Report from the California Art Council 10/27/22 Public Meeting
California Arts Council October 27, 2022 meeting opened with a report from the Council Chair Lilia Gonzáles-Chávez followed by a vote by Council on the minutes from the September 15, 2022 meeting. A period of live Public Comment then took place.
The next agenda item was a report from the Allocations Committee on recommendations for the 2022 Cycle B Grant Allocations, presented by Vicki Estrada and Lilia Gonzáles-Chávez.
The Allocations Committee recommends Council approve allocations in the amount of
$7,881,379 for the following programs:
● $0 for Administering Organization- Arts Administrators Pipeline Fellowship,
● $2,450,000 for Administering Organization- Individual Artist Fellowships, and
● $800,000 for Administering Organization-Individual Artist Fellowships Region 4.
Creative Youth Development’s $4,631,379 in Remaining Funds:
● $2,835,829 for Jump StArts extension, and
● $1,795,550 for Creative Youth Development program additional cycle.
For the Administering Organization- Arts Administrators Pipeline Fellowship the committee recommends the Council vote to approve the presented funding formula scenario. Only one eligible application was received and that applicant received a rank of 4. The committee recommends that the Council only fund applicants for this program with a rank of 6, and recommends not funding this applicant.
For the Administering Organization- Individual Artist Fellowships the committee recommends that the Council vote to award funds for the Administering Organization- Individual Artist Fellowships program at 100% of the requested amounts for the top ranking applications in each region. Applications that were ranked 4 or below are not recommended for funding.
There were no eligible applications from Region 4. The committee recommends reopening applications for Region 4 only, with clarified guidelines, for a total allocation of $800,000.
For the Creative Youth Development Funds Remaining the committee recommends that the $4,631,379 unallocated Creative Youth Development funds be used for the following:
1. Allocate $2,835,829 to extend the Jump StArts (Cycle A & B) grant activity periods by 6 months. This extension will support the only Creative Youth Development program in this cycle that is not on a 2-year grant activity period.
2. Allocate $1,795,550 to open another cycle of the Creative Youth Development program for an estimated 45 grant awards. The program has a demonstrated need for additional funding based on the high volume of applications.
After some discussion all of the recommendations presented by the committee passed.
Following the break, the next agenda item was a report from the Policy Committee on considerations for 2023 program openings presented by Jodie Evans. This is a discussion item to prepare for a vote at the December meeting.
It was reported that each fiscal year, the Council votes on which grant programs it will open for application. Once these programs are determined, the Allocations Committee will then draft recommended allocations for each program based on the projected total Local Assistance funding amount.
A spreadsheet was shared that reflects the programs that are currently open and whose grant periods end in fall of 2023, as well as programs that have been released in the last two years but are not currently open. Additional spreadsheets were shared with programs that are already slated for re-release, funded through 2024, or are legislatively mandated, and therefore do not need to be considered in the Council’s baseline funding vote in December.
Council Member Jodie Evans noted it was her intention to share the framework the committee used to come to their recommendations.
Certain items were discussed and suggested for consideration:
Regarding partnerships and federally funded programming. It was noted that maintaining strong partnerships was identified as a core aspiration in the 2019 Strategic Framework and as a top-level outcome in the 2022 Grantmaking Evaluation. The Committee suggests reopening the State-Local Partners, Statewide and Regional Networks, and Folk and Traditional Arts programs again in 2023.
Retitling/reframing of general operating support away from “relief” and towards infrastructure and capacity building. It was noted that the field has indicated a critical need for general operating support. While relief in direct response to the pandemic is receding, there is still a profound need for general operating support not tied to specific projects. The committee suggests the Council consider opening the General Operating Support Grant in 2023 focusing on capacity and infrastructure building, rather than relief. The Council may also want to consider reopening the Cultural Pathways grant as another general operating support grant.
The Committee suggests that the Council balance project-based funding opportunities with general operating support opportunities in the 2023 slate of programs.
The Committee suggests that Council identify a small number of key programs that are open to a diverse array of organizations and projects and invest in each of them more heavily, as opposed to having a large number of programs that receive smaller amounts of funding. It was noted that the feeling in the field is that a large number of different programs, as opposed to a smaller number, actually benefits larger organizations because they have the resources to research and pursue the larger number of programs.
There was a discussion regarding the need to have three different levels of support, notably, young brand new organizations, who might not have yet received their 501(c)3 status; then more established organizations in the $500,000 range; and finally the legacy institutions.
There was also consideration of the impact of potentially awarding multi-year grants as that might cut down on staff needs for the Council, as well as the applicants. There were questions about the ability to allocate these funds since the Council can’t approve grants for funds that have not yet been allocated.
There was a discussion of the State & Local Partnerships and the effectiveness of the program in different regions of the state and the need to balance equity issues. The desire to look at restarting some programs like the Touring Artists program was also discussed. There was a lot of conversation about the confusion created by different programs with different names that have changed through the years. It was suggested that perhaps the information could be presented in a different way for the December meeting.
