City and County of San FranciscoSan Francisco Arts Commission

November 16, 2011

Full Commission - November 16, 2011

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FULL ARTS COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
2:30 p.m.
City Hall Room 416


Minutes

President Johnston called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.
 

  1. Roll Call
    Commissioners Present
    P.J. Johnston, President
    John Calloway
    Gregory Chew
    Leo Chow
    Amy Chuang
    Lorraine García-Nakata
    Dorka Keehn
    Sherene Melania
    Jessica Silverman
    Barbara Sklar
    Cass Calder Smith
    Kimberlee Stryker
    Sherri Young

    Commissioners Absent
    Mark Breitenberg
    Christina Olague, ex officio
     

  2. Approval of Minutes
    Public Comment:

    Ray Hartz, Director of the San Francisco Open Government Advocacy Coalition, said that he had reviewed the agenda and minutes and found that they were the only explanatory document posted on the website. He read from the Code and said that all explanatory documents should be posted on the policy body’s website before the meeting.

    Secondly, he said, when he reviewed the minutes he found no comments from members of the public, and almost all remarks were made by Commissioners. He wondered whether members of the public spoke and were not recorded, or whether the public did not attend, or perhaps felt that the Commission was hostile to them. He reiterated that it was important for the body to comply with the Code.

    After public comment, the minutes were approved unanimously.

    RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-275: Motion to approve October 3, 2011 Minutes.

  3. President’s Report
    President Johnston thanked Commissioners for attending this special meeting and noted that though November’s schedule was unusual, the December meeting would be held on the regular date. He noted the large number of members of the public who wished to speak, and the need to vacate the room by 4:30 for the following meeting, so there was not much time for his report. He said that he would ask for item 11 on this agenda, the appointment of a Director of Cultural Affairs, to be continued, so that this meeting would not be so long.
  4. Director’s Report
    Interim Director JD Beltran reported that the Controller had just a day earlier released a report on the Arts Commission’s financial management. She explained that she had requested their review when she came on as Interim Director because of questions raised during the previous administration, and that the review covered the period from July, 2010 through August, 2011. She thought that the positive thing about the report is that its twelve recommendations give a road map for the agency. She added that she is working with the Controller’s office and the Department of Human Resources to bring the agency into compliance. She added that the Arts Commission’s website will have a link to the report, and that plans are underway for a community meeting to discuss the report.

    Commissioner Keehn commended Ms. Beltran for requesting the report, and thought that the twelve recommendations would really improve the agency’s ability to respond to the community.

    Ms. Beltran added that she and staff have developed a terrific working relationship with the Controller’s office.

    Commissioner Young asked who would attend the public meeting—staff, Ms. Beltran—to answer questions from the community. President Johnston said that the report had just been issued the previous day, and that Commissioners who wished might also attend the community meeting. He added that the Committees might also take up specific issues raised in the report.

    Public Comment:
    Mr Hartz said that the report should be on the Commission’s website, and that the Commission should be judged by its actions, not its intentions. He said that as he looked at the agenda, he saw no explanatory documents; that he went through a search of the City’s website and they were not available. He referred to the Sunshine Task Force’s agendas, and said that each item has a number and a link, so that members of the public who wish to participate can review the documents and make a rational choice. He said that this was the law, that San Francisco was just a stone’s throw from Silicon Valley, and that it was unacceptable for any public body not to follow the law. He added that he had served in the United States Navy.

    As Peter Warfield of the Library Users Association came to the microphone to comment, he noted that the timer showed two minutes instead of three. He said that the Sunshine Ordinance requires three minutes for public comment unless there is a particular issue; he didn’t think this would kill anyone, and said there was already limited time for a full agenda. President Johnston confirmed with the Commission Secretary that previous speakers at this meeting had been allotted two minutes. Upon the advice of Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah that time limits must be applied uniformly, and in light of the previously noted large number of speakers and limited time in the room, President Johnston confirmed that speakers would continue to have two minutes per comment at this meeting.

    Mr. Warfield said that he was glad to hear of the Controller’s report, and had read the San Francisco Chronicle’s report on the subject. He thought it would have been appropriate to have copies of the report at this meeting, and was sorry to hear that it would not be discussed. He asked why Commissioners were not able to comment on the report and thought that it should be discussed at this meeting. He said that a Commissioner had referred to twelve steps, and asked what they were. He repeated that he was very disappointed not to see the report and response, and not to see it openly discussed at the regular meeting of the Commission.

    Vinay Patel, Director of the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center, said that he had looked at the Controller’s report and had several concerns. He said that of twelve items, three or four were directed at one program, Cultural Equity Grants (“CEG”), and no items were directed to any other specific programs. He was concerned that the agency’s response was to concur, concur, concur, without further comment. He was concerned about the elimination of four programs which may not be in the legislation but have a lot of history. He said that some were moved into CEG, and did not just spring up. He thought that when Commissioners take a closer look, they will see that CEG is one of the City’s greatest programs, and it is nationally recognized. He asked them to take a look when they got a chance.

     

  5. Consent Calendar
    President Johnston severed item 19 from the Consent Calendar and called for public comment on the Consent Calendar.

    Public Comment:
    Mr. Warfield requested that items 3, 9 and 17 also be severed from the Consent Calendar, and asked whether he would be able to comment on each item separately. In response to President Johnston’s question, Deputy City Attorney Adine Varah advised that comments could be taken on the whole Consent Calendar or on separate items. President Johnston called for public comment on each of the four items (3, 9, 17 and 19), and explained that only item 19 would be voted upon separately from the rest of the Consent Calendar.

