Report from the California Arts Council 11.17.23 Prepared by Teri Ball
California Arts Council 11-17-23 Meeting
Notes prepared by Teri Ball, Program Manager, CFTA
Summary notes – The final decisions on the 2024 grant programs have not been made yet. These decisions will be made at the December 12 Council Meeting, and the Programs Policy Committee final proposal will be available in the council packet that posts prior to the meeting here. The Programs Policy Committee will take the public comments and Council discussion from the 11/17 meeting and continue to take input and research the best options. There is still time for the field to provide input and influence these decisions. It was clear from the discussion during the meeting that the input from the field is appreciated and listened to. Please contact Tracy Hudak, Director of Field Engagement, should you have any comments for field input or want to make sure your opinions on public funding are being heard. Tracy@californiansforthearts.org
Full agenda and meeting packet are available on the CAC website.
The meeting began with a call to order land acknowledgement, and establishing a quorum. The Chair introduced the Parliamentarian who would help monitor the meeting.
Executive Director Jonathan Moscone in his Executive Director report said that due to his impending departure he will not participate in this meeting, or the December meeting.
Item 6: The minutes from the August meeting were voted on and it was noted that the October minutes will be presented at the December meeting for a vote.
Item 7: There was a period of Public Comment that included numerous statements from members of the field from across the state. Without enumerating the contents of all of the comments, it is worth noting that several of the topics mentioned in the Public Comment were later noted in the Council discussions.
Item 8: The Governance Committee presented an overview of the Council Bylaws with recommended changes. The recommendations were then discussed by the Council. The Committee will then take the notes from the discussion and present final recommendations for a vote at a future meeting.
During the discussion some of the items that staff and council members raised that they felt should be clarified in the bylaws were:
Does the Council have a right to see the Operational Budget for the Arts Council. The staff confirmed that it is not in the Council Members’ purview to manage the council budget, but the budget is posted on the Finance Department’s website and is open to anyone’s review. The Council has responsibility over the local assistance portion of the budget.
The number of annual meetings allowed, and the timing for them
The use of open meetings and ad hoc committees
The limitations placed on council members when speaking in public
The required training for new council members
The staggered terms for council members
The accountability structure for the council members and the director
It was also suggested that more information be provided regarding the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair.
Include the complete list of committees and what each one does
Staff suggested having a regular review of the budget and any changes that occur to the budget throughout the year. It was also suggested that the Council book include reference to the Dept. of Finance website where the Council’s annual budget is posted.
The Parliamentarian pointed out that what is being done with the bylaws should be considered a revision and not an amendment since the totality of the document is being reviewed.
Item 9 – Tab 6 – Presentation and Q&A on Grant Programs
Chair Montoya presented a reading of descriptions of the existing and recently offered grant programs. The full text is included in the meeting packet under Tab 6. Following the reading of each description Council Members had the opportunity to comment or ask questions. Ultimately only a portion of the programs were actually read and reviewed during the meeting due to time limitations.
The following issues and questions were raised:
There was a question about the maximum request amounts and how they are reached and revised. Staff clarified that the amounts are set by the allocations committee.
There was a question about how the need for the Arts in Education programs will be affected by Prop 28. Along with a question on what data is gathered about the demand for each of the different programs and their effectiveness. Noting that there is a need for a data research staff member on the Arts Council.
Staff noted that the Prop 28 funds will be administered by the Department of Education. The anticipation is that there will still be the need for these programs, particularly for programs like Arts Integration Training that will provide support to new teachers and Creative Youth Development that's offered outside the school environment.
It was noted that without a clear statement by the council of its priorities it is hard to make decisions about these grant programs and allocation of funds.
Item 11 – 2024 Grant Program Discussion, Tab 7 presented by the Programs Policy Committee
The committee members noted that hearing so much from the field both prior to the meeting and in Public Comment has been very clarifying. It was noted that Council staff was able to find funds to cover research and gatherings to consider new programs instead of those funds needing to come from the grant allocations.
