Street_Artists_Committee

STREET ARTISTS COMMITTEE

Wednesday, August 13, 2008
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70

MINUTES

Members present: Commissioners Alexander Lloyd, Chair, Ninive Calegari, Sherene Melania

Members absent: Pop Zhao

Staff present: Director of Cultural Affairs Luis R. Cancel, Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar

Commissioner Lloyd, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. and welcomed Commissioner Calegari to the Committee who, at the Chair’s request, spoke of her professional and familial achievements.

1.    Street Artists Program Director’s Report.

Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar reported on the following recent events:

a) The new street artist certificate fees ($133.07 quarterly fee and  $532.28 annual fee), enacted by the Board of Supervisors for fiscal year  2008-09, commenced in mid-July.

b) The Program Director proposed and obtained from the Board of  Supervisors nine new weekend spaces onMarket Street that were  requested by the Arts Commission on behalf of 110 artists of Justin  Herman Plaza. So that the artists could immediately use the new spaces  during the current summer season, Mr. Lazar requested and swiftly  received the Mayor’s signature on the legislation. In the thirty-six-year  history of the Street Artists Program, this was the first time that sidewalk  spaces were designated to be greater in display size than that which is  allowed by the regulations: rather than being designated as the standard  size of three feet by four feet, the nine spaces were exempted from the  regulations and designated as ten feet by ten feet!

Mr. Lazar expressed his appreciation for the assistance of the following  street artists: Madeline Marrow for initially submitting a proposal to him  for the spaces; Tad Sky for drawing an initial map of the proposed spaces,  for sharing in the negotiation with the adjacent hotel representatives, and  for speaking on behalf of the proposal at the Board of Supervisors; and  Maria Hillius and Gary Freed for representing the artists at the  Supervisors’ hearing.

(Commissioner Lloyd congratulated the Program Director and the artists  who were involved in this project. He commented that this was a perfect  example of how street artists and Arts Commission staff can work together beneficially.)

c) The Program Director, as hearing officer, conducted two hearings with  street artists on alleged violations which resulted in the artists having a  better understanding of the rules and a willingness to comply.

d) The Program Director initiated and participated in a meeting with an  ad hoc liaison group of artists with concerns about selling activities at  Justin Herman Plaza. Further meetings are anticipated.

e) The Program Director has been meeting monthly with the artists’  space-assignment Lottery Committee at Fisherman’s Wharf in order to clarify rules and procedures and to receive lottery recommendations for  Arts Commission consideration – for example, the two motions on the  current Street Artists Committee agenda.

2.    Hearing and possible motion to approve issuance or renewal of certificate.

Leah Mazor – Certificate #5479. Alleged violation: June 6, 2008 –  Conducting business in an improper, disorderly, hazardous manner:  attempting assault (throwing a glass bottle at a person).

Program Director Howard Lazar referred the Commissioners to a February  1, 1983 letter by the City Attorney delineating the Arts Commission’s  jurisdiction in suspending or revoking a street artist’s certificate. The City  Attorney affirmed the Commission’s authority in denying, suspending or  revoking an artist’s certificate for (1) selling activity in both designated  and non-designated areas and (2) for conducting business “in a disorderly,  improper or hazardous manner.” A case of assault or attempted assault  could be considered an expression of “disorderly, improper or hazardous”  conduct of business. The incident involving street artist Ms. Mazor fit into  that category.

By permission of the Chair, Mr. Lazar requested the following three  witnesses to each give testimony and respond to questions by the  Commissioners and Mr. Lazar:

Street Artist Michael Addario, reading from a prepared statement,  described Justin Herman Plaza as a “premier location” for the artists. He  stated that on June 6, 2008, at approximately 3:30 p.m., while he was  adjusting his prints in his booth, he “heard glass break and turned to find  glass shattered alongside and in front of my booth.” A female pedestrian  stated to Mr. Addario that “a woman in a red jacket just threw a glass  bottle. The woman in the red jacket she pointed to,” Mr. Addario stated,  “was San Francisco street artist Leah Mazor.” Although, he said, he did  not witness the bottle being thrown, he could “testify to the disruption the  glass bottle shattering on the pavement caused, at the jeopardy of the flying  glass shards exposed fellow street artists and members of the public.”