    In regard to item 3, Mr. Warfield said that the Visual Arts Committee minutes looked extensive, but left out key issues. He said that he was there asking specifically for documentation, and was told that it was being projected and was not available on paper. He said that the Committee chair said that materials would be provided after the meeting. He said that he stayed until the end of the meeting, and that he did not receive any materials for more than a week. He said that open government law provides that materials must be provided to the public, and not a week after than the meeting. He said there was a lack of openness and awareness of Sunshine law. He said that the Committee chair said that if there was no motion for an agenda item, there would be no public comment. He said that President Johnston spoke up to say that public comment should be taken even if there was no motion being voted upon.

    Mr. Hartz spoke and supported Mr. Warfield’s comment. He said that the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance say government actions should be done in the open. He said that someone had requested minutes and wasn’t able to get them because of a computer glitch, and that minutes should be available seven days after the meeting. He said that in the 21st century, meetings should be recorded, and that one can buy a very small microrecorder. He said that the only reason not to record meetings was to hide whether they are conducted appropriately. He said that people have come to the Sunshine Task Force and lied, and said that a representative of the Police Department told him he was not allowed to criticize their policies.

    In regard to item 9, the proposed artwork by Bill Fontana for the North Beach Library, Mr. Warfield said that he was startled and surprised that there were no explanatory documents on the agenda. He said that every Commissioner had material related to the item, and that information projected onscreen was very difficult to see even from the front row where he sat. He said it was hard to believe that plans from the Library were not available to the Arts Commission for them to study. He said that if the Commission actually did things “by the seat of the pants” based on what is projected onscreen and said at the meeting,this was not thorough. He repeated that the Committee meetings were not recorded, that materials were not provided to him until after the meeting, even after his request, and that it was difficult for the public to see the material projected.

    Mr. Hartz said that he thought the Interim Director had started in a good way, and he supported a lot of the comments by Mr. Warfield. He said that it was not reasonable to meet without recording the meetings. He said that the minutes present a cursory view, while recording gives everyone in the game a fair chance that what they said or wished to say was honestly presented. He said that minutes require the reader to take the secretary’s word, not that the secretary was making things up, but that this was a form of censorship. He said that if a speaker said something critical, it would be left out of the minutes, and that only positive comments were included. He said that his expression, his free speech, should be represented appropriately. He said that any citizen can provide a 150-word summary of their comments to be included in the minutes, and this can be done in context.

    In regard to item 17, the transfer of bound volumes of Arts Commission minutes to the Library, Mr. Warfield said that when he asked about the time period, he was not given the courtesy of an answer. He said that he thought this was a good idea, since the Library has longer hours, but the problem was that the Library did not have the expertise of the Arts Commission staff if he had questions about something he read in the minutes. He wanted to alert the Commission to pay attention, and said that the Library has an unfortunate history of getting rid of materials. He asked what assurance the Arts Commission had that the Library would keep the minutes permanently and not deaccession or discard them. He said that these were fascinating historical documents, very much worth keeping and taking care of. He asked again what assurances the Arts Commission had.

    Mr. Hartz reaffirmed Mr. Warfield’s comments. He said that something he learned in the military is that delegation is not abdication. He said that while he may delegate a task, that does not remove his responsibility to see that it is done. He asked where the minutes would be kept, and whether they would be available to the public. He said that this action does not remove the Arts Commission’s responsibility under the Brown Act, that it can’t be tossed to the library. He said that these are historical and legal records, and that the onus does fall back on the Arts Commission. He said that the minutes are the property of the citizens, and must be held in accord with the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.

    After public comment, Ms. Beltran commended the Commission Secretary for the many hours she works, and how hard she works, to ensure the accuracy of minutes.

    President Johnston called for a vote to approve the entire Consent Calendar with the exception of item 19, regarding the Grammys, which had been severed. The Consent Calendar was approved unanimously as follows.

    RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-276:
    Approval: RESOLVED, that this Commission does hereby adopt the following items on the Consent Calendar and their related Resolutions:

    Approval of Committee Minutes

    1. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-277: Motion to approve the Community Arts, Education and Grants Committee Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2011.
       
    2. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-278: Motion to approve the Civic Design Review Committee Meeting Minutes of October 17, 2011.
       
    3. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-279: Motion to approve the Visual Arts Committee Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2011.

      Community Arts, Education and Grants Committee Recommendations (October 11, 2011)

    4. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-280: Motion to approve the proposed 2011-2012 Management and Program Plan and budget for the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, for a grant not to exceed $522,923, contingent upon completion of revisions and submissions.

      Civic Design Review Committee Recommendations (October 17, 2011)

    5. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-281: Motion to approve Phase 2 of the Cabrillo Clubhouse and Playground Restoration with the contingency to lower the ocean relief wall to match the height of the retaining wall and widen the design.
       
    6. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-282: Motion to approve the Third Street Light Rail: 4th and Brannan Platform with the condition of separating the pole for the artwork from the canopy structure, integrating lighting into the windbreaks, and presenting the refined canopy design prior to Phase 3 review.

      Visual Arts Committee Recommendations (October 19, 2011)

    7. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-283: Motion to grant approval to the Port of San Francisco to modify the Art Ribbon where adjacent to Pier 26 on The Embarcadero Promenade, to allow raised sections to be reconstructed flush with the adjacent pavement. Reconstructed sections would continue the light concrete paving and glass block as per established Art Ribbon specifications.
       
