Comments for Cultural Equity Matters http://www.culturalequitymatters.org Equity for the arts Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:55:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SUPPORTS CULTURAL EQUITY by Darin Ow-Wing http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=112#comment-283 Darin Ow-Wing Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:55:27 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=112#comment-283 January 4, 2012 Dear Arts Commission: It is always a good idea to conduct an independent audit, and I applaud your efforts to make sure all San Franciscans are benefitting from the very best arts philanthropy program possible. However, two key findings of the Controller’s Report are very troubling, and call into question the integrity of the entire report. Before getting into the details, please note that I was an Executive Director of a non-profit with up to 100 staff for 15 years, and have served on different Boards of Directors and Advisory Boards during a career in non-profits spanning 30 years. For the last two years, I have been a member of the Board of Directors of the Chinese Culture Center. I have been part of at least 30 audits encompassing whole organizations as well as specific programs (some funding sources conduct audits only of the specific program they fund within a multi-service agency), and have become very familiar with auditing principles and procedures. In all of these audits, there has never been an instance in which the auditing entity directed its efforts only to one partial area within its auditing purview. I have never seen, nor heard of, any process such as this Controller’s Report reveals, in which the auditor focused almost entirely on one program area (Cultural Equity Grants) while ignoring other equally important areas in its purview. There is no auditing principle which states that testing the financial procedures of just one part of an organization provides an adequate picture of the financial health of the whole organization. At the Dec 5 hearing, the representative of the Controller’s Office stated that the decision to focus on Cultural Equity Grants was made because CEG “had the highest number of financial transactions.” There is no auditing principle that would justify such a decision. Such a principle would lead to the dangerous conclusion that a payment to one individual for $100,000 has less probability of malfeasance than 10 payments for $10,000 each. In fact, the basic auditing principle of “materiality”, which essentially states that small discrepancies do not matter as much as large discrepancies, generally points auditors in the opposite direction of the Controller’s Report. Auditors generally “flag” large transactions because the risk of damage to the organization from malfeasance or mistakes in the larger payments is in fact greater. Applying this logic to the situation at hand; there is no auditing principle which justifies auditing Cultural Equity Grants, with its smaller grants to organizations generally under $100,000, while ignoring other departments that hand out single grants to individuals of over $1 million. The Controller’s Report also attacks CEG for giving multiple grants to the same grantee, under the “principle” that CEG is supposed to distribute the funding to as many recipients as possible. The statement as written in the report is so ignorant of standard philanthropic procedures, it is hard to believe how it was published. All philanthropic organizations struggle with the basic questions of quality vs. quantity, depth vs. breadth, and established effectiveness vs. experimentation. These questions are answered in different ways through the giving policies of each private and public funding agency, and it is extremely common practice to give multiple grants. Organizations that give multiple grants include the San Francisco Foundation, the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund, and the SF Dept of Children, Youth and their Families. Giving multiple grants is a long-established strategy that arises out of giving policies; the Controller’s Report is overreaching its purview in attacking CEG’s giving policies. The finding by the Controller’s Report that Cultural Equity needs to provide support to more recipients contradicts the Report’s own process. First, the Controller decided to focus on CEG because this department has a higher number of transactions (that is, a higher number of recipients). The Report ignores the department that gave a grant of $1.7 million to a single person. Then the Report slams CEG for not giving grants to more recipients! Following this logic, it seems the Controller’s Office believes it is wrong to give a person $1 twice in a year, but it is acceptable to give another person $1,000 once in a year. For these reasons, the Controller’s Report seriously lacks integrity. While there may be some worthwhile findings in the report, the very foundation of the report is but a shadow, and it may be prudent for the Art Commission to request an independent audit from the private sector. The question must be asked: what has caused the Controller’s Report to be so skewed? What has caused the normally neutral Controller’s Office to issue a report that so blatantly focuses on just one department? The only possible answer, unfortunately, is that the Report is a “hit piece” on CEG. It is a report conceived to attack CEG under the cover of the supposedly neutral Controller’s Office. At the Dec 5 hearing, the funded organizations were gratified to hear that the Report was not meant to attack the agencies, and we appreciate the Art Commissioners for going out of their way to reassure the agencies that our work is highly respected. However, if the Report is not intended as a “hit piece” on the CEG grantees, then there is only one possible target: the CEG staff. As an attack on the CEG staff, the Report is an underhanded attempt to “convict in the court of public opinion.” In a year when thousands of people have died around the world demanding greater transparency from their governments, I am appalled that our government is engaging in this sort of public persecution. I am relatively new to the arts world in San Francisco, and have never met any of the CEG staff. My criticism of this report is therefore not based on any personal feelings or connections, nor any personal knowledge of the quality of CEG staff. Regardless, I am completely sure that this kind of public hanging, even one as comically botched as this one, cannot be allowed to pass. Sincerely, Darin Ow-Wing, Trustee Board of Directors Chinese Cultural Center of San Francisco darin@c-c-c.org January 4, 2012
