May 20, 2013 | San Francisco Arts Commission

Full Commission - May 20, 2013

MEETING OF THE FULL ARTS COMMISSION
Monday, May 20, 2013
9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Casa de la Vista
191 Avenue of the Palms
Treasure Island, San Francisco

Minutes

Commission President JD Beltran called the meeting to order at 9:19 a.m.

Roll Call
Commissioners Present
JD Beltran, President
Sherene Melania, Vice President
John Calloway
Gregory Chew
Leo Chow
Charles Collins
Simon Frankel
Dorka Keehn
Roberto Ordeñana
Marcus Shelby
Cass Calder Smith
Kimberlee Stryker
Commissioners Absent
Amy Chuang
Jessica Silverman
Barbara Sklar
Gwyneth Borden, ex officio
Strategic Planning and Visioning Discussion (Part 1)
President Beltran welcomed everyone and introduced the MIG/MMC team members present:
Joan Chaplick, MIG Principal and Project Manager
Louis Hexter, MIG Deputy Project Manager
John Means
Jamillah Jordan, MIG Public Outreach Associate
Patricia Algara, BASE Landscape Architecture
Dee Dee Workman, Principal, Workman Associates
From MMC:
Adrienne Horn, MMC President
Katie Sevier, MMC Vice President, Public Art and Cultural Policy Planner
Georgianna Lagoria de la Torre, MMC Vice President, Collections Planner
Gregory Johnson, MMC Ten-Year Capital Plan Technical Advisor
René de Guzman, MMC Artist Advisor

Mr. DeCaigny explained that this meeting was an opportunity for staff and Commissioners to come together to discuss the future of the Commission, why it exists, what impact it can have, who it can serve. He noted that some people were new and others had a long institutional memory with the Commission. He encouraged everyone to think big and dream big, and simultaneously to keep in mind the Commission’s legal and charter mandates.

He noted that seated at each table were two Commissioners and staff from various programs and agency administration, both newer and long-term members. He reminded participants that today’s task was to look at core values and priorities, and that defining the full community engagement plan would happen afterwards, informed by today’s discussions.

Public Comment:
Allegra Fortunati said that she had served on the Civil Grand Jury, and she was really happy to see the Commission going through this process, and asking what value is added as the Commission is currently configured. For example, she said, some programs might thrive outside the agency, citing the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendation that the Street Artists Program be housed with the Office of Small Business. She said that the Arts Commission Galleries were started because there were so few nonprofit galleries, and things are different now. She asked if there was still a need for the Galleries. She said that when Commissioners and staff speak of the Commission’s constituency, they are referring to artists and arts organizations, but the real constituency is all of the people, citizens and visitors, whose tax dollars pay for the agency. She said the Commission’s activities should be evaluated on what these people are getting. She said that the Commission overachieves in grants to the arts, and underachieves in collections. She pointed to Seattle’s nighttime tour as a program the Commission should consider, and she hoped the Commission would look more radically at its programs.

There was no further public comment.

President Beltran thanked all the Commissioners for volunteering a full morning of their time. She called them the brain trust, thinking for the future of the organization. She praised the wonderful work of the consulting team to inform the Commission’s thinking.

Ms. Chaplick explained the plan for the morning: a series of activities working in small groups with three main outcomes. First was a discussion of core values, which inform all of the Commission’s work. Second was to clarify the mission and rearticulate the purpose of the organization, who it works for and the impact of its achievements, keeping in mind the legislative mandates. Third was a discussion of a vision for five to ten years in the future. She explained that each group had an assigned facilitator from the consulting team to guide and record the discussion. She added that Mr. Hexter would create a composite record of the discussion.

First Recess
The Commission went into recess for small group discussions at 9:39 a.m. and reconvened at 10:08 a.m.