Mr. Addario went on to state that he approached Ms. Mazor and asked her  if she threw the bottle. He stated that “Ms. Mazor responded: I didn’t throw  it at you; I threw it at that man.” Following this response, street artist  Dana Boyko approached Ms. Mazor and later related to Mr. Addario that  she asked Ms. Mazor why she had thrown the bottle, to which Ms. Mazor  allegedly told her: “He pissed me off.” According to Mr. Addario, Ms. Boyko  informed Ms. Mazor that “her behavior was unacceptable.”

Continuing to read from his prepared text, Mr. Addario commented that Ms.  Mazor’s action could have caused a victim – adult, child, or infant - blindness, disfigurement, or death. Her action, he said, “shows a disrespect for the life  and safety of others. Moreover, her malicious behavior is not only  inexcusable but calls into question her present mental stability. … She is a  menace to all who are in her vicinity.” He recommended that the Street  Artists Committee revoke her certificate and refer the case to the District  Attorney for criminal prosecution.

Mr. Addario submitted a map which showed, he said, where all the artists were set up in the Plaza on the day of the incident. He pointed to his location, Ms. Mazor’s location, and the direction of the thrown bottle which, he said, was a distance of over forty feet.

Mr. Addario also submitted a bag containing, he alleged, the broken glass of the bottle which Ms. Mazor had thrown and “the rag that we cleaned it up  with.” He stated that Ms. Mazor left the premises without cleaning up, and  he and other artists “were forced to clean up the Plaza.”

Under questioning by Program Director Lazar, Mr. Addario affirmed that Ms.  Mazor had admitted to having thrown the bottle at a man; but Mr. Addario  stated that he did not see the man to whom Ms. Mazor had allegedly thrown  the bottle.

Street Artist Dana Boyko told the Commissioners that she agreed with what  Mr. Addario had stated and that she “heard the bottle smash; I was about  twenty feet away.” She observed that the bottle had smashed “all over one  of the street artist’s prints and paintings”, those of Eduardo Guzman. She  asked what had happened, and a woman told her that “that lady there in  the red sweater threw the bottle at this guy.” Ms. Boyko approached Ms.  Mazor and asked her what had happened, and “she said ‘he pissed me off’.”  Ms. Boyko then reprimanded her for the “unacceptable”action: “ ‘this is  where we work; you can’t throw glass at people’.”

Ms. Boyko then related that she wanted to know Ms. Mazor’s side of the story  and therefore invited her to coffee the following week. Ms. Mazor told her  that “she knew immediately when it” [the bottle] “left her fingers, that she  regretted it, that she wasn’t justifying it in any way, she had had a bad day,  and that’s what she chose to do.”

Under questioning by Program Director Lazar, Ms. Boyko stated that she did  not see the man to whom Ms. Mazor had allegedly thrown the bottle. She  further stated that she did not see her throw the bottle.

Ms. Boyko went on to state that, in her conversation with Ms. Mazor, she told  her that “ ‘I did not throw the bottle; I rolled the bottle.’ To which Ms. Boyko  replied, that she did not believe her “because I never heard the bottled being rolled for however many feet, and it wouldn’t smash like that. I work with  glass.”

In examining Mr. Addario’s map, Ms. Boyko pointed to her location, the  location of Eduardo Guzman, the location of where the bottle landed, and the  location of Leah Mazor some fifty feet away.

Street Artist Amparo Roman told the Commissioners that on the day of  question she was working near Leah Mazor’s display. A man, carrying a  bottle, approached Ms. Mazor from the direction of the Ferry Building, left  the bottle on Ms. Mazor’s table, and walked away. Ms. Mazor picked up the  bottle and threw it at him (Ms. Roman raised her arm in a throwing position).  The bottle hit Eduardo Guzman’s display.

