Tuesday, July 12, 2016

1:00 p.m.

401 Van Ness Ave, Suite 125

________________________________________

 

 

The meeting was called to order at 1:11 p.m.

 

Commissioners Present: Sherene Melania, Chair; Charles Collins; Roberto Ordeñana; Marcus Shelby; Janine Shiota

 

Commissioner Absent: None

 

Staff Present: Tom DeCaigny, Judy Nemzoff, Barbara Mumby, Robynn Takayama, Cristal Fiel

 

Commissioner Melania called for public comment. There was none made.

 

Community Investments Program Director Judy Nemzoff said that there would be a deeper analysis of demographic data to close out the fiscal year (“FY”) 2015-2016 grants cycle at the grants town hall on Wednesday, September 14. Senior Program Officer Barbara Mumby would give a preview presentation to the Community Arts, Education and Grants (“CAEG”) committee on Tuesday, September 13. By that time, the FY2016-2017 guidelines and applications will have been released through the new online grants management system (“GMS”). 

 

Ms. Mumby said that the grants team was working on building out and implementing the new GMS through July. Beta testing would begin in August, with an anticipated launch date of August 31. The month of September would be dedicated to technical assistance and the first applications would be due on October 5 through mid-November. By the holidays, all applications would be in and panel reviews would occur January through March 2017. There was a call for panelists out, which was very successful in recruiting new panelists last year. Ms. Mumby expected recommendations to go before the CAEG committee in April, with final approval by Full Commission in May.

 

Ms. Mumby announced that there would be minor tweaks to applications based on community feedback. For example, in the past an applicant could not receive an Organization Project Grant (“OPG”) and Cultural Equity Initiatives (“CEI”) simultaneously. This barrier has been removed and the new eligibility criteria of having a one-year sit-out period adopted last year would remain. Additionally, CEI had two award levels based on budget size. Moving forward, applicants could request up to 50 percent of their annual three-year budget average with a cap of $50,000 per year, for a maximum amount of $100,000 over two years. 

 

Ms. Mumby concluded that the data analysis would help the grants team with a targeted outreach for technical assistance. This year, the Arts Commission would collaborate with San Francisco Grants for the Arts (“GFTA”) to roll out technical assistance workshops since their applicants would be using the same GMS. 

 

Director of Cultural Affairs Tom DeCaigny said that he was excited to move into the implementation phase of the GMS. Western States Arts Federation (“WESTAF”) was administrator of the GMS, which is the same system used by the California Arts Council (“CAC”) and National Endowment for the Arts (“NEA”). He was confident that the new system would feel familiar to the Arts Commission’s applicant pool, since it had the same functionality as CAC and NEA. 

 

Commissioner Collins said that after several years of serving on the committee, he still did not understand the fine line between the Arts Commission and GFTA. He requested that there be a presentation. When he was called upon to answer the question, he still did not have a crisp answer. Mr. DeCaigny said that on a high level, historically and structurally GFTA only funded general operating and was under the City Administrator. He said it would be worth it to invite GFTA colleagues to do a presentation about their funding. Commissioner Collins said that it would also be helpful to provide case studies to articulate the distinctions. 

 

Commissioner Melania asked how the rollout of the new GMS would compare to the Cultural Data Project (“CDP”), which has rolled out a new brand as Data Arts. Mr. DeCaigny said that grantees would still fill out Data Arts profiles, but the Arts Commission staff has heard a lot of feedback about the challenges around Data Arts. He said that the Go Grants platform for which the Arts Commission and GFTA were transitioning to was a much simpler template with an easy user experience. The challenge of Data Arts was around translating the arts organizations’ finances into a Data Arts profile. For the Arts Commission’s application process, the GMS was more the means to submit narrative and demographic data. Ms. Mumby said that Data Arts and the new GMS were separate entities. Applicants would still have to submit a Data Arts profile as a PDF attachment where required, but the grant application itself was simplified. Program Officer Robynn Takayama added that the relaunched Data Arts was supposed to be more user-friendly.

 

 

Executive Director of Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center (“APICC”) Vinay Patel suggested that the committee review the 2006 Arts Taskforce report to learn about the differences between the San Francisco Arts Commission (“SFAC”) and GFTA. He said it would enlighten the committee on the differences of the departments and how they came to be. He added that after years of being a user of CAC’s online grants system, he believed it was a smoother process that was familiar to a lot of grantees. He also stated that Arts for A Better Bay Area was working on new data around how many applicants could be funded if the SFAC was to get a significant funding spike as a result of the November ballot measure. He concluded that Queer Cultural Center and APICC were looking at the potential barriers to the application process. 

 

Ms. Nemzoff said that in the first few years of the strategic plan, the grants team had prioritized evaluating and making changes to the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund grant categories. The grants staff has also looked at restructuring the reporting of the Cultural Centers grant to align with the Controller’s Office contract compliance. Through Ms. Mumby’s leadership, the Management and Programming Plan and Budget (“MPP”) has been revised to focus on a set of criteria with measurable outcomes. 

 

Ms. Takayama gave an overview of the measurable outcomes that the Cultural Centers would be evaluated against (refer to explanatory document “FY2016-2017 Cultural Center Outcomes”). 

 

In reviewing the five outcomes listed, the committee discussed outcome two and how the SFAC would support skill opportunities for youth in theater crafts. Ms. Takayama said that there are grantees who support technicians through internship programs, and that several of the Cultural Centers have internships in technical development. Commissioner Collins said that there was an opportunity for the city to be known for supporting theater crafts and digital arts as it tied into technology. Commissioner Shelby said that one place this could be evaluated was in review panels and looking at how far funding was being spread through technical development. 