    8. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-284: Motion to allow the Port of San Francisco to make modifications to the Art Ribbon where previously authorized by the Arts Commission without including electrical lighting components.
       
    9. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-285: Motion to approve revised conceptual design of Bill Fontana’s proposed artwork for the North Beach Library and to proceed to Design Development.
       
    10. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-286: Motion to approve the location of Gateway by Primitivo Suarez-Wolfe to be installed at the planned bulb-out at Market and 14th Streets.
       
    11. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-287: Motion to approve Conceptual Design Phase (proposed materials) for the artwork by Tomie Arai for Central Subway Chinatown Station.
       
    12. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-288: Motion to approve Design Development Phase of the artwork by Erwin Redl (Paramedia LLC) for Central Subway Union Square Market Street Station.
       
    13. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-289: Motion to approve Design Development Phase of the artwork by Catherine Wagner for Central Subway Moscone Station.
       
    14. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-290: Motion to approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the San Francisco Arts Commission and the Public Utilities Commission.
       
    15. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-291: Motion to approve the artist Colette Crutcher as recommended by the Artist Selection Panel for an artwork at Cabrillo Playground.
       
    16. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-292: Motion to authorize the Director of Cultural Affairs to enter into a contract with Colette Crutcher for design, fabrication, transportation and installation consultation of an artwork for Cabrillo Playground in an amount not to exceed $35,970.
       
    17. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-293: Motion to approve the transfer of all the San Francisco Arts Commission’s bound minutes to the San Francisco Public Library.
       
    18. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-294: Motion to approve the release of $10,040 of $12,550 art enrichment funds generated by Lafayette Park for community-generated amenity projects, and allocate $2,510 to public art at the Chinese Recreation Center.

      The following item was severed from the Consent Calendar and was considered separately by the Commission. President Johnston read the entire item and called for discussion.

      Commissioner Silverman joined the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

      Commissioner Calloway appreciated the opportunity to discuss this matter with the full Commission. For the benefit of Commissioners who were not at the previous Executive Committee meeting, he explained that this was an ongoing process and that many felt that NARAS was acting unfairly. He added that there was a nationwide effort to support the upcoming boycott of the Grammys.

      Public Comment:
      John Santos spoke in support of the motion. He explained that he was a five-time Grammy nominee and has been a member of NARAS for 24 years. He said that the organization’s mission and bylaws say the awards are the only peer-presented award to recognize excellence, without regard to sales, and that the purpose is to advance the recording arts and sciences with annual awards of merit. He criticized the decision to eliminate “roots” and other creative forms of music. He said that although there was an effort to separate the communities by reinstating some of the categories, he stood in solidarity with all 31 eliminated categories. He urged that NARAS rectify their errors and make an honest effort to restore the eliminated categories, and not to cater only to the most commercial interests.

      Arturo Riera spoke in support of the motion. He introduced himself as Chair of the Board of Directors of the Yerba Buena Gardens Festival, a member of the board of San Jose Jazz, and cofounder with his wife Sylvia and Commissioner Calloway of the Latin Jazz Youth Ensemble. He added that he writes the Mr. Latin Jazz blog. He said that the organizations he is involved with produce over 200 individual cultural events each year, contributing to the dynamic musical scene in the Bay area. He said that many of these are Latin jazz, zydeco, Hawaiian and other concerts that NARAS no longer considers worthwhile. He said that these represent cultural heritages that are not esoteric or dead, but vibrant forms native to our continent. He described them as truly and uniquely American art forms, belonging to all Americans. He added that this Commission funds a variety of cultural organizations, and that the NARAS decision eliminates opportunities for the young musicians who benefit from those programs to make a living with them. He said that the NARAS decision informs us that they do not believe these are not American art forms worthy of attention.

      Mr. Warfield was glad to say they was in favor of this recommendation. He said that some things particularly stand out. He said that the introduction spoke about the importance of genres completely reflective of contemporary cultural diversity and San Francisco as a hub of cultural diversity. He thought those were worthy comments. He said that this was a sever and extremely insensitive blow, and that thousands of California music patrons are also negatively affected. He thought those were key points in the resolution. He said that he wished that this Commision would have given the same thoughtful consideration, as well as the same time to the decision to snuff out the historic multicultural mural at Bernal Heights Library, which was on the Commission’s consent calendar a few months ago.

      Mr. Hartz said that he backed up the comments in everything said by other speakers. He said that maintaining the history in San Francisco is important, as well as the maintenance of the tourist industry. He said that there are things you can see in San Francisco that can’t be seen anywhere else. He said that Mr. Warfield had shared his research, and that it was now up to $185,000 to replace the mural. He said that it was hard to see who made the decision at all, that he has tried to find out and can’t. He said that the Library Commission said they were not going to decide and passed it on to the Arts Commission. He said that the Arts Commission said that they were not making the decision, but the Library Commission was. He said that it would hit the fan when someone goes out in a truck to paint over or cut down the mural, and the Latin community will ask “what the heck is happening?” He said that then there would be finger-pointing.

      After public comment, the motion was approved unanimously.

      RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-295: Motion to approve resolution supporting reinstatement of Latin Jazz and other categories to the Grammy Awards, as follows.