Under questioning by Program Director Lazar, Ms. Roman affirmed that she  actually saw Ms. Mazor throw the bottle, that she threw it and not rolled it. Furthermore, she threw it at the man.

In response to a question by Commissioner Melania, Ms. Roman stated that  Ms. Mazor did not ask the man to remove the bottle.

Commissioner Lloyd asked Ms. Mazor to respond to the charge.

Ms. Mazor stated that she was seventy feet away from Eduardo Guzman –  and neither thirty nor forty feet away. She went on to relate that it had been  a slow day and she had not been in a good mood. “No matter what I say,” she  told the Commissioners, “I’m not going to justify what I did.” But, she said,  she did not feel that she deserved the “lynch” [mob] attitude that some people  took against her. Prior to addressing the issue, she described an incident  which occurred a long time before the current incident in which she was  abused by an artist while she was running the [unofficial] lottery for spaces  at Justin Herman Plaza and for which the Program Director did nothing to  rectify. Secondly, for two and a half years she “had a problem with Philip  Northrop” which resulted in her writing to the Program Director, a warning  which was sent to Mr. Northrop, and Mr. Northrop’s problematic behavior  continuing. A further incident occurred between them and, according to Ms.  Mazor, the Program Director refused to take action, and she “had no choice  but to spend a lot of money, go to court”, and obtain a restraining order  against Mr. Northrop. She now asked why “all those issues” that she had  submitted never received correction, whereas now, when she did something,  everyone was treating her with a “lynch” [mob] attitude.

Addressing the current incident, Ms. Mazor stated that the man placed his  glass bottle on her table, and the bottle was empty. She took the bottle and  yelled at him: “Hey, you left the bottle here!” He did not respond. She  considered running after him to give him the bottle; but, she said, “I was too  lazy, too stupid … I’m not justifying what I did.” She emphasized that she  “did roll the bottle” and that “the bottle rolled right in the corner” of Eduardo Guzman’s wooden box where it “smashed.” There is no way,” she said, “that I  can throw a bottle …seventy feet.” She affirmed that she regretted having  committed the act.

She went on to say that not one artist has come forward to tell about the  positive things she did for the Plaza for the past twelve years. She helps out  when the artists are faced with displacement from the Plaza by special  events, negotiating with the promoters of such events. Similarly, she  negotiated with Public Works personnel and, working with the Street Artists  Program Director, saved the artists from losing an important selling area of  the Plaza. In times of absence of the designated street artist “market  manager,” she helps artists who are confused about the locations of the  spaces. She has marked the spaces and has never asked for any favor  for doing so. She did these things because she “wanted everything to be  smooth and nice at the Plaza.” Therefore it was “stupid” to accuse her  for jeopardizing “everything in the Plaza all the time” for the one regrettable act she had committed. For this, she said she deserved a warning  but not certificate suspension or revocation.

She added that her file would show that her “last problem … was many years  ago.”

She submitted a letter on her behalf from street artists Debra Skotland and  James Ruark who were unable to attend the hearing. (Program Director  Lazar stated that he had forwarded copies to the Commissioners.)

Commissioner Lloyd acknowledged that Ms. Razor regretted the incident but  asked her if such an incident was liable to occur again. She replied that no  prior incident had occurred during the past fifteen years of her certification  as a street artist, and that she did not think she would commit such an act  again. While “I …yell … scream” and “have arguments with people, I do not  fight physically with them.”

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment.