Dear Arts Commission:
It is always a good idea to conduct an independent audit, and I applaud your efforts to make sure all San Franciscans are benefitting from the very best arts philanthropy program possible. However, two key findings of the Controller’s Report are very troubling, and call into question the integrity of the entire report.
Before getting into the details, please note that I was an Executive Director of a non-profit with up to 100 staff for 15 years, and have served on different Boards of Directors and Advisory Boards during a career in non-profits spanning 30 years. For the last two years, I have been a member of the Board of Directors of the Chinese Culture Center. I have been part of at least 30 audits encompassing whole organizations as well as specific programs (some funding sources conduct audits only of the specific program they fund within a multi-service agency), and have become very familiar with auditing principles and procedures.
In all of these audits, there has never been an instance in which the auditing entity directed its efforts only to one partial area within its auditing purview. I have never seen, nor heard of, any process such as this Controller’s Report reveals, in which the auditor focused almost entirely on one program area (Cultural Equity Grants) while ignoring other equally important areas in its purview. There is no auditing principle which states that testing the financial procedures of just one part of an organization provides an adequate picture of the financial health of the whole organization.
At the Dec 5 hearing, the representative of the Controller’s Office stated that the decision to focus on Cultural Equity Grants was made because CEG “had the highest number of financial transactions.” There is no auditing principle that would justify such a decision. Such a principle would lead to the dangerous conclusion that a payment to one individual for $100,000 has less probability of malfeasance than 10 payments for $10,000 each. In fact, the basic auditing principle of “materiality”, which essentially states that small discrepancies do not matter as much as large discrepancies, generally points auditors in the opposite direction of the Controller’s Report. Auditors generally “flag” large transactions because the risk of damage to the organization from malfeasance or mistakes in the larger payments is in fact greater. Applying this logic to the situation at hand; there is no auditing principle which justifies auditing Cultural Equity Grants, with its smaller grants to organizations generally under $100,000, while ignoring other departments that hand out single grants to individuals of over $1 million.
The Controller’s Report also attacks CEG for giving multiple grants to the same grantee, under the “principle” that CEG is supposed to distribute the funding to as many recipients as possible. The statement as written in the report is so ignorant of standard philanthropic procedures, it is hard to believe how it was published. All philanthropic organizations struggle with the basic questions of quality vs. quantity, depth vs. breadth, and established effectiveness vs. experimentation. These questions are answered in different ways through the giving policies of each private and public funding agency, and it is extremely common practice to give multiple grants. Organizations that give multiple grants include the San Francisco Foundation, the Evelyn & Walter Haas Jr. Fund, and the SF Dept of Children, Youth and their Families. Giving multiple grants is a long-established strategy that arises out of giving policies; the Controller’s Report is overreaching its purview in attacking CEG’s giving policies.
The finding by the Controller’s Report that Cultural Equity needs to provide support to more recipients contradicts the Report’s own process. First, the Controller decided to focus on CEG because this department has a higher number of transactions (that is, a higher number of recipients). The Report ignores the department that gave a grant of $1.7 million to a single person. Then the Report slams CEG for not giving grants to more recipients! Following this logic, it seems the Controller’s Office believes it is wrong to give a person $1 twice in a year, but it is acceptable to give another person $1,000 once in a year.
For these reasons, the Controller’s Report seriously lacks integrity. While there may be some worthwhile findings in the report, the very foundation of the report is but a shadow, and it may be prudent for the Art Commission to request an independent audit from the private sector.
The question must be asked: what has caused the Controller’s Report to be so skewed? What has caused the normally neutral Controller’s Office to issue a report that so blatantly focuses on just one department? The only possible answer, unfortunately, is that the Report is a “hit piece” on CEG. It is a report conceived to attack CEG under the cover of the supposedly neutral Controller’s Office.
At the Dec 5 hearing, the funded organizations were gratified to hear that the Report was not meant to attack the agencies, and we appreciate the Art Commissioners for going out of their way to reassure the agencies that our work is highly respected. However, if the Report is not intended as a “hit piece” on the CEG grantees, then there is only one possible target: the CEG staff.
As an attack on the CEG staff, the Report is an underhanded attempt to “convict in the court of public opinion.” In a year when thousands of people have died around the world demanding greater transparency from their governments, I am appalled that our government is engaging in this sort of public persecution.
I am relatively new to the arts world in San Francisco, and have never met any of the CEG staff. My criticism of this report is therefore not based on any personal feelings or connections, nor any personal knowledge of the quality of CEG staff. Regardless, I am completely sure that this kind of public hanging, even one as comically botched as this one, cannot be allowed to pass.