Strategic Planning and Visioning Discussion (Part 2), continued.
Development Director Rachelle Axel reported that her group named equity, access and quality as core values, and added that engagement was discussed as a more active choice than access. She reported that her group listed transparency as a value under the heading of access, particularly since the Commission is a part of City government. Under the heading of quality, she said the group listed integrity, innovation and enrichment; under equity, arts for justice and inquiry. She noted that the current mission statement talks about the arts in civic life, and the group pointed out this important difference in emphasis from a nonprofit organization.

Public Art Program Senior Project Manager Jennifer Lovvorn reported that her group first focused on access for all and diversity. The group had a substantial conversation on enlivening the city and supporting a vibrant arts ecosystem. She reported that they listed equity and meeting legislative mandates with the highest quality as values. Considering the agency’s staff, other values were work-life balance and diversity within the organization, as a model for organizations throughout the City.

Commissioner Keehn reported that her group listed diversity and evidence-driven decisionmaking as values, and the arts as an economic driver, along with the Commission’s role in driving culture forward.

Commissioner Stryker reported that her group discussed strengthening the civic realm, and diversity of economic means as well as racial diversity. Other values they named included civic responsibility, quality, pride, feeling part of the community, innovation, support for artists, and integration in process. She reported that they discussed bringing the arts into the civic realm: not “plop art,” simply dropping an artwork into a space, but developing the quality of the civic environment. Other values were a bottom-up approach, and reaching youth.

President Beltran reported that her group participated eagerly, agreeing with the values of equity, diversity, quality and access for the community. The group discussed the importance of integrity and accountability to the public as values for this public agency. Other values included an important role in promoting the arts on behalf of the public and in building the economy. She reported that the group discussed as an example the change in messaging by Kaiser Permanente from providing hospitals to providing wellness, and thought it would likewise be important to consider how the Arts Commission expresses its messages. She reported that the group discussed leveraging political relationships to bring forth things not otherwise possible. Other values included supporting risk-taking, facilitating imagination, fostering surprise and delight, and supporting the inherent messiness in what the arts do. She added that they pointed out the tension in balancing public accountability with pushing boundaries and facilitating innovation.

Finance Director Kevin Quan reported that his group listed access as a value, for end users, taxpayers, residents and visitors. Other values included innovation and vision, inclusion of community, even as small a community as the neighbors on a single block, and being responsive to community needs. He reported that they discussed art as a lens for problem-solving, and a certain “juiciness” as a value. Finally, he said, efficiency, effectiveness and equity are the holy trinity of values.

Ms. Horn introduced the topic of mission, pointing to stakeholder comments about a lack of focus for the Commission. She suggested that Commissioners understood the programs they were involved with, but did not necessarily have a good grasp on the agency overall. She talked about the difference between mission and vision, giving the example of a company like Apple, whose mission might be to make a variety of products, but whose vision had to do with innovation and creativity. She noted that while organizations can usually say what they do, and how they do it, it is often hardest for them to start with why they do it.

She asked participants to look at three specific questions: why does the organization exist, for whom, and with what impact? She referred to the Charter and legislative mandates and responsibilities, beginning in 1932. She presented mission statements from a few organizations for their review, and staff and Commissioners commented briefly on them, some preferring a shorter and more open-ended one, and others pointing out the unique role of the Arts Commission in the civic life of San Francisco.

Second Recess
The Commission went into recess for small group discussions at 10:37 a.m. and reconvened at 11:10 a.m.

Strategic Planning and Visioning Discussion (Part 3), continued.
Commissioner Collins reported that his group began with the “why” question, pointing out the role of the Arts Commission in enriching the civic realm, serving as a bridge connecting communities. They noted the agency’s unique access to City resources, providing an opportunity for communities to connect with the civic apparatus. He reported that the group agreed that everyone counts, and the Commission has a role in leveling the playing field, improving the quality of life through economic sustainability, strengthening the social fabric, and engaging and empowering residents.