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan, reading from a prepared text, stated that  there were two simple rules of the Street Artists Program: (1) The artists  must make their own products; and (2) that there must be no acts of  aggression among the artists.  With regard to the second “rule”, she stated  that the Arts Commission’s policy must be made clear “that safety and non-violence is of the utmost importance to us, and no prejudice or acts of  aggression towards others can be tolerated.” The artists, she said, are a  close-knit group of people who have to work together in close proximity on  a daily basis; nevertheless, while sometimes “views differ” and “tempers  flare … you must not allow individual artists to act aggressively or violently  either toward each other or to the public.” She asked that such issues “be  individually dealt with, corrected, and stabilized.” She also asked that the Commission exercise a “no tolerance policy toward any acts of aggression”  for the artists’ personal safety, the public’s safety, and the survival of the  Program.

Through the Chair, Street Artist Dana Boyko questioned Ms. Mazor as to her  location during the incident. Ms. Mazor replied that she was signed into  space “36”. Ms. Boyko stated that the map submitted by Mr. Addario showed  Ms. Mazor signed into space “32.”  Ms. Mazor again affirmed that she was in  “36,” and that Juanita Havet was next to her in “38”, to which Ms. Boyko  disagreed by stating that, according to the map, Juanita Havet was in “34.”  Ms. Boyko stated that there may be some relevance to be considered in the  distance the bottle travelled, that it smashed thirty feet away from Ms.  Mazor.

Street Artist Michael Addario stated that the artists’ spaces at the Plaza are  ten feet by ten feet, every block of spaces being ten feet, and the space  between the blocks fifteen feet – all of which makes it possible to judge that  the distance of the throw was much less than seventy feet. Mr. Addario went  on to say that this was the most serious incident of a long line of incidents  involving Ms. Mazor. He stated that he personally observed her shoving  street artist Lindsay Wahlborg. He also saw her almost start a fight in the  middle of the Plaza when someone came through her booth and she kicked  the person. In addition, he said, “there were reports of her slapping  somebody in the face” who “was videotaping in the market.” Mr. Addario also  stated that he saw her scream at a police officer at six o’clock in the morning  about a restraining order dealing with Philip Northrop.

At this point, Director of Cultural Affairs Luis Cancel recommended that the Commissioners hear only relevant testimony to the specific incident listed on  the agenda. He stated that the previous events described by Mr. Addario  were not germaine to the current incident. Therefore, it was prejudicial to  allow comments that are unsubstantiated in any way by other individuals  and could work against the objective of a fair hearing.

Commissioner Lloyd thanked the Director for this observation but clarified  that the hearing was not bound by the constraints of a court of law.

Mr. Addario stated he disagreed with Mr. Cancel because “it pertains to a state of mind and it shows that these incidents are escalating.”

Commissioner Melania stated that the “Notice of Hearing” sent to Ms. Mazor acknowledged a previous warning notice that had been sent to her.

Program Director Lazar clarified that, while Ms. Mazor had told the  Commissioners that she had not been involved in any prior incident for  the past fifteen years, on January 23, 2006, the Program Director sent her  a written warning for assaulting a street artist. The incident, he said, was  relevant to Mr. Addario’s statement of having observed her allegedly push  Lindsay Wahlborg. Ms. Wahlborg submitted a written complaint to Mr.  Lazar that she had been pushed backward ten feet. On the basis of the  complaint, he sent Ms. Mazor a warning.

Commissioner Lloyd offered opportunity to Ms. Mazor to respond to the  comments.

Ms. Mazor stated that, in response to Mr. Addario’s comments, Mr. Addario  did not see her hit anyone. Furthermore, she did not slap the face of anyone;  she covered a camera with her hands to prevent someone from taking  pictures of her work. She said that she was a “strong personality” who  cannot be manipulated.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel asked the Program Director about the  range of possible actions which the Commission could take in documented  incidents of acts of aggression.

Mr. Lazar responded that the Street Artists Committee has the authority to  do one of the following: (a) dismiss the case for lack of a preponderance of  evidence; or, if there is a preponderance of evidence, (b) issue a warning; (c)  suspend the certificate for any duration – for example, one week to two  months; (d) divide a suspension period to coincide with one or more  significant selling seasons; or (f) revoke the certificate or refuse to renew it.  It has been the Program Director’s observation that the Committee seldom  revokes or refuses to renew a certificate unless (a) an onerous offense was  committed, or (b) there is a history of violations for which the Commission  has already taken disciplinary action against the artist’s certificate and the  artist’s continued lack of adherence to the rules appears incorrigible. Any  action to suspend, revoke, or deny renewal is appealable to the Board of  Appeals.