The next item on the agenda was updates from the Council Committees, starting with the Equity Committee report on the SLP Equity Impact Assessment by Gerald Clarke and Chelo Montoya. The materials for the meeting included a brochure for the SLPs “State-Local Partners Strengthening Arts, Culture and Creativity Throughout California.” The memo for this report also provided information on recent changes to some of the SLP’s that staff compiled. It was noted that there are four counties that are not covered by an SLP, and this has been the case since the program began in the eighties. Gerald reported on a workshop that he attended with many of the SLPs and noted how impressed he was with the diversity represented and despite many having small staffs how much they were accomplishing. He also noted that the SLPs expressed gratitude that the Council was collecting data and encouraging them to look at their equity efforts. During the discussion it was noted that there are challenges in the system due to the huge variation in size of the population and area covered by the different SLPs. It was suggested that perhaps there should be a program to target the very rural areas, since they tend to not be represented by an SLP. The staff was asked to explore the logistics of that.
One discussion point was the need to come up with a way to more effectively introduce and orient new Council members so they understand what their job is. This should be something that one of the Council committees takes on so it is not simply dropped onto the already overworked staff. The need for good communication was stressed so Council members are aware of what is going on between meetings. The need to integrate the evaluations with the Strategic Framework going forward was noted.
At this point the Council was actually ahead of schedule and moved to cover item 12 on the agenda, Changes to the Council Bylaws. The first suggested change was that all subcommittees move in the direction of public noticing and participation. The Governance committee believes that by opening these meetings to the public there will be more robust conversation and informed decision making. This would include the possibility for members of the public to actually become voting members of the committees, within a prescribed procedure. The suggestion is that this be tried for 6 months as a pilot program. The desire is to have larger committees, and hopefully generate more input from the field to create more responsive and informed decisions. The committee co-chairs could still have additional meetings with just those 2 members present that would not have to be open to the public. All votes would stay within the full Council meetings, so the representatives from the public would not actually be voting on programs or policies.
The second suggested change is concerning public comment during Council meetings. In the current system there is a time for public comment in the morning, and one in the afternoon and both times are open to any issue. The proposed change would be to keep a time for open public comment regarding any issue, but also add a time for public comment on any agenda items at the time that agenda item is being discussed. This is actually not a bylaw change, because this is not covered in the bylaws, but it is a change to what the standard practice has been,
Some members present expressed concern about opening the committees to the public. It was noted that due to public information laws, if there are more than 2 council members on a committee then the meeting has to be publicly noticed. During the ensuing discussion it was noticed that the proposed approach would allow for the option of public meetings, or closed meetings where only 2 members would be present. It is also being proposed as a 6-month trial and not a permanent change. It was noted that the Council had previously decided to use a decision tool for any new concepts so there was a way to look back and make sure equity concerns had been addressed, and the question was whether a decision support tool had been used in this process. There was also a discussion that the attorneys had noted that this was in essence creating more Council meetings, and that there is a limit on the number of council meetings that members can be asked to attend in a year. Given this fact one suggestion is that the public council meetings include committee meetings within them.
There was further discussion on the pros and cons of the proposal, with some expressing concern about not having the private time to dig into issues. Others noted that this system would still allow for the private meetings with just two members, but would also now allow for the committees that want to do so to have more direct involvement with the public. During the discussion it was noted that it is difficult for the council to make informed votes when an issue is presented at a meeting and voted on at the same meeting. There was a suggestion that items be introduced in one meeting and voted on in the next, so members have a chance to be better informed before voting.
It was noted that there are really two goals being discussed; one is to have more council members involved in decision making and the second is to encourage more transparency and input from the public. There was strong desire from several members to create a system where the important committee work would involve more than just two people.
After the discussion it was decided that the additional public comment portion of the recommendations would be adopted, but the other committee recommendation would be tabled and given additional thought later. It was strongly suggested that that change be put through the decision support tool process. There was some concern expressed about the current length of the council meetings and that these changes to the public comment structure might make the meetings even longer.
The second public comment section then began. Several of the members of the public expressed concern about the structure of the RFP for the Arts in Corrections program and the emphasis on costs.
Following Public Comment the next agenda item was a call for nominations for the Council Chair and Vice Chair positions. This item was presented by Vicki Estrada and Ellen Gavin. They began by noting that they had more ideas than recommendations, and that they were sad to learn that Lilia would not be continuing as the Chair. They asked to begin the process by finding out if there were any members interested in filling either position. After some procedural discussions, Chelo Montoya was nominated as Chair and Vicki Estrada as Vice Chair. There was then a procedural discussion about whether or not there could be a December meeting, and a decision that the new Chair and Vice Chair would be voted on at that meeting. There was a discussion of future agenda items. In particular council members expressed a desire to have more members and the public included in the Program Committee and decision making process. It was noted that there was a lot of good conversation, and concerns and ideas shared during the meeting and now it is up to the Program Committee to decide how to proceed.
Report prepared by Teri Ball.