      This resolution to reinstate the 31 categories of music that were dropped by the National Academy of Arts and Sciences (NARAS) for GRAMMY consideration on April 6, 2011 supports the music genres that are truly reflective of the contemporary musical landscape and cultural diversity of the United States.

      WHEREAS, the City and County of San Francisco, which maintains a proud tradition as a hub of cultural and musical diversity, is home and host to valuable contributors of the American musical lexicon, including numerous GRAMMY®-nominated and -winning composers, artists and professionals; and

      WHEREAS, NARAS, an influential nonprofit 501(c)(6) organization, is based in California and home to 30% of its 20,000+ members, and includes a San Francisco Chapter; and

      WHEREAS, the decision to drop the 31 categories from GRAMMY consideration was done by secret committee without consulting the voting membership of NARAS and without local chapters’ Board of Governors’ knowledge; and

      WHEREAS, the eliminated categories include Latin Jazz, Contemporary Jazz, Hawaiian, Cajun, Zydeco, Native American, Tejano, Classical Crossover, Instrumental Rock, along with significant reductions in awards given to the categories of Gospel, Blues and R&B; and

      WHEREAS, protests and meetings have occurred in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Hawaii, Chicago, New Orleans, and other national locations to resolve this severe and extremely insensitive blow to cultural expression and recognition in our country; and

      WHEREAS respected GRAMMY-winning and -nominated artists, including Paul Simon, Herbie Hancock, Bonnie Raitt, Carlos Santana, John Santos, John Calloway, Eddie Palmieri, Wayne Wallace, Bobby Sanabria and many others have joined NARAS members, colleagues, and past Chapter governors in writing letters and signing a petition with 5,000 cosigners urging NARAS to reverse their secret decision and reinstate the GRAMMY categories; and

      WHEREAS, national and international media coverage (KTVU, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, BBC, Wall Street Journal, etc.) has been given to the outcry against this unjust and harmful decision in over 1,200 national and international stories published and syndicated in print, broadcast, and digital formats; and

      WHEREAS, NARAS has a responsibility to their voting membership to ensure that ethical decision practices are maintained because the GRAMMY is considered to be the highest award achievable for music excellence in the Unites States and therefore should strive to include genres and categories of particular creative and foundational significance; and

      WHEREAS, the thousands of affected musicians, engineers, manufacturers, composers, arrangers, graphic artists, publicists, distributors, and other industry professionals who work in the eliminated categories will suffer economically from not being able to participate in the GRAMMY awards; and

      WHEREAS, thousands of California consumers and patrons of these important musical traditions have also been negatively affected and disrespected by this ill-advised decision; and

      WHEREAS, the NARAS leadership has acknowledged that a “mistake” was made indicates that these genres should never have been eliminated in the first place;

      NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the San Francisco Arts Commission urges the National Academy of Arts and Sciences to immediately reinstate the eliminated categories in order to restore integrity and diversity to the GRAMMY Awards and fulfill the organization’s responsibilities to its membership and as a nonprofit organization representing the interests of diverse musicians and recording professionals; and be it

      FURTHER RESOLVED, that the San Francisco Arts Commission directs its administrative staff to send copies of this resolution to NARAS National Board Chair George Flanigen, Board Secretary Glenn Lorbecki, and President Neil Portnow.

       

  6. Committee Reports and Committee Matters
    1. Executive Committee—P.J. Johnston, Chair
      1. President Johnston requested that Commissioners be brief in their reports. He reported that the Executive Committee had one item in its open session, the resolution just passed. He reported that the Committee then went into closed session to discuss candidates for the position of Director of Cultural Affairs, as part of the ongoing hiring process. He reported that the Committee voted not to disclose its discussions of that item.

         

    2. Civic Design Review Committee—Cass Calder Smith, Chair
      1. Since Commissioner Smith did not attend the Committee’s last meeting, Commissioner Chow made the report. He said that there had been an unusually light agenda, with two projects in Phase 2 review: the Fourth Street station on the Third Street Light Rail project, and the Cabrillo Clubhouse. He reported that both projects were approved for Phase 3 with some comments.

        He reported that staff gave an update on efforts to coordinate plans with Civic Design Review and the Visual Arts Committee, and there was good progress.

        Public Comment:
        Mr. Hartz said that he didn’t hear Commissioner Chow and didn’t know what was being voted on.

         

    3. Community Arts, Education and Grants Committee—Sherri Young, Chair
      1. Commissioner Young reported that at the Committee’s October meeting, the directors of the Cultural Centers sat down for an in-depth policy discussion, and that since Cultural Equity Grants staff was attending the Grantmakers in the Arts (“GIA”) conference, the Committee concentrated on Community Arts and Education matters.

        She reported that at the Committee’s November maeeting, Cultural Equity Grants staff reported on the GIA conference, and on the Dynamic Adaptability conference, highlighting funding trends both nationally and locally.

        She reported on the success of the recent noontime dance series at United Nations Plaza, featuring free outdoor dance classes and a variety of food trucks. She reported that community participation was good, and she commended Community Arts and Education staff.

        Public Comment:
        Mr. Warfield thanked the Commissioner for her report.
         

    4. Street Artists Committee—Gregory Chew, Chair
      1. Commissioner Chew reported that the Committee was scheduled to meet on November 30. With the holidays coming up, he encouraged everyone to shop with the street artists, and that the holiday season was very important to their business.

        He presented the following motions.