The Commissioners discussed the case.

Commissioner Melania noted that Ms. Amparo had stated that she actually  saw Ms. Mazor throw the bottle.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that it clearly was an act that could not be  tolerated, as it endangered the well-being of the other artists and the public.  On the other hand, he was hesitant to revoke the certificate of an artist who  has not been before the Committee previously and is now in a hearing which  has received much hearsay testimony. To consider keeping someone from  earning their living, the Committee, he said, should be “very judicious.”

Commissioner Lloyd moved that Leah Mazor be found in violation  for conducting business in an improper, disorderly, hazardous  manner by attempting assault; the motion was seconded by  Commissioner Calegari and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Calegari stated that she was not in favor of revoking Ms.  Mazor’s certificate. While she was moved by the fact of Ms. Mazor’s  livelihood, she acknowledged the value of the testimony given by Mr. Addario  and others. However, she felt that any penalty recommended by the  Committee should be as moderate as possible while still fair.

Commissioner Lloyd commented that strong penalties have typically been  handed down on cases where there was a preponderance – particularly  photographic - of evidence. But in the present case, he said, while it was  clear that what Ms. Mazor did was wrong, it was difficult for him, based  on hearsay of what people saw, to take away her license. If she were to be  brought before the Committee on a future complaint, he would not be  inclined to be lenient.

Commissioner Melania stated the safety of the other artists and the public  had to be considered.

Commissioner Calegari agreed, commenting that she would be upset if a  glass shattered near her daughter. The Commissioner asked for a  recommendation from the Program Director.

Mr. Lazar commented that there was a lack of photographic evidence.  There was strong witness testimony to having seen Ms. Mazor throw the  bottle but this was the testimony of only one witness. Mr. Lazar  recommended a suspension of certificate for two weeks.

In response to a question by Commissioner Lloyd, Mr. Lazar stated that Ms.  Mazor could appeal the decision to suspend to the Board of Appeals. He  outlined the steps involved.

Mr. Lazar reiterated that the Commissioners could consider deferring the  suspension to a more meaningful, businesswise time of the year.

Commissioner Lloyd mentioned that the Board of Appeals has, in recent  history, overruled the Arts Commission’s decisions; the Board, he said, tends  to give defendants as much benefit of the doubt as possible. He did not wish  to have to go before the Board of Appeals for a suspension in a case such as  this one where the evidence was much less clear than that of a previous case.  In that appeal the Arts Commission had overwhelming evidence of a  licensee’s multiple violations over a year’s period, but this resulted in the  Board siding against the Commission.

Commissioner Melania stated that she did not feel the Board’s posture should  factor into the Committee’s decision.

Mr. Lazar clarified that any suspension handed down to Ms. Mazor would not  go into effect until twenty days later which is basically the end of summer;  therefore, the Committee might wish to defer the suspension to a more  meaningful time of year.

Commissioner Calegari responded that her goal was not to see that Ms.  Mazor would be unable to pay her rent; she would not want to penalize her  when she has the potential to earn a living. The Commissioner’s goal was to  see that a message is conveyed that the Commission is trying to create a safe community. Therefore, it did not matter when Ms. Mazor’s suspension would  occur.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that he felt that Ms. Mazor was more likely to  appeal a suspension rather than a warning. However, if his colleagues  favored a two-week suspension, he would support it.

Commissioner Lloyd stated that if Ms. Mazor were to commit a similar  offense in the future, it would be much easier for his Committee to come to a  decision for a harsher penalty.

Commissioner Melania moved that Ms. Mazor’s certificate be  suspended for a period of two weeks; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Calegari and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Lloyd asked Ms. Mazor to take the Committee’s decision as a stern warning.

