January 30, 2012 | San Francisco Arts Commission

Executive Committee - January 30, 2012

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE ARTS COMMISSION

Monday, January 30, 2012
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70

Minutes

Director of Cultural Affairs Tom DeCaigny called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

Roll Call
Commissioners Present
JD Beltran
Leo Chow
Sherene Melania
Sherri Young
Commissioners Absent
Kimberlee Stryker
Election of Meeting Chair
Commissioner Beltran nominated Commissioner Young to chair this meeting; Commissioner Melania seconded the motion. There was no public comment, and the Committee unanimously elected Commissioner Young to chair the meeting.
Director’s Report
Director of Cultural Affairs Tom DeCaigny began his report by noting that this was the first day of his fourth week on the job. He reported that he was about two-thirds of the way through holding one-on-one meetings with all staff, and he was asking staff for their understanding of the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the agency. He reported that he has also met with several of the Commissioners, and plans to meet with all of them, with the goal of improving the relationship between the Director and the Commission.
Mr. DeCaigny reported that he has also met with some of the City’s department heads, and has discussed with Arts Commission program directors how the partnerships with other City agencies are working, and what projects are in the pipeline with the Public Utilities Commission and other agencies. He added that he expects to meet with the Recreation and Parks Department, and with the Department of Public Works, the Arts Commission’s partner in StreetSmARTS. He added that he has attended an informal monthly department head lunch.

Mr. DeCaigny announced that there will be an open house, inviting the public to meet him and the agency staff, as an opportunity for public engagement. He reported that he is beginning conversations with funders to help support a planning process with community input, district by district, to help staff and the Commission determine strategies for the coming three or four years.

Commissioner Melania asked about the date of the open house. Mr. DeCaigny replied that it was not firm, but might be on February 29 at the Gallery. He promised to let the Commission know when the date was confirmed.

Mr. DeCaigny elaborated on planning for the agency, for which he was seeking philanthropic resources. He thought that the agency had really strong program work, but was missing an overarching strategy. He hoped to engage staff and Commissioners in developing strategy, from a community-responsive perspective. He hoped that this would improve the quality of life across the City, and help to clarify the lens for difficult budget priorities. He wanted to see a three-to-four-year plan, with a long-term implementation process; he doesn’t want see the plan simply sit on the shelf, but hoped to see it implemented within programs and across the agency.

Mr. DeCaigny reported that the agency is in the midst of budget season, and that would be a focus over the next weeks. Other than that, he said, this is a really exciting time, and he has been working diligently to address transparency and Sunshine matters; he noted that new public comment cards are now in use for public meetings, in response to Sunshine concerns.

Mr. DeCaigny asked the Committee to plan a 360-degree review process of his performance as Director after six months, and then annually thereafter. He added that this would help to support staff morale.

Public Comment:
Street Artist Mike Addario said that he had made recommendations at Mr. DeCaigny’s first meeting, including installing a time clock for staff, and videotaping public meetings. He said that the Department of Recreation and Parks and other departments were ahead of the Arts Commission on this. He said there would be the problem of getting the recording up right away. He said that at least the full Arts Commission meetings should be videotaped and posted online. He recommended Sunshine training for all staff. He said that the agency had an identity problem, and the Commission believed it was giving its own money to artists. He said that the Arts Commission staff were civil servants, and not civil masters, and the Commissioners were representatives, not leaders. He said that Mr. DeCaigny should pull all disciplinary records for all staff, and that he was only getting half the story. Mr. Addario said that he should pull the disciplinary record of Evelyn Russell, former Street Artists Program Associate, and see how she affected the Street Artists Program.

There was no further public comment.
Arts Commission FY 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Budget
Mr. DeCaigny gave a brief update on the budget process. He explained that this was the first time that all City departments were being asked to submit two-year budgets; this began with enterprise departments last year. Mr. DeCaigny asked for a little more time from the Mayor’s Budget Office since he has only been on the job for four weeks. He has asked all program directors to produce two-year budgets, and has met with them and with Deputy Director Rebekah Krell. He said that he expected to be finished within the next week.
He explained that the Mayor has asked all departments for a 5% cut in General Fund spending in fiscal year 2012-2013 and an additional 5% in the following year, plus a 2.5% contingency cut. He explained that when he has all of the program directors’ budgets, he will plan to meet with all of them and with staff, to see how agency strategy, budget and the organization chart align. He said that he planned to bring high-level recommendations to this Committee at its February meeting, and a formal budget to the full Commission at its March meeting. He reiterated that his report today was a general overview of the process. He noted that it was challenging not to have as much time as he would like to do a fully fleshed-out planning process, and that there would be ample time for public comment on the budget at the March full Commission meeting.