        Public Comment:
        Mr. Hartz said that there was a tendency to assume that there would be no public comment. He said that the Commission was talking about funds, and there was no information at this meeting or on the website about how much money was being authorized. He said there needed to be information for the public to see what the Commission is voting on, and asked how many of the Commissioners know. He asked if they were going to vote without knowing who is getting the money and what it is for. He said that money is a big issue, and that it is irresponsible to power through the decision.

        Mr. Warfield said that he seconded the previous speaker’s sentiments. He asked what compensation the ordinance specified, and what were reasonable costs. He wondered if someone might give a response.

        President Johnston said that the Commission would not engage in a back-and-forth exchange.

        Mr. Warfield said that he was not asking for “back-and-forth,” that it was not a secret but an action that the Commission was taking.

        Chester Zemany said that this was his first comment at a public meeting, and he found it fascinating. He said that he was here to comment on a huge sum of money.

        After public comment, the motions were passed unanimously.

         

      2. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-296: Motion to approve requests by former certificate-holders for priority issuance of certificate with waiver of re-screening of wares: Cindy Louie, Wei Qiang Kuang, Chris Letsche, Juan Sanchez, Homan Yim.
         
      3. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-297: Motion to approve request by applicant for waiver of 15-day requirement for obtaining a certificate: Dennis Blunt.
         
      4. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-298: Motion to approve compensation as specified by ordinance plus reasonable travel expenses to members of Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners for testifying at meetings of the Street Artists Committee, the full Arts Commission, and the Board of Appeals relative to street artist violation hearings, arts and crafts criteria, or other Advisory Committee matters.
         
      5. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-299: Motion to approve honorarium payment of $300 plus materials to Mario Hernandez for assisting Program Director in painting permanent and winter holiday spaces in the Downtown area.

         

    5. Visual Arts Committee—Lorraine García-Nakata, Chair
      1. Commissioner García-Nakata began by saying that the Commission had the meeting room for only a limited time, and she understood the need to balance reports and motions with the need to leave time for public comment. She apologized for the brevity of her report.

        Commissioner García-Nakata acknowledged that Mr. Warfield was at the Committee’s last meeting, and said she was sorry it took so long for him to receive the materials he requested, which the Committee first saw at the meeting. She reported that artist Bill Fontana had appeared before the Committee to discuss his proposal for the North Beach Library, and they were confident he would address the concerns about the project.

        She reported on other items discussed at the meeting, including relocation of some artworks at Church and Duboce, and several projects that are part of the Central Subway. Some of these were moving forward, and the Committee asked for others to come back with revisions. She reported that some headway was made in the proposed agreement between the Public Utilities Commission and the Arts Commission.

        Commissioner García-Nakata reported that the Committee discussed the transfer of bound volumes of minutes to the Library. She acknowledged that this was an important issue, and acknowledged the comments that they must be maintained in perpetuity. She said that it was the Committee’s goal for the minutes to remain accessible to the public, and added that many organizations transfer documents to the Library. Commissioner García-Nakata added that the Committee discussed the Lafayette Park Recreation Center and acknowledged the importance of making documents available for meetings.

        Public Comment:
        Mr. Warfield thanked the chair for acknowledging his concerns and suggesting that there may be changes in store. He said that he came to talk about the Bernal Heights Library mural, which hasn’t yet reached a final decision with this body. He said there was no general public comment on the Committee’s agenda, and he couldn’t speak on this subject. He said that it was omitted even though required by the Sunshine Ordinance. He said that the Arts Commission had silenced him and any other person who wanted to speak out, and pointed this out at the beginning of the meeting. He said there were a variety of Sunshine problems.

        Mr. Hartz said he knew he and Mr. Warfield were tiresome in asking the Commission to follow the law, and that it was horrendous for them to come and say the Commission was doing things not announced, holding passive meetings and making decisions. He said that omitting public comment was a violation of the first amendment’s right to petition for redress of grievances. He said that he had the right to say the Commission was doing something it was not allowed to do. He said that if an item were not on the agenda, the Commission could not speak to it, and violate rights, by using a technical maneuver. He said that his goal at every meeting was to ensure that members of the public have an opportunity to participate more rather than less, to address the public and this body.

        After public comment the following motions were passed unanimously.

         

      2. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-300: Motion to authorize the Director of Cultural Affairs to increase Scott (Shimon) Attie’s agreement from $47,800 for conceptual design by $100,000 to include design development and construction documents, for a total contract amount not to exceed $147,800.
         
      3. RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-301: Motion to authorize the Director of Cultural Affairs to enter into a contract with and to approve honorarium payments in the amount of $1,200 for the following artists in the SFAC Gallery’s January 2012 exhibition: Luca Antonucci, Jonathon Keats, Heather Sparks and Gail Wight; $900 for Daniel Small; $300 for Philip Ross; and $2,000 for Reenie Charrière, for the SFAC Gallery’s January 2012 window installation at 155 Grove Street.

         

  7. Otterness Public Art Agreements
    President Johnston thanked members of the public for attending, and appreciated the respect shown to other speakers. He noted that there were many speaker cards, and acknowledged that this was a matter of intense personal feeling. He said that he and others had been called on by members of the media and others to speak to this issue. He said that this was an unusual place for the Arts Commission to be in; the Commission is typically judging the merits of the public artwork it considers installing in San Francisco. In this case, he said, the controversy has less to do with the artwork but is more focused on the artist himself. He briefly explained the process: an independent panel publicly reviews a large number of applicants, and their recommendation comes to this Commission. He said that the proposal for the projects is not at issue, but it was only after the Commission approved the selection of Tom Otterness and his contracts that the controversial incident in the artist’s past came to the attention of the Commission, although some members of the public knew about it. He said that the incident in Mr. Otterness’s past aroused horror, and he said that the Commission would hear from members of the public.

