Beyond, beyond belief. I am all for oversight and accountability, but…
First: do you really need to spend tax money for the Controller’s Office to tell you there is a morale problem in the SF Arts Commission? Isn’t that what the Commissioners should watching out for?
Second: this report points out 2 small grants (we are talking very small) that do not use peer review…really? In my 15 years of civil service, I have only seen one department employ an open peer review: the SF Arts Commission. Hundreds of millions of dollars in grants are awarded by CCSF without one peer at the table, and we put a light on the tiny-by-comparison small grants within the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund? How many peers were at the table when deciding to bail out and guarantee to keep the Asian Museum afloat with a $99 million loan this year? And Arts Commissioners/Director….please stop using the term “illegal” when referring to how dollars have been allocated. It is inflammatory, not true, and only serves to unfairly cast aspersions as to the character of SFADC and your staff. At worst, it is against City policy and easily fixed.
Third: Would not our brain trust at CCSF be better spent by auditing WHY La Galeria, for example, has to spend their extremely limited, precious time and energy to apply for 12 small grants over the course of 5 years (not to mention the overhead for SFAC to award and administer those same small 15 grants)? This study chooses, rather to focus on a very small percent of organizations for a very small amount of money who are awarded by their peers (!) because they are deserving.
Oh dear, we must get our priorities straight.