Ms. Mazor responded that she was going to appeal the decision.

3.    Hearing and possible motion to change the schedule of meetings of the Street Artists Committee from monthly to bi-monthly.

Program Director Lazar clarified that the reason for his request that the Committee meet bi-monthly was due to the fact that there was not always enough items to warrant the Committee’s consideration on a monthly basis.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel stated that the second issue was that, because the Commissioners serve on multiple committees, it was his recommendation that work on the Street Artists Committee’s calendar be concentrated so that the Commissioners’ time is best used to balance their activities among the various committees. Going to a bi-monthly schedule would be a more efficient use of the Commission’s time.

Commissioner Lloyd affirmed that if there were a specific motion to be required on an issue that cannot wait for two months, a meeting could be called to hear it on a month’s notice.

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment.

Street Artist Tad Sky urged that the meetings be held monthly and that any meeting be cancelled if there is an insufficient amount of items to warrant it.Otherwise, if the meetings were bi-monthly, certain issues that are important to the artists would not be heard for a long time. Over the years he noted that, even with the current monthly schedule, there were no more than eight or nine meetings held per year.

Street Artist Michael Addario, reading from a prepared text, stated that this matter was originally submitted to a vote of the April 7, 2008 meeting of the full Arts Commission without “our knowledge, discussion or approval by the street artists or public.” He filed a complaint with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, and the Task Force found that the Commission “violated Section 67.5 of the Sunshine Ordinance for holding a seriatem meeting at committee level through two committee members at a non-public meeting and without public input.” Because a further hearing of the Task Force was scheduled for August 13^th, both Mr. Addario and Program Director Lazar requested a continuance because of the Street Artists Committee’s meeting scheduled for the same date.

Mr. Addario stated that he was “strongly opposed to any further voting on this matter until all parties can meet with the San Francisco Task Force Ordinance Compliance and Amendments Committee in September, 2008.” He added that any motion “to re-introduce this resolution will only reinforce in the minds of many that this hearing is only a charade, and that the San Francisco Art Commissioners have already formulated their decision; and this could possibly generate another complaint.”

Street Artist Edward Steneck stated he agreed with Tad Sky’s statement; it was very important that the meetings be held monthly unless there are reasons for some meetings to be cancelled.

Street Artist Madeline Marrow stated that people’s interest and memory of items tend to fade if they have to wait two months for their item to be heard.

Mr. Cancel wanted it noted for the record that there were at least 12 individuals of the public present.

Street Artist Sureyya Ozsoy stated that she agreed with the statements made by the other artists.

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that she favored monthly meetings.

Closing public comment, Commissioner Lloyd stated he did not mind meeting more than six times a year if it were necessary, and that he was not inclined to vote for changing the schedule to bi-monthly meetings.

Commissioner Melania noted that there had been issues of quorum in the past; having meetings bi-monthly would help.

Director of Cultural Affairs Cancel stated that a bi-monthly schedule would help to organize limited staff time in preparing all the agenda items and other matters relevant to a meeting. He went on to say that, as he administers the entire agency, he has observed that the Street Artists Program has only two staffpeople “and it is a miracle that they manage to do as much as they accomplish. Between responding to complaints, going out to the field, issuing the licenses … responding to floods of e-mails regarding one particular individual’s issues or another. … Staff time gets eaten up. Reducing the amount of meetings will provide for a better use of staff utilization.”

Commissioner Calegari stated that if six meetings were to be scheduled for the year, the Commissioners could always make sure there would be a quorum. Speaking, she said, as a new Commissioner, she has found an overwhelming amount of Commission work coming to the Commissioners. Nevertheless, if there were an urgent matter, the Program Director could request an urgent meeting.

Commissioner Calegari moved that the schedule of meetings of the Street Artists Committee be changed from monthly to bi-monthly; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Melania. The Commissioners voted as follows:

Yes — Calegari, Melania
No — Lloyd.