Commissioner Shelby reported that his group said that the arts were vital to the fabric of the city, and a creative culture was an essential San Francisco value, just as San Franciscans value recycling, disability access and smoke-free spaces more than people in other cities. He reported that they also discussed the Commission’s role as stewards preserving the City’s artworks, in maintaining vitality and growth in the arts ecosystem, and fostering the well-being of all residents and visitors. They also discussed the Arts Commission as facilitator or as patron, the tension between fostering local artists and bringing nationally and internationally recognized art and artists to this world-class city which depends on tourism as a major economic force.

Commissioner Ordeñana reported that his group, in response to “why,” said that the Commission was critical to the support of art and artists, bringing access to art and culture resources to all communities where they might not be otherwise, and continuing the tradition of governmental support of the arts. To the “who” question, he reported that they listed citizens and residents of San Francisco, and perhaps to the larger Bay Area region; and current and future San Francisco artists and arts organizations, both for-profit and nonprofit. As to impact, he reported that the group focused on community growth and vitality; integrating the arts into all policy efforts and into the city’s economic and social fabric; further developing San Francisco as a cultural destination; and fostering social justice.

Ms. Horn reported that her group had a difficult time, and wanted more time to discuss the “why.” She reported that they agreed that government has a role in supporting the arts, and in promoting dialogue locally, nationally and globally. In response to the “who” question, she reported that the group listed artists, residents and the public in general. The group saw the Commission’s impact in the value of partnerships, and as a supporter and producer of the arts.

Community Arts and Education Program Director Judy Nemzoff reported that her group said that developing the creative cultural environment was why the Commission exists, and that it can both facilitate the making of art and make the art itself. They focused on fostering and supporting the arts, and creating a culturally rich community. The group thought the arts can’t be fully supported without government. She said the group thought the Commission could have a global impact, serving youth and the next generation, diverse communities, business, commuters and cultural tourism. They discussed the Commission’s impact through serving as a facilitator to address social issues through the arts, fostering culturally relevant experiences of art on a daily basis. She reported that they discussed how the economic impact of the arts differs from community development, and raised the question of art for art’s sake.

Senior Registrar Allison Cummings reported that her group noted that early in the last century, City government thought it was important for the arts to exist in San Francisco to make it a world-class city, a wonderful place to live and to visit. The group remarked on this forward-thinking provision in the City’s charter, the inclusion of the arts in the City’s infrastructure, like the infrastructure of the Department of Public Works. They described the Commission as a bridge or intermediary between artists and the larger community.

Ms. Horn then turned the discussion to the larger vision, imagining a future five or ten years hence. She suggested that while there was a good deal of clarity on what individual people do, and what the individual programs do, the vision for the whole agency has not been well-articulated, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Ms. Horn asked participants to review a few sample vision statements, and in small groups, to discuss what success for the Commission would look like, what it aspires to be.

Third Recess
The Commission went into recess for small group discussions at 11:36 a.m. and reconvened at 12:10 p.m.

Strategic Planning and Visioning Discussion (Part 4), conclusion.
Arts Education Program Associate Marissa Mossberg reported that her group described the Arts Commission as a landing point, sustaining San Francisco as a hub for culture and innovation. They talked about finding a way to advocate for the demographic and cultural change happening in the city; how can the Commission be an advocate without doing advocacy?

Cultural Equity Grants Program Associate Beatrice Thomas said that her group liked the Philadelphia statement, which talked about the demographics of audiences, the impact of the agency, and developing partnerships. They thought it important to address the challenges of education, economic development and quality of life. They wanted San Francisco to be a welcoming home for artists, arts organizations and creative businesses, but economic pressures make this more difficult. Her group returned to the theme of San Francisco values on the vanguard, as proponents for innovation in technology, recycling and composting, and other policy areas. They discussed the question of looking for links and connections with the technology sector to build capacity. She reported that in the Seattle statement, the group picked up on the spirit of racial and social equality, and see that connected to a passion for the arts, providing a launching pad for experimental new voices. They saw the Arts Commission facilitating or hosting opportunities for cross-pollination, bringing in more thought leaders. They also talked about the built environment, and focusing on what only government can do.