    President Johnston said that he would ask for a motion to terminate the contract for the Central Subway artwork, and not to terminate the artwork at General Hospital. He presented the following motion and called for public comment.

    Public Comment:
    Sally Stevens of the Animal Welfare Commission said that the incident in question was not just something in his background, but part of the body of his artwork. She said that the Arts Commission should look at the artist’s reputation and his body of work. She said that the Arts Commission had incomplete information about Mr. Otterness, but now that the Commission has this information, it can’t ignore the information. She urged the Commission to rescind the contracts. She said that a significant portion of the public would see the death of this dog when they look at his artwork, not the whimsical images. She said that the artist has expressed remorse, but that is not enough without concrete actions. She said that if the Commission terminates his contracts, he will finally suffer the consequences of his action. She said that in 2008, an installation at the Art Institute showed a video of a dog being sledgehammered. She said that cancelling these contracts would go a long way toward telling people that this can’t be tolerated.

    President Johnston reiterated that he intended to make a motion to cancel the contract for the Central Subway, and not the contract for General Hospital. He added that he would make his argument after hearing public comment.

    Alexandra Dixon said that she had lived in the City of Saint Francis since the age of six, and she is an animal lover. She urged the Commission to also eliminate the General Hospital contract. She described Mr. Otterness as a sociopath, the Michael Vick of the art world, and said he should not be paid with public funds, and that he has a black soul. She said that the call of Animal Care and Control Director Rebecca Katz for restorative justice sounded like a kickback to her. She said that it would be a good business decision. She predicted that the artwork would probably be defaced if installed, and there would be ongoing costs of repair. She said that it was not good art, and the City should not pay for it.

    Bruce Wolfe, President of DogPAC of San Francisco, said that it was kind of a blurry line, that public artists are contractors first. He said that it was important to have proper contracts and put good business first. He said that as past supervisor of an agency dealing with child abuse, he knew that laws about the abuse of animals are far older than laws about child abuse. He said that abuse of a cow in India wouldn’t go over. He said that these animals are part of our families and to hear of this action is horrifying. He suggested considering a “litmus test” for sweatshops and other abuses, and said the Commmission must consider these items in the same way before moving forward. He said that the Commission should rescind the contracts, take the loss and “bite the bullet,” and that a better process was needed.

    Chester Zemany said that he has been a resident of San Francisco for twenty years, and has followed this story with dismay. He said that he read that the Arts Commission didn’t know of this act in the artist’s past, and if it had, it might not have awarded the contract. He said that the choice today was clear. He said that on October 7, the City banned shark-finning, a Chinese tradition. He said that on November 8, North Hollywood had banned fur. Today, he said that the brass statues commissioned would be a permanent monument to animal abuse. He said that he has forgiven the artist, but that doesn’t mean he should have a City contract.

    Karil Daniels thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. She said she understood that this was a “hot-button” issue. She said that she has lived in San Francisco for decades, and would not want to walk around public spaces or the hospital seeing sculptures by someone who killed a dog to make a name for himself. She said that she was from New York City and understood about making a name for oneself; one has to be either really exceptional or extremely controversial. She said that Mr. Otterness had chosen the latter path, and that she was haunted by thinking of the steps he took to do that. She said he had to get the dog, had to sign papers, had to get a camera, get a gun, tie up the dog and shoot him, and get a gallery to show the film. She said that she knew the Arts Commission didn’t know about this when they authorized the contracts, but now the Commission does know.

    Corey Evans said that he is an adjunct law professor and lawyer, with a focus on animal law. He said that he was saddened to see the City rewarding someone for his art when the person jump-started his career with animal abuse. He asked whether, if he had started his career showing something about domestic abuse by filming it, then decades later apologizing, that apology should be rewarded. He asked how the artist will be remembered, and said it was clear he would be remembered as a gentleman who tried to make a statement by killing an animal. He said that if the City lost money by cancelling the contracts, as a San Francisco taxpayer, he was okay with that. He didn’t want to be reminded of the act by seeing the artwork.

    Maggie Seidel said she was a 23-year resident of San Francisco, she has a dog, and she votes. She said she has a two-part objection. First, she said, this is a non-San Francisco artist. She said that the City’s leaders encourage people to buy from local artists, as Commissioner Chew recommended buying the work of the street artists. Second, and more important, she said, Mr. Otterness’s act was immoral, heinous and cruel.

    Mr. Hartz quoted Voltaire’s comment that even if he disagreed with someone’s statement, he would defend to the death the right to say it. Mr. Hartz said he had to question whether it was the duty of the Arts Commission to judge the art or the artist. He said that he respected and empathized with the prior speakers, and that the question is whether the Arts Commission would have made the same decision if this history had been known. He said that the Commission is now in the position of having to rescind contracts for an act done more than 30 years ago. He said “let he who is without sin, . . .” and that everyone has made mistakes. He asked whether the Commission had the right to rescind because they don’t like the artist as a person. He added tha he needed to hear about the dollar amounts involved.