The motion passed.

4.  Hearing and possible motion to approve request for an ordinance to rescind Ordinance No. 383-96 (Application/Examination Fee of $20.00) and to establish new application/examination fee of $100.00. (submitted by petition of 54 street artists)

Program Director Lazar explained that new applicants for street artist certificates are required by ordinance to pay a $20 fee to cover the costs of processing their applications and the examinations of the wares they intend to sell. The examinations are performed by the Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners who determine that the wares are of the applicants’ own creation.

Mr. Lazar went on to state that another ordinance provides for the members of the Advisory Committee to receive compensation for a yearly total of thirty-five meetings, studio visits, or assignments of monitoring duty. The compensation is $100 per meeting, studio visit, or monitoring assignment.  With regard to the Committee’s examinations, the wares of approximately 135 new applicants are screened annually. Concomitantly, approximately the same number of certificate-holders leaves the Program annually. For last seven to eight years, the Program has maintained an approximate 390 – 400 licensed artists annually.

Mr. Lazar stated that his understanding of the reason for the 54 artists signing a petition to raise the application/fee was to generate additional revenue to cover more time for Advisory Committee monitoring (at the artists’ selling locations). While the Advisory Committee is governed by 35 meetings/studio visits/monitoring assignments per year, and while the artists’ certificate fee was recently raised, the certificate fee was not raised high enough to provide the revenue necessary to cover 35 meetings. While $10,000 of the certificate fee revenue was budgeted for the Advisory Committee, this would provide for only 25 meetings – rather than 35 meetings – per member. The 25 meetings per member were divided roughly through the year into the following: 12 monthly examination meetings; 8 weekend monitoring assignments during summer, 4 monitoring assignments during the winter holiday season, and 1 studio visit. The petitioning artists expressed the desire to see Advisory Committee members on the street more often in order to increase their transmittals of violation observations to the Program Director for processing. This, in turn, could increase the Program’s enforcement potential.

While the petitioners were requesting a high increase in the application/examination fee imposed on applicants, Mr. Lazar had forwarded an e-mail to the Commissioners from Street Artists Bill and Bob Clark, who were not present, who objected to the increase for several reasons. One of their reasons was their contention that the application/examination fee was to be used for no other purpose, not even paying the Advisory Committee members to do street monitoring. Mr. Lazar stated that he wished to question the City Attorney about that interpretation.

Commissioner Lloyd called for public comment.

Street Artist Tad Sky stated that the Advisory Committee members come out on the street for approximately three months out of the year. While they are seen during July and August, they probably will not be seen again until Christmas. So “for nine months of the year the new artists can do basically what they want” while the ongoing certificate-holders “end up being policemen. … If we see something” that does not appear to handcrafted by the new artist, “we have to get hold of Howard. But if the Advisory Committee is out, we can tell them to go check on” the alleged offender. Otherwise, having to confront newcomers makes for an ongoing adversarial situation among the artists. A new application/examination fee of $100 would cover the Advisory Committee for monitoring duty throughout the year.

Mr. Sky went on to say that “$100 nowadays is very little, because a crafts fair is $300 to $500 for a weekend.”

Street Artist Michael Addario, reading from a prepared text, stated that this would represent a 500 per cent increase to be borne by new artists. “It’s like a teeter-tot: we have to have new artists come in, they have to replenish the people that leave; we have to have 390 artists in the Program or else we won’t make the $207,000 that these two people cost us. Eighty-five per cent goes to salaries.”

Mr. Addario, reading on, also stated that “a Venice Beach Boardwalk permit is $25 and $10 every year after that…. It shows how enormously out of line our fees are here compared to other city programs” for “what is essentially covered by the First Amendment right of free expression.” He added that Advisory Committee members have found a number of artists seriously violating rules “and Mr. Lazar refuses to prosecute them. There are no assurances that the money gained would be used to obtain the objective” requested by the petitioners. “This fee, without major restructuring of the Program office, would only compound the present situation.”