Cultural Equity Grants Interim Program Director Lucy Lin reported that her group saw the Arts Commission as a convenor and connector. They thought it was well-positioned to develop partnerships with other City departments, emphasizing sustainability and cross-pollination. She reported they envisioned San Francisco as a diverse and healthy arts ecosystem, with the Arts Commission as its heart. They envisioned the arts integrated into sustainable urbanism, in the neighborhoods, supporting environmental sustainability and alternative micro-economies for communities.

Cultural Equity Grants Program Associate Tyese Wortham reported that her group also liked the Seattle statement, and envisioned San Francisco as culturally rich for residents, visitors and artists, with the Commission fostering connections to the city’s cultural history and artistic innovation. They talked about the Commission as a responsible and effective steward for the arts, and wanted to see the arts at the table earlier in City policy discussions. They hoped to get past fear and see the agency acting as a courageous and visionary leader in the arts. They also discussed a focus on community-building, both externally and internally, networking across programs and leveraging resources.

Cultural Equity Grants Program Associate Weston Teruya reported that his group was inspired by both the California Arts Council and Seattle statements, with residents and policymakers seeing the arts as integral to the city. He reported that the group envisioned the Arts Commission as a one-stop resources for arts organizations and artists as well as for City departments, a valuable part of what they do, not an accessory. The group saw San Francisco as a world-class city for the arts and creativity, with the Commission as a champion for the arts, making the city more livable. The group thought that San Francisco has a lot of resources, but there is a perception of not enough; the question is how to leverage those resources. Mr. Teruya reported that the group saw knowledge-building as important, in youth education and in informing policymakers about the arts as a valuable tool. Finally, they talked about breaking down silos, developing greater efficiency, and pursuing partnerships locally, nationally and internationally.

Mr. DeCaigny reported that his group was very aware of the tensions inherent in the agency: risktaking and innovation are critical, yet as a government agency, pragmatism and problem-solving are key to success. The group discussed how risk-taking and innovation manifest as core values, without taking risks that backfire and don’t survive the policy process. He reported that the group also discussed planning resources, over a period of up to ten years, asking how that planning might influence how the resources are currently being used, how many priorities can be managed at once, and how efficiencies can cut through existing processes that prevent progress.

In closing, Ms. Chaplick thought the discussion was very productive, and conducted at a deep level. She explained that the team would create a visual summary of the day’s discussions, and with a member of the project team in each group, she promised that insights wouldn’t get lost. She explained that the team would work with staff and Commissioners to craft goals and strategies, and work concurrently on developing outreach strategies.

Mr. DeCaigny reported that a coming staff meeting would be a brainstorm session to plan community engagement to help fill in gaps, and that a few Commissioners will be asked to work with staff on developing specific goals and strategies for ultimate presentation to the full Commission. He emphasized that all staff and Commissioners should feel part of the process, and he thanked everyone for their big-picture thinking and contribution to the discussion.

President Beltran added that she was grateful for everyone’s participation, and she was glad to see the Commission move forward with the important step of developing an explicit vision. She thanked the staff of MIG/MMC for their work.
Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:38 p.m.

9/6/13 spr

Language Accessibility

Translated written materials and interpretation services are available to you at no cost. For assistance, please notify Commission Secretary Sharon Page Ritchie, 415-252-2591, sharon.page_ritchie@sfgov.org.

我們將為閣下提供免費的書面翻譯資料和口譯服務。如需協助，Commission Secretary Sharon Page Ritchie, 415-252-2591, sharon.page_ritchie@sfgov.org.

Materiales traducidos y servicios de interpretación están disponibles para usted de manera gratuita. Para asistencia, notifique a Commission Secretary Sharon Page Ritchie, 415-252-2591, sharon.page_ritchie@sfgov.org.