    Dr. Renee Pittin said that artists are the sum of their work, that the artist represents his work and the work represents the artist. She said that this artist has no place in the City of San Francisco, and that this was not a separate incident but a part of his body of work. She said that it paints and taints the work that follows it, that she cannot see whimsy, but grief. She said that as a San Francisco homeowner, she has a healthy interest in the City’s spending. She urged the Commission not to throw good money after bad, but to show the courage and conscience of Saint Francis and release the city from this murderous man.

    Vicky Tiernan said that this was public money, and that some acts are really beyond the pale. She said that even some underground artists criticized Mr. Otterness. She said that private buyers were free to buy his work, but she strongly objected to public funds going to him. She said that he might be genuinely sorry, but he had a long way to go to show it. She referred to comments on the KQED radio program earlier in the day.

    Jamie Orton raised the question of historical relativism, saying that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were cockfighters. He asked whether this meant we should tear down their statues. He said that thirty-five years ago, during the Vietnam war, a famous photo showed a general shooting a prisoner. He said he thought it was a horrific act then to photograph the shooting, but things have changed, and he didn’t know what the Commission should do.

    There was no further public comment.

    President Johnston thanked everyone for their thoughtful commentary, and for taking time during a weekday afternoon to come and speak to the Commission. He acknowledged that this issue touches people deeply, and he appreciated the willingness of the public and the Commissioners to engage in a meaningful public process. He added that he found himself having to talk about this issue quite a lot over the preceding weeks.

    Saying that he wanted to explain why he was proposing this action, at the risk of ensuring that the Commission would displease someone, he recommended cancelling the contract for the Central Subway project, and by virtue of taking no action on the General Hospital contract, allowing it to go forward. He did so with a heavy heart, and still was torn. He said that this was a government setting, and the Commission had to be cognizant of the tax dollars involved. He said that there has been a lot of focus on the act itself, and while 1977 may have been a time and era unto itself, he didn’t see a lot of debate that this was a heinous act. President Johnston was embarassed not to know about the act earlier, not to be able to vote with his eyes open. He said that this Commission did not award a contract for work done thirty or twenty or even ten years ago, and that the artist’s work was widely acclaimed in many cities, including San Jose and New York City. He said that the Commission first looked at whether the artist was technically qualified to do the work, then looked at the proposal submitted. He pointed out that more than sixty percent of public art awards do go to San Francisco artists, and it is important to remember that San Francisco is an international city. Additionally, because of federal funding for the Central Subway, the Commission cannot restrict the project to local artists.

    President Johnston said that he got his own dog from Animal Care and Control ten years ago, and that he knew many people in the room and around the table to be animal lovers. He said that the question was whether this act in the artist’s past disabled him from being a City contractor. He said that the passing of time, and the artist’s efforts to make amends come into play. He said that these are moral and ethical questions with a range of feelings; there is no range regarding the act itself. He spoke of the redemptive value of art, and asked at what point people are able to go on. He explained that the Commission has the legal right to cancel the contracts. If the Commission cancels the General Hospital contract, he said, the City will lose some $365,000, and the artist will lose a lot of money and the project will be set back. If the Commission cancels the Central Subway contract, there are no financial issues. President Johnston said that the issue of making amends is a subjective one, and in his conversation on KQED this morning with Sally Stephens, Chair of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare, he said that she made two points. He said that she believed it would be in the best interest of the City and County of San Francisco and of the Arts Commission to send a message that they are appalled by earlier work in the artist’s past, and that forfeiture of a $750,000 contract, and half of another already paid, would be a strong message. He added that, although Ms. Katz was unfairly described as an advocate, he found her a pretty harsh critic of the artist, who said that he has recently made sincere attempts to make amends. President Johnston said this is somewhat late, and when the heat is on; he thought the heat would be on the artist in other cities and will continue. He thought it fair to penalize the artist seriously by cancelling the contract, and not to penalize the City by paying for artwork and not receiving it. President Johnston hoped this action would encourage the artist to continue steps to make amends. He said that there is a wide range of opinions on what is enough, when is long enough, and when someone can expect forgiveness; he didn’t expect everyone to agree. He argued that the Commission could send a powerful message that allows the City to keep funds, and could force a dialogue with the animal rights community.

    Commissioner García-Nakata wanted to be sure there was time for all Commissioners to comment.

    Commissioner Melania acknowledged that this was an important issue both for members of the public and for Commissioners, and she thanked President Johnston for presenting all sides of the question.

    Commissioner Smith asked Ms. Varah how big a risk there was of a retaliatory lawsuit from the artist, as in the case of the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art (“MOCA”). She replied that she could not speak for him or his counsel, and this was quite different. She added that both contracts have a “termination for convenience” clause.

    Commissioner García-Nakata thanked President Johnston for shouldering the responsibility of addressing this issue, and thanked members of the public for their comments. She said that it was a slippery slope to set special criteria, that the selection panel, the Committee and the Commission consider quality, appropriateness and budget in selecting public artists. She said that she is personally distressed by anything that encourages “snuff films.” She reiterated that the Commission did not know about the incident at the time they approved the contracts. She added that staff considered whether an artist was able to complete the proposed project, whether the artist had been unable to complete previous projects. She again acknowledged the strong feelings about Mr. Otterness, and recalled that the National Endowment for the Arts had been pressured to eliminate certain artworks.

    In response to a question from Commissioner Smith, President Johnston said that the motion on the floor was only to terminate the Central Subway contract, then work with the NEA to resolve options, and he was asking for an up-or-down vote.