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan stated that “we need to have” the Advisory Committee members “out there looking at people’s tables” and that she did not want to have confrontations with other artists. With regard to Mr. Addario’s statement about Venice Beach, Ms. Hallinan countered that “Venice Beach does not allow craftspeople. It’s free speech … and it’s run by the police, so it’s a whole different kettle of fish. I feel that that’s not comparable.”

In response to a question by Commissioner Lloyd, Mr. Lazar clarified that revenue from the application/examination fee goes into the street artists fund along with the certificate fees, and the Program’s budget indicates how much of the money is allotted as compensation for the Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Calegari stated that it was clear that monitoring duty was important.

Street Artist Maria Hillius stated that craft fairs like the Union Street Fair and the Fillmore Street Fair charge $700 - $800 per artist for a weekend show; therefore, a charge of $100 for a new person entering the year-round Street Artists Program “is nothing.”

Commissioner Lloyd closed public comment.

Program Director Lazar called al $17,500 necessary to support 35 meetings?

Commissioner Lloyd tabled the item to allow for clarification to be received from the City Attorney.

Commissioner Lloyd, acknowledging that the Committee would soon be losing a quorum, requested that the first item for the next meeting’s agenda be an item on today’s agenda, the hearing and possible motion to approve two recommendations of the street artists’ Lottery Committee.

5.  Public Comment

StreetArtist Kathy Hallinan stated that the two recommendations from her Lottery Committee were initially discussed by the Lottery Committee members last October. The reason the recommendations were crucial was because there was a need to solidify the Program’s lottery rules. She was looking forward to the Program Director’s upcoming revision of his 1998 Program “bluebook” of rules, as that, she said, would form the basis for her committee’s discussions and proposals for further rules.  The Lottery Committee, she said, was “the backbone of the Street Artists Program.”

Ms. Hallinan further stated that a “credibility issue” was surfacing in the Program, regarding certain street artists who are selling fake turquoise and coral – much of it made in ceramic – in their items and then telling their customers that it is turquoise and underselling those artists who are selling real turquoise.

Street Artist Michael Addario, reading from a prepared text, stated a list of reasons to support his view of the Program staff as being “inefficient” and “incompetent.” He said that Commissioner Johnston in “September, 2006 has asked repeatedly for Mr. Lazar to show us where we can set up” in United Nations Plaza. “Now it’s learned,” he said, “that the City is going to take over those spaces, and there are reports that Mr. Lazar is in discussions with City agencies to transfer those spaces to other locations without informing us.” He went on to cite “the membership attrition list … we’ve been asking for a membership list that is accurate and monthly; we still have not gotten it. … In addition to these inaccuracies, we found in the actual issuing of the licensing recently one member was discovered by the Lottery Committee member to be licensed after September, 2009. You can’t do that. It could only be August, 2009. … We checked the license and it indeed was an issuing error; it should have been September, 2008. We brought this to the office’s attention; Mr. Lazar stated that the member should come to the office and get a new one. Now this action on the part of Mr. Lazar … shows a general apathetic concern for the allegation. … He should have ... issued a new license and asked the member to immediately relinquish the license.” There were, he said, “numerous documented errors on the part of the Program office” which “shows how inefficient and incompetent they are out there …”

At this point, Commissioner Lloyd requested Mr. Addario to not make personal attacks on people.

Mr. Addario said it was “not personal” but “personnel.” Reading on, he complained that “a promise has been made in February that” the revised Program book of rules would be posted on the Web; but “it has not; it causes a lot of problems for the members. This has to be held accountable.”

Street Artist Edward Steneck took issue with Kathleen Hallinan’s calling certain pieces “ceramic”; he said that they were not ceramic.

Street Artist Kathleen Hallinan showed the Commissioners samples of her leathercraft items.

There being neither further new business nor public comment, Commissioner Lloyd adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted:



Howard Lazar
Street Artists Program Director

September 4, 2008