Commissioner Beltran reiterated that the budget reduction targets from the Mayor’s office referred only to General Fund expenditures, not to other parts of the Arts Commission’s budget. In the first year, she said, the amount was $100,234 and in the second, $200,468.

There was no public comment.

Mr. DeCaigny added that it was too early to provide specific budgetary information, and that he would present more informative material at the full Commission meeting in February, providing context for the budget.
Street Artists Program FY 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Budget
Mr. DeCaigny explained that this item was on the Executive Committee’s agenda because the Street Artists Committee did not have a quorum in January. He asked Street Artists Program Director Howard Lazar to present the budget.
Mr. Lazar explained that the Street Artists Program is required to be entirely self-funded by the fees the artists pay, with no General Fund support. He explained that the budget has to be balanced. He presented the budget document, explaining that it showed actual expenses and revenue from the previous fiscal year, 2010-2011, and the first six months of the current fiscal year, 2011-2012. He explained that in FY2010-2011, actual expenses and revenue fell below the budget projections, and that he was projecting the actual revenue amount from FY2010-2011 for the current year, and for FY2012-2013 and 2013-2014. He pointed out the addition of $1,600 for new computers in FY2012-2013. He pointed out the totals for both years, and the projected deficit for both years.

Mr. Lazar noted that in FY2010-2011, there was some savings, and that any savings rolls over from one year to the next. Explaining that there was a deficit carried into the beginning of the current year, he said there was no way to know what the deficit would be for this year. He pointed out the projected balances for the two coming years.

He reminded the Committee that at its January meeting, the full Commission voted to reallocate funds for administrative management and supervision back to the Street Artists Special Fund, in accord with the Controller’s report. He explained that the Controller did not have a problem with the fee being charged, but rather with the process for charging it. He explained that management and supervision charges for the current year and the coming two years have yet to be determined. In accord with the Controller’s recommendation that the agency develop a procedure for charging the fee, Mr. Lazar explained that he has been tracking hours since July, and totaled eleven hours for that six-month period; this does not count the time of Ms. Krell. In response to Commissioner Melania’s question, Mr. Lazar explained that the hours of the Deputy Director’s and Program Director’s time would be counted.

Ms. Krell explained that the Controller’s audit was released in Fall, 2011, and that one of its findings was that the agency-wide administrative charge previously in effect did not have a proper analytical process. She explained that in response, staff was looking agency-wide at how to properly assess the charge. She explained that for all programs, the Director, Deputy Director and accounting staff spend time administering them, and the costs can be charged to the programs. The Controller advised that the charge can be time-based or headcount-based, and staff is working to determine the best method for determining the appropriate charge. Commissioner Young asked how long before the method would be finalized; Ms. Krell said it would be in place for the new fiscal year.

Mr. DeCaigny added that Ms. Krell is working closely with the Mayor’s Budget Office to establish the same process across all programs, and that the management and supervision charges cover financial oversight, human resources oversight, and similar adminstrative responsibilities.

Public Comment:
Street Artist William J. Clark submitted the following handwritten statements.
In addition, he said that there were some problems with the figures, that for FY2010-2011, Mr. Lazar included a management and supervision charge of $19,000. He said that this, like the other charge, did not go through the proper procedure, and there were no public hearings. Mr. Clark requested that this amount also be returned to the Street Artists fund. Likewise, he said, since there was approximately a $29,000 year-end balance, with the return of the $19,000, there would be a surplus of $65,000 to carry forward into the next year. He said that it was improper to hold funds for an undetermined purpose, and the amount should be subtracted from what the program needs to raise in the coming year. He asked a question about the salaries.

Street Artist Robert Clark said that the two-year fee was in violation of the requirement by law to recalculate the fee every year.

Robert Clark said that the budget did not include application fees, subtracted from the Street Artist fee. He said there was no real deficit and that Mr. Lazar did not include application fees. He said that it was improper to leave that line blank and say it would be completed later. He said that the law requires that the fee be set each year, and that it should be reduced significantly to approximately $480. He said that he was outraged that they only got information when they contacted the Street Artists Program. He said that they got the figures at 2:30 on Friday. He said that he was outraged at how the Arts Commission was conducting the process. He said that the budget included a part-time helper for Sunshine hearings, and that the Committee had told Street Artists Program not to send him.