Sincerely,
Darin Ow-Wing, Trustee
Board of Directors
Chinese Cultural Center of San Francisco
darin@c-c-c.org

]]> Comment on MOBILIZE FOR ARTS COMMISSION HEARING 12/5/2011 by Isis Rodriguez http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=43#comment-187 Isis Rodriguez Sat, 24 Dec 2011 05:44:57 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=43#comment-187 I would like to thank the Arts Commission for their generosity with me over my past 20 years as a professional artist in San Francisco. They have given me 2 public art commissions "24th & Treat Children's Park" & "Portrero Del Sol Park", and 1 Individual Grant for my animatic "The ReAwakening". I don't like politics, but if there's a way where Individual grants and public art can be more simplified and stop micromanaging artists on how they should use their money, that would be nice. For example, Individual grants should be given to artists to begin or finish their art projects, and or for promotion, rent of a studio to create their projects, travel, research and any other related exspenses to create and market their work. And why can't the Arts Commision include their exhibition spaces on Van Ness Street, as apart of the Individual Grant so that their artists can have a widely visible space to show, since many galleries and art spaces are booked 1 year or 2 years in advance? Also, I would like to see more opportunities opening up for solo exhibitions purposes. Solo exhibitions help Individual artists get the publicity and sales they need and make the leap from emerging or mid career to established. In terms of Public Art, the contracts are ridiculously long. Can it be contained to 10 pages instead of 20 or 40? And could you please remove all discriminantory language, including "emerging artists only" or "preferred"? It devalues age, experience and creativity. I would like to thank the Arts Commission for their generosity with me over my past 20 years as a professional artist in San Francisco. They have given me 2 public art commissions “24th & Treat Children’s Park” & “Portrero Del Sol Park”, and 1 Individual Grant for my animatic “The ReAwakening”.
I don’t like politics, but if there’s a way where Individual grants and public art can be more simplified and stop micromanaging artists on how they should use their money, that would be nice.
For example, Individual grants should be given to artists to begin or finish their art projects, and or for promotion, rent of a studio to create their projects, travel, research and any other related exspenses to create and market their work. And why can’t the Arts Commision include their exhibition spaces on Van Ness Street, as apart of the Individual Grant so that their artists can have a widely visible space to show, since many galleries and art spaces are booked 1 year or 2 years in advance?
Also, I would like to see more opportunities opening up for solo exhibitions purposes. Solo exhibitions help Individual artists get the publicity and sales they need and make the leap from emerging or mid career to established.
In terms of Public Art, the contracts are ridiculously long. Can it be contained to 10 pages instead of 20 or 40?
And could you please remove all discriminantory language, including “emerging artists only” or “preferred”? It devalues age, experience and creativity.

]]> Comment on Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission by Ravi Chandra http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-134 Ravi Chandra Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:45:22 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-134 BTW, where does the Voluntary Contributions to the Arts money go - this notice that comes with our Property Tax statement? BTW, where does the Voluntary Contributions to the Arts money go – this notice that comes with our Property Tax statement?

]]> Comment on Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission by Ravi Chandra http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-121 Ravi Chandra Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:37:20 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-121 This is an excellent post that really breaks down the recent dust up over CEG and arts funding in San Francisco. As a psychiatrist and as a human being, I know that the arts are essential to the well-being of the community. The arts serve not simply to entertain (though they do that), but also to sustain, nurture and develop the community. They bring new ideas to light, and allow us to explore and understand all aspects of our humanity. You can't apply a slide-rule mentality to something so vital and basic to our existence. When certain officials produce a report which lacks a true understanding of the communities which they propose to "regulate", it sent a shock-wave through our communities. Being misunderstood, mistrusted and maligned, being threatened with a cessation of funding - this lands right on the deep wounds of people who have been marginalized in so many ways, historically and currently. There needs to be a reckoning, a healing, a broader and deeper conversation about arts funding in the city, one that realizes that the vast majority are perhaps not being served by the current arrangement. Cultural Equity should be real Cultural Equity. I have nothing against the Symphony, Opera, and Ballet. San Francisco is blessed to have such fine institutions. But why must other excellent, creative individuals and organizations fight so hard for scraps at the table? Shouldn't we build a more sustaining source of funding for all our communities, as well as allow for innovative new work to be discovered and promoted? And beyond this: shouldn't we be giving up rigid bureaucracies that produce such results (meaning the report) in favor of something more democratic and wise? Thank you for this post. This is an excellent post that really breaks down the recent dust up over CEG and arts funding in San Francisco.