    Commissioner Sklar said this was the hardest decision she has had to make, and she has spent most of her life trying to prevent the use of guns, except by the military, and this was a dilemma for her. She said that in her work with Delancey Street, she is in frequent contact with people who have done terrible, terrible things, mostly to people and not animals. She said that one has to look at these people and say, I don’t know this person, has he made an effort to turn his life around? She said that she didn’t know if Commissioners had enough information. She said that the City needs to keep its reputation, that at least one of the projects is far along and the City needs to keep its commitment. She said that she was talking about the art, and not about artists.

    Commissioner Smith asked about discussions with Mr. Otterness. President Johnston replied that he had not discussed anything with the artist and did not intend to. He reported that the artist’s apology was read on the radio that morning, and that Mr. Otterness does not appear in public because doing so makes it appear that he is trying to justify the episode, and there is no way to justify it. President Johnston said that the artist said that he hopes the work he has made in the past twenty years will speak for him.

    Commissioner asked what actions he has taken in the past twenty years; President Johnston said that in response to the recent overture from the Director of Animal Care and Control, any action is mostly expected in the future. Mr. Otterness has installed public artworks in many other cities.

    Commissioner García-Nakata read an e-mail she had received from Tomasita Medal. President Johnston said that he had received a lot of e-mail messages, many on the other side of the issue.

    He called for a roll call vote on the motion; the vote was as follows:
    Aye: Commissioners Johnston, Calloway, Chew, Chow, Chuang, García-Nakata, Keehn, Melania, Sklar, Smith, Stryker, Young
    Nay: Commissioner Silverman

    The motion was passed.

    RESOLUTION NO. 1116-11-302: Motion to (i) authorize termination of the Central Subway Public Art Agreement with artist Tom Otterness, subject to any required Municipal Transportation Agency or other approvals, and to authorize the Arts Commission President to work with the Director of Transportation to take any further steps necessary to implement this resolution and (ii) take affirmative action to move forward with the San Francisco General Hospital Public Art Agreement with artist Tom Otterness.

    President Johnston advised that the project has been on hold for some time, and the artist has known this for some time.

     

  8. Public Comment
    Peter Warfield asked the Commission to reconsider the Bernal Heights Branch Library mural. He said that this is a mural with many excellent qualities, a history of creation as a community project. He said that many have endorsed keeping all of it, including experts like Timothy Drescher. He said that the Precita Eyes Board of Directors sent a letter to the Library Commission, and former Director of Cultural Affairs Luis R. Cancel sent a letter recommending keeping one side of the mural. He said that muralist Arch Williams has more mentions than Susan Cervantes of Precita Eyes. He said that this mural was never discussed before the Library Commission, nor before this Commission or the Visual Arts Committee. He said that a so-called public process for a so-called compromise was not transparent.

    Bruce Wolfe, Vice Chair of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, said that he didn’t expect to speak, and that he visited various Commissions from time to time. He said that the Task Force tried to mold training and outreach to help public bodies. He had three comments, and offered to do training for the Commission as they have done for other bodies. First, he recommended actively passing the gavel when Committee Chairs are making their Committee reports. Second, he said that the President or Chair should ask for yea votes, nay votes and abstentions. Third, he said that it was important that supporting documents, such as contracts, be available.

    Ray Hartz said that he hoped that this body would see that his intention was a good one. He said that unfortunately, he gets a lot of eye-rolling, as if to say “what’s his point?” He said that the Brown Act was passed in 1954, calling for decisions to be made in full view of the public. He said that in this city, which holds itself out as a bastion of freedom and democracy, City bodies and the Board of Supervisors permit the silencing of dissent. He said this was unacceptable. He said that at twenty-one, he took an oath to enter the United States Navy, to protect the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He said this was similar to the oath Commissioners take regarding the California Constitution. He said that this all goes to things that the public deserves to know. He said that when he asked for information about money being spent, he got no answer and felt that this was important.

    There was no further public comment.

     

  9. Reports and Announcements
    There were no further reports or announcements.
     
  10. New Business
    Mr. Warfield urged the Commission to take up a hearing on the Bernal Heights Library by the full Commission, not in the Consent Calendar. He said no one was here from the Library Commission, no artist, no one who was working on the planned mural, no one to discuss the process. He said this was one example of what excluded the public. He said that the Library Commission considered the mural on July 21, and he asked whether it would go to the Arts Commission in August or September. He said they assured him it would get a thorough hearing, and asked the Commission to please not approve anything further without a hearing.

    Mr. Hartz spoke in support of the previous speaker, and criticized the record on this issue as really sketchy. He said that the process was supposedly open, and asked who had participated, when the meetings were held. He said someone will be left holding the bag, and that when the day comes that the murals begin to be removed, members of the Latino community will speak out. He said that some who had spoken today in support of the Grammy item would come and ask the Commission what it is doing. He said that it was bad enough that gentrification was driving people out, and now the Commission was trying to erase that they had ever been there. He said that years ago, someone had paid for the artwork.

    There was no new further new business.
     

  11. Public Employee Appointment/Hiring: Director of Cultural Affairs of the San Francisco Arts Commission
    Closed Session to Appoint a Director of Cultural Affairs

    This item was continued to the regular December 5, 2011 meeting of the Arts Commission.

     

  12. Adjournment
    There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
     

    1/9/12 spr