 

For outcome five, Commissioner Ordeñana asked how it would be measured. Ms. Takayama said there were eight activities that they needed to fulfill such as having a full time facilities manager, developing an affordable rental program, a facilities reserve fund, and others.

 

Ms. Takayama then gave an overview of the Cultural Centers’ MPPs, highlighting proposed activities from each Center that would fulfill outcomes one through five (refer to explanatory document “FY2016-2017 Cultural Centers MPP notes”). 

 

During the review, the committee discussed rightsizing the real and full costs of arts programming and grantmaking. Mr. DeCaigny said there was an internal individual artists working group of the agency that was looking into the issue of the real costs of programming and sustainable artists payment rates. Ms. Nemzoff said that there were a number of funders who were looking at the real costs of grantmaking with the hope that they would embed this into grantmaking strategies. She said that the Arts Commission had an internal policy that artists must be paid, but could shift the dialogue to discuss what would be acceptable payment rates in the field. Ms. Mumby said that Ms. Takayama had been working with the City’s Contract Monitoring and Compliance to consider cost allocation for each of the Cultural Centers, and that each Cultural Center was on a different learning curve. Commissioner Collins reiterated that the real cost of doing business was very important and should be reflected in artist payments. Ms. Nemzoff said that this was an issue across the nonprofit field. 

 

Following the presentation by Ms. Takayama, Commissioner Melania said that she preferred the overview presentation to having to read through the MPPs. She requested that for the future, the committee receive the highlights in advance of the meeting. 

 

Ms. Takayama said that Ms. Mumby had worked on bringing the Cultural Centers reporting into alignment with the SFAC’s other grantmaking strategies, and had developed the lists of outcomes and activities. Since this was a new reporting form, there was a learning curve for the Centers. Commissioner Collins said that the presentation was at a perfect level to communicate with the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office. Ms. Mumby said that through this revised reporting structure, it would be easier to have measurable outcomes, such as how many artists the agency has supported through the different programs. Ms. Nemzoff said that the outcomes might look familiar because they were linked to the strategic plan and goals.

 

Ms. Nemzoff concluded that SFAC was providing the Cultural Centers with professional development resources in response to their contract monitoring and compliance reports to support strengthening the organizations. 

 

 

a) Motion: Motion to approve the proposed FY2016-2017 Management and Programming Plan (“MPP”) and Budget for the African American Art & Culture Complex (“AAACC”) for a grant amount not to exceed $638,880: $534,628 to AAACC and $104,252 to sub-grantee Queer Cultural Center (“QCC”), pending MPP and budget revisions.

Recused: Ordeñana

Moved: Shelby/Collins 

Public Comment: None.

 

b) Motion: Motion to approve the proposed FY2016-2017 Management and Programming Plan (“MPP”) and Budget for Bayview Opera House, Inc. (“BVOH, Inc.”) for a grant amount not to exceed $336,103, pending MPP and budget revisions.

Moved: Ordeñana /Shelby

Public Comment: None.

 

c) Motion: Motion to approve the proposed FY2016-2017 Management and Programming Plan (“MPP”) and Budget for Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts (“MCCLA”) for a grant amount not to exceed $563,938, pending MPP and budget revisions.

Moved: Ordeñana /Shelby

Public Comment: None.

 

d) Motion: Motion to approve the proposed FY2016-2017 Management and Programming Plan (“MPP”) and Budget for SOMArts Cultural Center (“SOMArts”) for a grant amount not to exceed $734,443: $630,191 to SOMArts and $104,252 to sub-grantee Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center (“APICC”), pending MPP and budget revisions.

Moved: Ordeñana /Shelby

Public Comment: Mr. Patel said that the community had been positively responding to the increase in funding toward the Individual Artists Commission (“IAC”) grant category. QCC and APICC have created an artist fee model that has doubled over the past three years. They have hired technicians, a videographer and documentarian. He believed with the increase to IAC and Cultural Equity Initiatives (“CEI”), the Arts Commission was moving in the right direction. 

 

Explanatory Documents: FY2016-2017 Cultural Centers MPP notes (pdf); FY2016-2017 Cultural Center Outcomes (pdf)

 

Mr. DeCaigny reminded the committee that the Bayview Opera House Ruth Williams Memorial Theater ribbon cutting and community preview would take place on Wednesday, July 20 at 5 p.m. The committee congratulated Ms. Nemzoff for her perseverance, patience and strategic fundraising through all the years to see the renovation project to its completion. Ms. Nemzoff said that the renovation of the Bayview Opera House and plaza would have a tremendous impact. 

 

Commissioner Melania requested an update about the Americans for the Arts conference that San Francisco would host in 2017. Mr. DeCaigny said he would include an update in his director’s report during the August Full Commission meeting. 

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:27 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

Language Accessibility

 

Translated written materials and interpretation services are available to you at no cost. For assistance, please notify Program Associate Cristal Fiel, 415-252-2218, cristal.fiel@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，Program Associate Cristal Fiel, 415-252-2218, cristal.fiel@sfgov.org.

 

Materiales traducidos y servicios de interpretación están disponibles para usted de manera gratuita. Para asistencia, notifique a Program Associate Cristal Fiel, 415-252-2218, cristal.fiel@sfgov.org.

 

Ang mga materyales na nakasalin sa ibang wika at ang mga serbisyong tagapagsalin sa wika ay walang bayad. Para sa tulong, maaring i-contact si Program Associate Cristal Fiel, 415-252-2218, cristal.fiel@sfgov.org.