As a psychiatrist and as a human being, I know that the arts are essential to the well-being of the community. The arts serve not simply to entertain (though they do that), but also to sustain, nurture and develop the community. They bring new ideas to light, and allow us to explore and understand all aspects of our humanity.

You can’t apply a slide-rule mentality to something so vital and basic to our existence. When certain officials produce a report which lacks a true understanding of the communities which they propose to “regulate”, it sent a shock-wave through our communities. Being misunderstood, mistrusted and maligned, being threatened with a cessation of funding – this lands right on the deep wounds of people who have been marginalized in so many ways, historically and currently.

There needs to be a reckoning, a healing, a broader and deeper conversation about arts funding in the city, one that realizes that the vast majority are perhaps not being served by the current arrangement. Cultural Equity should be real Cultural Equity. I have nothing against the Symphony, Opera, and Ballet. San Francisco is blessed to have such fine institutions. But why must other excellent, creative individuals and organizations fight so hard for scraps at the table? Shouldn’t we build a more sustaining source of funding for all our communities, as well as allow for innovative new work to be discovered and promoted?

And beyond this: shouldn’t we be giving up rigid bureaucracies that produce such results (meaning the report) in favor of something more democratic and wise?

Thank you for this post.

]]> Comment on THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SUPPORTS CULTURAL EQUITY by Marie Acosta http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=112#comment-100 Marie Acosta Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:19:20 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=112#comment-100 6. Any significant policy changes affecting any program at the SFAC will, as always, be made by the body that oversees this agency, the Arts Commission, and will be made in full consultation with the new Director of Cultural Affairs, Tom DeCaigny, and with the arts community itself. Really? So how is it that the funding for Native Americans was moved from Cultural Equity to another program without any consultation with the new Director and, more importantly from the arts community? 6. Any significant policy changes affecting any program at the SFAC will, as always, be made by the body that oversees this agency, the Arts Commission, and will be made in full consultation with the new Director of Cultural Affairs, Tom DeCaigny, and with the arts community itself.
Really?
So how is it that the funding for Native Americans was moved from Cultural Equity to another program without any consultation with the new Director and, more importantly from the arts community?

]]> Comment on Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission by Melody Takata http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-99 Melody Takata Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:02:36 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=115#comment-99 It doesn't surprise me that such misconstrued articles which shed darkness upon a funding source so precious to the thriving small non-profits and artists of this city, but it does create disheartening reverberations like a heart attack. The California Arts Council, and Alliance for California Traditional Artists, and probably others have been subjugated to such scrutinizing audits and finger pointing during economic deprived times which seemingly targets small pockets of funding to local artists and non-profits. Economic recession and great depression type of racist mentality is not tolerable and should not be repeated let's grow up folks. This city is in danger of losing it's pulse, it's very soul. It would be wise to protect cultural arts which sustains the well-being of communities and enriches the life of the city. I am exceedingly grateful to the inspiring work of SanSan Wong and her staff at SFAC CEG. They have maintained the flow of funding to assist the heart and soul of this city. I take great pride in witnessing the richness and diversity of this city brought forward through SanSan Wong's leadership. Let's not lose what has been gained by the city. Instead, let's nurture and award stewardship by this incredible SFAC CEG staff. It doesn’t surprise me that such misconstrued articles which shed darkness upon a funding source so precious to the thriving small non-profits and artists of this city, but it does create disheartening reverberations like a heart attack.

The California Arts Council, and Alliance for California Traditional Artists, and probably others have been subjugated to such scrutinizing audits and finger pointing during economic deprived times which seemingly targets small pockets of funding to local artists and non-profits. Economic recession and great depression type of racist mentality is not tolerable and should not be repeated let’s grow up folks.

This city is in danger of losing it’s pulse, it’s very soul. It would be wise to protect cultural arts which sustains the well-being of communities and enriches the life of the city.

I am exceedingly grateful to the inspiring work of SanSan Wong and her staff at SFAC CEG. They have maintained the flow of funding to assist the heart and soul of this city. I take great pride in witnessing the richness and diversity of this city brought forward through SanSan Wong’s leadership. Let’s not lose what has been gained by the city. Instead, let’s nurture and award stewardship by this incredible SFAC CEG staff.