Street Artist Mike Addario said that he was disappointed but not surprised. He said that when Mr. Cancel came to the agency as Director of Cultural Affairs, he charged the Street Artists Program $34,000 out of the blue. He said that Mr. Cancel had created a slush fund, to do whatever he wanted, and it had nothing to do with the Program’s costs. He said that there was a surplus according to his figures. He said that the fee has to come down, and that Venice Beach artists pay nothing. He said that the program was going down the wrong road, and that staff had stolen money and never collected for bad checks. He said that the previous Program Assistant, Evelyn Russell, was improperly bumped up to a Curator position. He said that the street artists provide jobs for the staff. He said that current Program Assistant Alyssa Licouris does a good job, that she is a Cadillac, but that the program needs a Volkswagen. He said that Mr. Lazar was supposed to go the San Francisco Port to request additional spaces, and didn’t do it. He said that this was insubordination, and if he was not going to do his job, he should get out.

There was no further public comment.

Mr. DeCaigny said that there would be definite numbers in the budget presented to the full Commission for its approval. Commissioners questioned Mr. DeCaigny about approving a draft budget that was still subject to revision. Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah confirmed that while the full Commission did have to approve the budget, the Committee was acting as an advisor to the full Commission and was not required to approve the budget. At the request of the Committee, Commissioner Young withdrew the motion.
Changes to Civic Design Review Process
Civic Design Review Project Manager Vicky Knoop explained that City departments often did not present their design and construction project to the Civic Design Review Committee for the required review until the design process was very far along, and when they had already spent a lot of money. The Committee sought to encourage them to come in earlier, when it would be easier and less expensive to make any changes called for.
She explained that the Mayor’s office had suggested including Civic Design Review as part of the environmental review for projects over $5 million. In response to a question about the threshold amount, Ms. Knoop explained that the Committee decided smaller projects could be reviewed at the conceptual stage. Commissioner Beltran emphasized that vigilance was just as important for small projects; Ms. Knoop agreed and said she was clarifying that in messaging and guidelines.

Commissioner Young asked about community input, and Ms. Knoop explained how the review process took that into account. Commissioner Chow explained that projects often came to the Committee late in the process, and this created tensions when the Committee recommended changes. The Committee wanted to create a better, less stressful, process and staff and Commissioners have been meeting with Department of Public Works and Bureau of Architecture staff to discuss streamlining the process.

Commissioner Beltran gave the example of a project that was handed off to another department and had major changes, with community review, and some $100,000 expended, before going to Civic Design Review. Commissioners discussed whether to remove the budget threshold and apply the same schedule to all projects. Ms. Knoop noted that adding small projects might make the Committee’s already long meetings even longer; Commissioner Chow thought that approvals early in the design process could ultimately make the meetings shorter.

The Committee recommended applying the changes to all projects, and tabled the motion, referring it back to the Civic Design Review Committee.

There was no public comment.
Arts Commission Move to War Memorial Veterans Building in 2015
Mr. DeCaigny reported that there was currently a verbal agreement that the Arts Commission would move into the War Memorial Veterans Building after completion of seismic retrofitting in July, 2015. He explained that the proposal called for collections storage in the basement, with gallery space and the “public face” of the agency on the first floor, and some 4,500 square feet of office space on the third floor. He noted that the War Memorial Board supported the Arts Commission’s proposal based on activating the first floor gallery space. He explained that he and staff are meeting with War Memorial Managing Director Elizabeth Murray to clarify the specific terms of the agreement.
He explained that the Arts Commission has a four-year window to plan both the move and the capital funding, and added that staff has met with the City’s Capital Planning Committee to request funds for the move.

The Committee discussed the costs of the move, what they might include, and how they compare to industry standards. Mr. DeCaigny requested help from the Commissioners as to what questions to ask, and for more detailed review of the terms of the agreement. Staff pointed out that the retrofit of the building is a huge project, financed by bonds, and that financing does not include buildout of offices for the Arts Commission.

Mr. DeCaigny pointed out that there were one-time costs for the buildout, as distinct from the ongoing annual costs like rent. The Committee asked about the potential for revenue generation in the first floor space, and asked what the War Memorial would do and what the Arts Commission would be asked to do. Ms. Krell pointed out that while the Arts Commission was a tenant, it was also part of the City family and not an independent nonprofit, and might be asked to contribute as a City partner. Commissioners asked whether there might be some preference or lower rates for the agency’s use of the Green Room, or partnership with the War Memorial on events. Commissioner Melania added that this beautiful building was where the Arts Commission should be. Mr. DeCaigny said that there should be further discussions about how to activate the space, and about the well-being of the Collection over the long term.

There was no public comment.
Public Comment
There was no further public comment.
Old Business
There was no old business.
New Business
There was no new business.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.

11/26/12 spr