The Committee Presented the following policy considerations (after each item there was the opportunity for discussion of that item. A summary of all the comments is included after the full list.)
1. We will conduct ad hoc publicly noticed joint meetings of Program Policy and Allocations committees at crucial times. We will hold more open meetings for discussion purposes for items before the full council.
2. Program Policy Committee’s Guiding Principles are referred to the Strategic Framework Committee for approval and implementation.
3. We propose to limit the size of groups eligible to apply to IMPACT PROJECTS and STATE AND REGIONAL NETWORKS to organizations with budgets under $3 million. This allows the CAC to refocus resources on the diverse majority of arts organizations in the small and midsize categories, in a time of fiscal limitation. CAC grants above $25k will require at least a one-to-one match.
4. We will set aside $2 million to support arts education programs that give youth the opportunity to have experiences in the arts and programs with teaching artists. Programs include Arts Integration Training, Creative Youth Development Programs (afterschool programs in arts settings) and Arts Exposure activities such as field trips or visits to museums or theaters will be considered for support.
5. The State and Regional Networks Program guidelines will be reconfigured to align with the CAC’s priorities and future direction. Proposals from the SRN’s must describe a functioning statewide or regional network of artists or arts organizations and delineate its unique characteristics. CAC funds must directly serve artists and arts producing organizations with either funding, technical assistance, convenings, performance fees, and/or travel expenses, etc. and not simply provide administrative staff overhead for the organization’s general mission. Additionally, SRN’s will be asked to gather data on Native American, Disabled and Touring Artists in their regions or networks for 2025 CAC program initiatives.
6. We propose funding all 53 State and Local Partners to honor and strengthen their role statewide. Looking at the diversity and equity of our state; we suggest that organizations with budgets over $3.5 million who are considered sustainable leaders request no more than $40,000 a year, with the funds directed to historically underrepresented artists and organizations. This will result in more funds for smaller developing SLP’s. Additionally, SLP’s applications will request information on individual artists and arts organizations served through regranting, technical assistance and engagement activities. SLPs will be asked to gather data on Native American, Disabled and Touring Artists in their regions for 2025 CAC program initiatives.
7. Emerging Cultural Districts (10)
At various open council meetings, the council has heard from new emerging cultural districts and hubs that felt excluded by the selection process, many of whom are within our equity priorities. By granting ten new districts and/or hubs we can expand and support the field. We are in discussion with CAC senior staff to use $100,000 from the $300,00 withheld this year in the CAC budget for the new Cultural Districts. One proposal is to direct it through the Cultural District Coalition that has formed.
8. Cultural Anchor Institutions Project
For 2024, The CAC council and staff will implement a new pilot program for arts institutions with over 20 years of experience serving diverse underserved communities within our equity priorities. These organizations produce, present and exhibit original performance, visual, music, media and other arts, often (but not exclusively) in their own venues, conduct youth development and promote community activism and wellness. These anchor institutions will highlight the number and variety of their annual offerings, the quality and quantity of assistance they provide to smaller groups in their network. This program would seek to provide institutional stability through an eventual multi-year investment.
9. We propose that the CAC conduct research, survey the field and receive input for the design of three additional programs in 2024 for 2025 Programs. CAC senior staff are working on building this into their operating budget.
10. Native American Initiative
In order to go beyond land acknowledgment with concrete action, to implement the recent work of the Equity Committee and to honor a commitment made at a historic statewide CAC convening of Native artists in 2019, we propose the design of a new Native American Initiative to be available in 2025. As a part of the research, we will conduct a Native Artists Summit in 2024, request the assistance of SRN’s, SLP’s, and consult tribal leaders to design such a program.
11. Statewide Touring and Presenting Initiative
We propose that we research and design a Touring and Presenting Program that reflects the current realities for California touring artists and various presenters throughout the state. Statewide data collection by SRN’s, SLP’s and a focus group (compensated) will help design the new program and prepare for the creation of a catalog of touring artists for 2025.