]]> Comment on A Message from Guillermo Gómez-Peña by » Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission Cultural Equity Matters http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=1#comment-79 » Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission Cultural Equity Matters Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:50:46 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=1#comment-79 [...] ≈ Leave a Comment [...] [...] ≈ Leave a Comment [...]

]]> Comment on From Barry’s Blog by Kate Patterson http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=97#comment-76 Kate Patterson Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:53:11 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=97#comment-76 THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SUPPORTS CULTURAL EQUITY A Statement from the Staff of the SFAC This week at City Hall, a Special Meeting of the Full Arts Commission was convened to provide further discussion of a recent report from the Office of the Controller. It was the second hearing the SFAC convened on the matter, and was as much an opportunity for concerned citizens and stakeholders to share their thoughts with commissioners as it was a chance to hear more about the report, what it is, and what it isn't. We at the Arts Commission were heartened to see so many members of the arts community at the meeting, most of whom came out to voice their support for the Cultural Equity Grants Program (CEG). SFAC Commissioners joined that sentiment. As Commission President PJ Johnston said at the Dec. 12 meeting: "We said it last week, we'll say it again today, and we'll keep on saying it: We believe in the Cultural Equity Grants program, we wholeheartedly support Cultural Equity grant recipients, and we intend to protect funding for Cultural Equity in the arts." The staff of the SFAC, like the commissioners who spoke this week and last, share the community's passion for a vibrant and diverse cultural community, and we want to reassure you that the Arts Commission unequivocally supports the Cultural Equity Grants Program. In order to foster continued support for this and other critical programs of the SFAC, and to further dispel any lingering misconceptions about the Controller's report and the staff response, the following is a recap of some of the key points emphasized at the Dec. 5 and Dec. 12 meetings: 1. The Controller's Report was an audit of ALL of the SFAC's programs and their fiscal policies; staffing issues; and granting practices. It was not solely focused on CEG. And it was not in any way a critique of grant recipients. 2. The official staff responses to the Controller's Report, which were required by city policy, were intended to assure the Controller that the SFAC will comply with city law. The responses were not meant to indicate that staff will unilaterally change agency policies or management of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. We are proud of the fact that CEG has become a national model for the rest of the country, and we have no intention of abandoning the mission of the CEG program, cutting funding to cultural equity recipients, or making significant policy changes without commissioner and community input. However, in order to comply with city policies and regulations, staff will be recommending procedural changes to CEG grantmaking that will allow the Commission to bring all SFAC programs into legal compliance. 3. The Controller's Report provides specific findings that will offer guidance to the new director, and to the Commission, on how all SFAC programs can be better and more efficiently managed. By addressing the agency's inefficiencies - such as administrative overhead fees that have become inflated over the past several years - we anticipate that funding and grant resources to CEG grantees will actually increase. 4. While the report recommended that CEG cease funding and administering certain grant programs outside of its legal authority, it did not suggest the SFAC cease funding these specific grants altogether-and we have no intention of eliminating funding to these grant programs. What we will be doing is looking into ways in which we can make these grant categories legally compliant. The Controller's Office recommended working with the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor's Office to seek appropriate legislative remedies, and we anticipate our new director and our commissioners will do just that. In the meantime, the Native American Grant deadlines for this fiscal year will move forward as planned, shepherded by the agency's Director of Community Arts and Education (CAE), Judy Nemzoff and Jaime Cortez, who managed those grants under the CEG Program. 5. The Controller's Report called out the SFAC's lack of a clearly stated policy with regard to awarding simultaneous grants to the same organization within the same grant cycle, and recommended that our granting practices ensure that funds are awarded in such a way that they reach as many community programs and projects as possible. Unfortunately, this finding has created much confusion in the community. Two things are important to recognize: First, this finding should not be interpreted as any kind of criticism of the grantee organizations identified in the report as having received multiple grants. Receiving multiple grants from CEG should not in any way reflect negatively upon grant recipients. Indeed, the SFAC recognizes and applauds the exemplary work of these incredible organizations who, because they represent the best in their field, have won multiple grants through a highly competitive process. As several commissioners and Interim Director JD Beltran pointed out, their success in winning grants is a testament to their exceptional work and to their value to the community. The Controller's Office found shortcomings in the SFAC's articulated policies with regard to grantmaking, not with grantee organizations. As President Johnston said at the Dec. 5 meeting, "We love our Cultural Equity grantees. The fact that a tremendous organization like Galleria de la Raza received more than one grant in a given year just shows how incredible the organization is, and how hard they're working to stay competitive." Second, the SFAC, both staff and commissioners, recognize the value in awarding more than one grant to the same organization, based on a variety circumstances. In response to the Controller's recommendation, the SFAC will work towards establishing and articulating a clear policy with regard to awarding multiple grants within a single grant cycle. To that end, we will be conducting an assessment of best granting practices and will refine the agency's policy on this issue. As Johnston said: "I don't think anyone on this commission would support eliminating multiple grant opportunities." 6. Any significant policy changes affecting any program at the SFAC will, as always, be made by the body that oversees this agency, the Arts Commission, and will be made in full consultation with the new Director of Cultural Affairs, Tom DeCaigny, and with the arts community itself. While we recognize that the Controller's Report generated significant, and legitimate, concerns among many members of the arts community, it is important to recognize that independent financial audits of city agencies and their programs are appropriate, common and necessary. The purpose of this report was to help the agency shed light on fiscal and management concerns that had been raised by many commissioners, as well as many community stakeholders, over the past few years. The public scrutiny of public programs and public funds is an opportunity for the SFAC to identify the areas that must be improved, so that the agency can better serve the arts community and the city as whole, by becoming a more transparent, efficient and fiscally responsible organization. The Controller's Review provides us with a roadmap as we move forward with policies that will ensure our shared goal of continuing support for San Francisco's rich and diverse arts and cultural organizations. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Kate Patterson at kate.patterson@sfgov.org. We wish you a happy holiday season! THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION SUPPORTS CULTURAL EQUITY

