, with or without panelist notes. He also recommended that the Executive Committee discuss the possibility of a discretionary fund.
   
   Vice President Draisin asked whether the American Indian Film Institute could be funded from the Native American Arts and Cultural Traditions grant program instead of Organizational Project Grants, thus increasing the amount for other OPG applicants by $12,000. President Johnston echoed this thought. He concluded that staff and Commissioners needed another week to explore financial support for organizations discussed at today's meeting.
   
   The motion was withdrawn.
   
   
3. Community Arts and Education Program Director Report
   There was no report.
   
   
4. WritersCorps Report
   There was no report.
   
   
5. Arts Education Report
   There was no report.
   
   
6. Buildings and Grounds Superintendent Report
   There was no report.
   
   
7. New Business
   Vice President Draisin recognized Professor David Duskin and Professor David Whippen, who introduced themselves as the teachers of a public art class at the Academy of Art. They explained that their students worked on proposals for temporary public art installations at the Bayview Opera House Ruth Williams Memorial Theater. The professors presented the proposals for feedback from the Committee.
   
   The first proposal was entitled Apachurro Verde. The first student team proposed to fill the open area behind the Opera House with eight-inch diameter lime green glazed hemispheres placed in a spiral pattern. They planned to make approximately 400 objects, time permitting. After the public reception unveiling all of the projects, the public would be invited to take home the clay objects.
   
   Commissioner Young asked the artists about the materials and duration of the installation.
   
   The artists explained that the objects would be made of glazed clay and that they would be installed in advance of the opening and the objects could be taken away at the opening.
   
   Thomas Simpson, Director of AfroSolo Theatre Company, asked if there was a cultural context for the proposed project.
   
   The artists admitted to having difficulty relating to the culture in the neighborhood, but invited any suggestions on how to add cultural references to the project. They also wanted to propose a project that would allow members of the public to take away a piece of the artwork.
   
   Mr. Simpson suggested that it would be valuable to have a cultural element from the neighborhood be a part of the project conception instead of just having something to take away. He noted that the neighborhood has had a history of artists doing projects without engaging the community further.
   
   Vernon C. Grigg III, Interim Director of the Bayview Opera House, noted that Opera House staff would need additional information on the logistics of artwork being taken away after the reception, since the plan was for installations to be up for two weeks. Mr. Grigg asked the artists why they chose to title their work Apachurro Verde.
   
   The artists noted that the clay objects resemble something squeezed and dropped from the sky, and that the title translates to “green squeeze.”
   
   Professor Duskin clarified that there will be an evening reception for the artworks and that this particular project would be in place for a shorter period of time than the other projects.
   
   Mr. Grigg noted that the event has been planned for April 26, 2008.
   
   President Johnston asked whether the Board of Directors of the Opera House would review these proposals as well; Mr. Grigg said that they would.
   
   Commissioner Young expressed concerns with the hard, brittle clay medium and the potential for the objects being thrown after the event and creating trash or vandalism.
   
   The artists noted that they are not set on the clay material and have also been looking at green or recycled materials that are compostable.
   
   The second proposal was entitled All the People at the Opera. The proposed installation was composed of several abstract sculptural figures made of flat aluminum bars. The artist explained that the sculpture expressed “the all-inclusive community atmosphere promoted by the Opera House.” Each sculptural figure would be over five feet in height. The artist noted that shadows cast by the sun on the sculpture emphasize the sculpture's form, and that the abstract shape was meant to be universal and inclusive.
   
   Commissioner Young asked whether the sculpture would be strong enough to hold the weight of an individual climbing on the bars.
   
   The artist explained that the sculpture would be secured to the ground but that the sculpture would have to be made from steel rather than aluminum to support that weight; that would be beyond the scope of this temporary project.
   
   Professor Duskin noted that the sculpture would be inside a fenced-off area.
   
   President Johnston asked if the color of the sculpture would be similar to the bronze tinge conveyed in the visual sample.
   
   The artist explained that the color would be untinted aluminum, but she has considered other color possibilities.
   
   The third proposal was entitled Bridging Diversity. The proposed project was composed of a temporary sidewalk chalk mural drawn on an open wall on the side of the Opera House with an area at the bottom of the wall left blank to allow members of the public to add to the existing design during the reception.
   
   President Johnston asked if creating an artwork on the building itself would interfere with ongoing renovations.
   
   Ms. Gonchar said that it would not.
   
   President Johnston noted that murals on public property necessitate community participation in the design process, but his concern was assuaged by the temporary nature of the project. He asked for clarification regarding a religious image in the proposed design.
   
   The artist responded that there was an image of Jesus and that she believed that image to be “universal.”
   
   President Johnston cautioned the artist that religious images may not be universal to everyone and expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of a very prominent and fairly recognizable icon. His concerns were tempered because of the temporary nature of the project, but he noted that this would not be acceptable in a permanent installation.
   
   Vice President Draisin expressed similar concerns about such images on a public building and noted that if the artist is exploring universal themes, these concerns need to be taken into account. She expressed appreciation of the community involvement aspect of the blank space in the design.
   
   The fourth design was entitled Ruth Williams' Memory. The installation would consist of a cast plaster bust of Ruth Williams located on a balcony and a multimedia projection on the ground in front of the sculpture. The artists sought to remind the community of the history of the building. To make the installation more contemporary, they planned to include images regarding the history of Ruth Williams in the video projection. They also noted that the projection could be used to talk about the future of the Opera House and the community, and they were open to suggestions on the direction of this component. The video would be projected from a unit mounted to the ceiling inside the Opera House.
   
   President Johnston expressed appreciation for the project, but noted that the artists would have to figure out how to secure the projector.
   
   The fifth design was entitled Musical Trees. One of the artists noted that she lives in Bayview and was inspired by the noises in the neighborhood. The proposed project involved the installation of wind chimes in a tree at the site. On the day of the opening reception, the artists planned to have bells with colorful paper hanging from them, on which members of the public could write down “their wishes and prayers” to hang from the tree or take home with them.
   
   Commissioner Young expressed appreciation of the simplicity of the project along with its colorful design and wind chime components.
   
   Mr. Grigg cautioned that the artists would have to consider the wind and how to secure the bells and paper to the tree.
   
   The artists responded that they are planning for wind and are also open to any suggestions.
   
   Mr. Grigg requested that the artists think about lighting to make the work stand out at night. He noted that there are some solar-powered lights near that tree. The artists agreed to look into affordable lighting options.
   
   Professor Duskin acknowledged that the Committee could approve or disapprove any of the projects. He was open to discussing questions about the project designs.
   
   President Johnston encouraged the artists to work with Mr. Grigg and the site on all the projects. He noted that the first project in particular had some practical concerns to be resolved.
   
   Professor Duskin asked for clarification about approving the third proposal's mural design and whether the artist should return to the Committee with a redesign.
   
   President Johnston said that the Committee would not have to make a final approval but would welcome any updates. He confirmed that the artist needed to take into account the Committee's concerns regarding the overtly religious imagery.
   
   Mr. Grigg noted that the Opera House has just received a long-awaited paint job and requested that the design not impact the surface of the building, even temporarily. President Johnston reiterated that the artists should consult with Mr. Grigg and should be sensitive to the needs of the site.
   
   Vice President Draisin reminded the artists to also address the concerns about the second proposal's durability and safety.
   
   
8. Adjournment
   As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
   
   

4/2/08 RT