12. Disabled Artists Initiative
The CAC has a 20-year history of responding to the needs of disabled artists and the accommodations required to better serve both artists and audience members. But the contracted program that once served this need was canceled a few years ago. In 2024 will survey the current field with help from the SRN’s and SLP’s, conduct an Statewide Summit of disabled artists and arts organizations and redesign a multifaceted program for 2025.
After presenting the policies the committee made some comments including:
They want everyone to understand that there is not enough money, and that the field was listened to last year on the general operating grants so those became 2 year grants. This means that money is already encumbered under General Ops for this year and not available for new grants.
It is important to find support for the Grant Panelists to meet together and discuss the grants and have staff input so that everyone understands the guidelines and how the applications should be considered. (This point was also raised multiple times during the full council discussion.)
The council may want to consider a tier system for the SRN program, similar to what has been added into the general operating program instead of a flat budget cap. The committee would like input from the Council and field on this idea.
In these proposals the SRN’s and SLP’s are being asked to do some of the collective research around the 3 potential new programs (Proposal lines 10, 11 and 12).
There was a comment suggesting that the new Anchor Institutions program can support some of the mid-sized organizations that were left out of the general operating program when 80% of funding went to organizations under $250,000.
The committee liked the suggestion during Public Comment of eliminating “pass through funds” when looking at organizational budget size, or looking at a three year average for annual budgets. They need to do more research on this subject.
The committee presentation was followed by a Council Discussion with the following notes:
Understand capping Impact Projects at $3 million, but this makes less sense for SRN where we might want robust organizations to be able to serve the full state. The SRN and SLP are the networks that do the work that the CAC cannot reach.
Maybe instead of putting in budget caps, it should be instead a limit on the number of grants larger organizations can apply for.
Need to articulate what the Council’s priorities are, then we can see how these networks and other programs serve those priorities. (This was mentioned several times by different council members.)
Need to clearly define what a network is and refine the language for the guidelines for SRN.
On SLP’s it would be good to confer with the SLPs directly for input.
Does there need to be a specific number set for the emerging cultural districts? Perhaps it would be better to be a cap, instead of a set number.
Staff reminded that in December the council will vote on the programs, and then in January the council will vote on the actual guidelines for those programs.
Need to stress to the state that the agency needs more money for grants and programs.. (This was noted several times during the discussion.)
Committee asked for direction from the full council – do you want more programs that each have fewer funds, or fewer clearly defined programs that have more funds in those programs.
Council members responded that it would be good to look at any overlaps in programs that can be clarified to make things more efficient. There are not sufficient funds or staff time right now to have everything everyone wants. Better to fund fewer programs instead of more. Look at collapsing where possible and don’t be redundant.
Committee final words – taking from this that our core programs are Impact and Gen Ops. Maybe there is an option of reopening gen ops for tier 2 and 3 for a single year, and then eliminate the anchor program. Also, really need input on the Education programs and where those funds should be directed.
Need to be clear about our priorities and base the programs in those priorities.
Need good talking points to make the case to the legislature the critical need for more funds. The field in CA is doing incredible work and we need to find the funds to support their work.
Staff noted that they are working on packages for each council member to prepare them to take their concerns to legislators to make the case for the need for more funds.
Item 12 Committee Reports – Tab 8
Ad Hoc Partnerships Committee – memo in packet – The basic belief is If we are strategic in our partnership development, we imagine the CAC’s building a powerful base of support that can inspire our authorizing environment to deepen its support of the CAC. The memo lists state partnerships that already exist. There will be more on this in 2024.
Ad Hoc Disability, Access and Inclusion Committee – memo included in packet – everyone is asked to review.
Concluded with a note that the next meeting will be December 12, and that new officers will be voted on at the meeting. Members who are interested in running can self-nominate at the meeting, or before. At the meeting there will be nominations, the opportunity for nominated members to make a statement, and then conclude with a vote.