A Statement from the Staff of the SFAC

This week at City Hall, a Special Meeting of the Full Arts Commission was convened to provide further discussion of a recent report from the Office of the Controller. It was the second hearing the SFAC convened on the matter, and was as much an opportunity for concerned citizens and stakeholders to share their thoughts with commissioners as it was a chance to hear more about the report, what it is, and what it isn’t.

We at the Arts Commission were heartened to see so many members of the arts community at the meeting, most of whom came out to voice their support for the Cultural Equity Grants Program (CEG).

SFAC Commissioners joined that sentiment. As Commission President PJ Johnston said at the Dec. 12 meeting:

“We said it last week, we’ll say it again today, and we’ll keep on saying it: We believe in the Cultural Equity Grants program, we wholeheartedly support Cultural Equity grant recipients, and we intend to protect funding for Cultural Equity in the arts.”

The staff of the SFAC, like the commissioners who spoke this week and last, share the community’s passion for a vibrant and diverse cultural community, and we want to reassure you that the Arts Commission unequivocally supports the Cultural Equity Grants Program.

In order to foster continued support for this and other critical programs of the SFAC, and to further dispel any lingering misconceptions about the Controller’s report and the staff response, the following is a recap of some of the key points emphasized at the Dec. 5 and Dec. 12 meetings:

1. The Controller’s Report was an audit of ALL of the SFAC’s programs and their fiscal policies; staffing issues; and granting practices. It was not solely focused on CEG. And it was not in any way a critique of grant recipients.

2. The official staff responses to the Controller’s Report, which were required by city policy, were intended to assure the Controller that the SFAC will comply with city law. The responses were not meant to indicate that staff will unilaterally change agency policies or management of the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund. We are proud of the fact that CEG has become a national model for the rest of the country, and we have no intention of abandoning the mission of the CEG program, cutting funding to cultural equity recipients, or making significant policy changes without commissioner and community input.

However, in order to comply with city policies and regulations, staff will be recommending procedural changes to CEG grantmaking that will allow the Commission to bring all SFAC programs into legal compliance.

3. The Controller’s Report provides specific findings that will offer guidance to the new director, and to the Commission, on how all SFAC programs can be better and more efficiently managed. By addressing the agency’s inefficiencies – such as administrative overhead fees that have become inflated over the past several years – we anticipate that funding and grant resources to CEG grantees will actually increase.

4. While the report recommended that CEG cease funding and administering certain grant programs outside of its legal authority, it did not suggest the SFAC cease funding these specific grants altogether-and we have no intention of eliminating funding to these grant programs. What we will be doing is looking into ways in which we can make these grant categories legally compliant.

The Controller’s Office recommended working with the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office to seek appropriate legislative remedies, and we anticipate our new director and our commissioners will do just that. In the meantime, the Native American Grant deadlines for this fiscal year will move forward as planned, shepherded by the agency’s Director of Community Arts and Education (CAE), Judy Nemzoff and Jaime Cortez, who managed those grants under the CEG Program.

5. The Controller’s Report called out the SFAC’s lack of a clearly stated policy with regard to awarding simultaneous grants to the same organization within the same grant cycle, and recommended that our granting practices ensure that funds are awarded in such a way that they reach as many community programs and projects as possible. Unfortunately, this finding has created much confusion in the community.

Two things are important to recognize: First, this finding should not be interpreted as any kind of criticism of the grantee organizations identified in the report as having received multiple grants. Receiving multiple grants from CEG should not in any way reflect negatively upon grant recipients. Indeed, the SFAC recognizes and applauds the exemplary work of these incredible organizations who, because they represent the best in their field, have won multiple grants through a highly competitive process. As several commissioners and Interim Director JD Beltran pointed out, their success in winning grants is a testament to their exceptional work and to their value to the community. The Controller’s Office found shortcomings in the SFAC’s articulated policies with regard to grantmaking, not with grantee organizations.

As President Johnston said at the Dec. 5 meeting, “We love our Cultural Equity grantees. The fact that a tremendous organization like Galleria de la Raza received more than one grant in a given year just shows how incredible the organization is, and how hard they’re working to stay competitive.”

Second, the SFAC, both staff and commissioners, recognize the value in awarding more than one grant to the same organization, based on a variety circumstances. In response to the Controller’s recommendation, the SFAC will work towards establishing and articulating a clear policy with regard to awarding multiple grants within a single grant cycle. To that end, we will be conducting an assessment of best granting practices and will refine the agency’s policy on this issue.

As Johnston said: “I don’t think anyone on this commission would support eliminating multiple grant opportunities.”

6. Any significant policy changes affecting any program at the SFAC will, as always, be made by the body that oversees this agency, the Arts Commission, and will be made in full consultation with the new Director of Cultural Affairs, Tom DeCaigny, and with the arts community itself.

While we recognize that the Controller’s Report generated significant, and legitimate, concerns among many members of the arts community, it is important to recognize that independent financial audits of city agencies and their programs are appropriate, common and necessary. The purpose of this report was to help the agency shed light on fiscal and management concerns that had been raised by many commissioners, as well as many community stakeholders, over the past few years. The public scrutiny of public programs and public funds is an opportunity for the SFAC to identify the areas that must be improved, so that the agency can better serve the arts community and the city as whole, by becoming a more transparent, efficient and fiscally responsible organization. The Controller’s Review provides us with a roadmap as we move forward with policies that will ensure our shared goal of continuing support for San Francisco’s rich and diverse arts and cultural organizations.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Kate Patterson at kate.patterson@sfgov.org.

We wish you a happy holiday season!

]]> Comment on A Message from Guillermo Gómez-Peña by Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission | Songcography.com http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=1#comment-47 Cultural equity and the San Francisco Arts Commission | Songcography.com Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:02:57 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=1#comment-47 [...] of helping SFAC clean up its act, is only making things worse. Artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña goes so far as to call the report a “racist” attack on community arts funding, and even Goldbard [...] [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment's server IP (174.132.156.98) doesn't match the comment's URL host IP (174.132.156.125) and so is spam. [...] of helping SFAC clean up its act, is only making things worse. Artist Guillermo Gómez-Peña goes so far as to call the report a “racist” attack on community arts funding, and even Goldbard [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (174.132.156.98) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (174.132.156.125) and so is spam.

]]> Comment on MOBILIZE FOR ARTS COMMISSION HEARING 12/5/2011 by Cora Mirikitani, President and CEO, Center for Cultural Innovation http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=43#comment-19 Cora Mirikitani, President and CEO, Center for Cultural Innovation Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:42:19 +0000 http://www.culturalequitymatters.org/?p=43#comment-19 I am compelled to respond to the inaccuracies and innuendos contained in the Bay Citizen article, which alleges that $477,000 was “improperly given” to the Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI) by the Cultural Equity Grants program of SFAC. First, the facts concerning the grant monies. A check of the record will show that the $477,000 represents 1) $192,000 in inter-agency transfers from SFAC to GFTA to support the Creative Capacity Fund Quick Grants regranting program which has provided direct scholarship subsidies to 145 artists and arts administrators in San Francisco for professional development over the past 3 years ; 2) a $15,000 sponsorship by SFAC towards the 2008 Arts Town Hall held at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts attended by more than 600 Bay Area artists and arts administrators; and 3) $270,000 for 3 specific Cultural Equity research and evaluation studies designed to help the CEG program gather independent data on the accomplishments of Cultural Equity in San Francisco, and assess whether enough is being done to serve the new “majority minority” Latino and Asian American arts communities in San Francisco, in particular. These grant monies may seem like a large amount in total, but the fact is that they have directly benefitted hundreds of artists and smaller arts organizations in SF, and have also leveraged at least 8 other Bay Area funders to support SF arts because of the leadership of SFAC’s CEG program. Second, I would like to address the allegation that these funds were awarded improperly. Nothing could be further from the truth. CCI has followed every guideline, application and reporting requirement set forth by the funding agency itself (SFAC), and to say that CCI has acted improperly is ludicrous as these were their rules, not ours. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the SF Arts Commission is required by law to review and approve by Resolution every grant made by SFAC, including those to CCI, which I’m sure is on the record if anyone bothered to look. It’s disturbing that some Commissioners would rather throw CCI, Intersection, Galeria de la Raza and other good arts organizations under the bus to deflect attention away from their own negligence rather than accept responsibility and accountability for the programs and policies they are sworn to oversee at SFAC. Third, I want to state for the record that I believe the City’s funding policies can and should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to meet the changing demographics of its citizens, and changing needs of the artists and arts organizations doing important work in the community. But this should be accomplished through an open, transparent and factually-based review of CEG’s funding programs, policies and priorities, not through a so-called “house cleaning” that advances partial truths as though they were facts, and promotes finger-pointing and in-fighting within an already impoverished CEG arts constituency that contributes so much to SF’s diversity and vitality, but receives relative scraps. My final note is a very personal one. Because I’m a third-generation Japanese American, I’m painfully aware that an entire generation just before me was sent to American internment camps by well-meaning government officials and honest citizens who got caught up in scare tactics and a public frenzy that defied the facts. I have worked in the arts for my entire 30-year career because I believe that artists and the arts have the power to rise above politics, can speak the truth to power, and will serve as the healing ground for the community’s most pressing issues. Given all that is unfolding, I hope this continues to be true in San Francisco. I am compelled to respond to the inaccuracies and innuendos contained in the Bay Citizen article, which alleges that $477,000 was “improperly given” to the Center for Cultural Innovation (CCI) by the Cultural Equity Grants program of SFAC.

First, the facts concerning the grant monies. A check of the record will show that the $477,000 represents 1) $192,000 in inter-agency transfers from SFAC to GFTA to support the Creative Capacity Fund Quick Grants regranting program which has provided direct scholarship subsidies to 145 artists and arts administrators in San Francisco for professional development over the past 3 years ; 2) a $15,000 sponsorship by SFAC towards the 2008 Arts Town Hall held at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts attended by more than 600 Bay Area artists and arts administrators; and 3) $270,000 for 3 specific Cultural Equity research and evaluation studies designed to help the CEG program gather independent data on the accomplishments of Cultural Equity in San Francisco, and assess whether enough is being done to serve the new “majority minority” Latino and Asian American arts communities in San Francisco, in particular. These grant monies may seem like a large amount in total, but the fact is that they have directly benefitted hundreds of artists and smaller arts organizations in SF, and have also leveraged at least 8 other Bay Area funders to support SF arts because of the leadership of SFAC’s CEG program.

Second, I would like to address the allegation that these funds were awarded improperly. Nothing could be further from the truth. CCI has followed every guideline, application and reporting requirement set forth by the funding agency itself (SFAC), and to say that CCI has acted improperly is ludicrous as these were their rules, not ours. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the SF Arts Commission is required by law to review and approve by Resolution every grant made by SFAC, including those to CCI, which I’m sure is on the record if anyone bothered to look. It’s disturbing that some Commissioners would rather throw CCI, Intersection, Galeria de la Raza and other good arts organizations under the bus to deflect attention away from their own negligence rather than accept responsibility and accountability for the programs and policies they are sworn to oversee at SFAC.

Third, I want to state for the record that I believe the City’s funding policies can and should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to meet the changing demographics of its citizens, and changing needs of the artists and arts organizations doing important work in the community. But this should be accomplished through an open, transparent and factually-based review of CEG’s funding programs, policies and priorities, not through a so-called “house cleaning” that advances partial truths as though they were facts, and promotes finger-pointing and in-fighting within an already impoverished CEG arts constituency that contributes so much to SF’s diversity and vitality, but receives relative scraps.

My final note is a very personal one. Because I’m a third-generation Japanese American, I’m painfully aware that an entire generation just before me was sent to American internment camps by well-meaning government officials and honest citizens who got caught up in scare tactics and a public frenzy that defied the facts. I have worked in the arts for my entire 30-year career because I believe that artists and the arts have the power to rise above politics, can speak the truth to power, and will serve as the healing ground for the community’s most pressing issues. Given all that is unfolding, I hope this continues to be true in San Francisco.

]]>