{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 1, "text": "Minutes of the Regular Public Art Commission Meeting\nThursday, September 27, 2007\nCity Council Chambers, City Hall\nCONVENE:\n7:10 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL:\nChair Huston, Vice-Chair Lee, and Commissioners Arrants and\nRosenberg. Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:30\nSTAFF PRESENT:\nCathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director; Douglas Vu,\nPlanner III; Tony Ebster, Recording Secretary\n2.\nMINUTES: Minutes for the Regular Meeting of August 23, 2007\nContinued to the meeting of October 25, 2007\n3.\nORAL COMMUNICATION:\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA:\nA. Cultural Arts Grant Program.\nDoug Vu gave a powerpoint presentation, which described and outlined the objectives,\nguidelines and ideas regarding the Cultural Arts Grant Program.\nCathy Woodbury expressed appreciation for the large number of people in the audience.\nShe mentioned that despite the formal setting, the love of art should be embraced. She\ntalked about the next steps in the process for the grant program, which consisted of\nlistening to input and ideas from the Community and the Commission, then drafting a\nprogram for presentation at the November Public Art Commission meeting and then\ntaking a proposal to City Council. She suggested working through some components of\nthe program.\nChair Huston replied by asking about the public presentation. She agreed that starting\nwith the public presentation was a good place to start. She mentioned the rules of order\nand explained to the public that a certain protocol was to be followed.\nJoseph Woodard expressed appreciation for the program. He spoke to the objective in\nthe program that speaks to the funding for art spaces. In his experience he has learned\nthat art space can be expensive and support is important. He mentioned the Presidio in\nSan Francisco and how it is being used as open space and it is paying for itself through\nvarious means. He suggested that common space could be useful and could also be a\nrevenue earner. It could be affordable for artists.\nPatricia Edith expressed a misunderstanding that the Commission didn't want to handle\nthe grant program. She wanted to ask what was going to be done first and how the\ngrant money was going to be distributed. Those questions were answered by Mr. Vu's\npresentation. She suggested that whichever body handles the grant program should\nalso handle the appointment of poet laureates. She was under the impression that every", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 2, "text": "two years a poet laureate would be appointed and pointed out that it had not been done.\nShe wanted to suggest that the final decision regarding the grants be done by an outside\nentity or by lottery. She thinks the $50,000 should be used for all disciplines of art and\nfeels that there should be representatives from all areas of the arts. She also mentioned\na strange feeling at the last meeting and proposed that grants of $2,000 be awarded to\nan individual writer, performance artist, visual artist, musician and an interdisciplinary\nartist. She also mentioned that $4,000 grants could be awarded to groups in visual arts\nsuch as theater, dance, literary arts, museum, gallery or music groups. Also, a grant\ncould be awarded to art programs for kids, low income or elderly groups. She expressed\nexcitement and suggested that it can be done and doesn't need to be complicated.\nClint Imboden wanted to make the point that the most important part of a grant program\nis giving resources to the individual artist. He also mentioned that organizations would\nnot be there without the individual artist.\nChair Huston welcomed Commissioner Wolfe to the Commission.\nMichelle Frederick thanked the City for recognizing that art is important and that it is\neconomically viable for the community and for artists. She wanted to talk about the\ngrant criteria and wanted to make sure that it inclusive, visual arts, all media, written and\nspoken word, performances and events, architecture, historic preservation and culinary\narts. She felt strongly that grants should be available to individuals as well as groups\nand feels that there should be a portion set aside for individuals to apply for. In addition,\nshe feels that the art product that is produced should contribute to the advancement or\nenhancement of Alameda and the art community. She also wanted to make sure that\nthe grants that are awarded are given to the appropriate recipient, such as teaming up\nwith art departments in schools to further the understanding of what art is, a partnership.\nAnother element she felt would be important is a comprehensive marketing program that\nwould catalog and calendarize all art activities, an active promotion that would market\nthe art activities and cultural assets in Alameda. It could bring in revenues and give\ngreat exposure to local artists.\nElizabeth Calandario concurred with Ms. Frederick. She gave a personal history and\nwanted to make sure that philosophies regarding art be evaluated with as much respect\nas the art itself. She brought up the proposal of a steering committee for the\napplications for grants. Her concerns were with the potential structure of the committee.\nShe wanted to make sure that all projects of merit get a fair hearing. She wanted to\nmake sure that the steering committee doesn't overlap or duplicate the mission or\nresponsibilities of the Commission and it should seek out lesser known artists or artists\nthat are new to the community. She submitted her suggestions in writing and asked\nabout the paid positions and how they were funded. Her concern was that the money to\npay for the administrative positions was going to come out of the art fund and that it\nwould consume a significant amount of that fund. Finally she brought up the recent\ngraffiti problems seen on some of the public art in Alameda.\nJeff Cambra, a member of an ad hoc steering committee representing a portion of the art\ncommunity introduced some of the audience members. He wanted to entertain more\ninformation on the process of the grant program and thanked everyone for all the work\nthey have done. He expressed eagerness to assist and contribute to the process. He\nmentioned that there are a number of options that can be used to achieve the objectives\nand goals of the grant program. He wanted to request that a portion of the art\n2", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 3, "text": "community speaking through the ad hoc committee be able to discuss and consider all\ncomponents of the program in an open forum. This committee is committed to holding\nmonthly meetings in tandem with the PAC so the arts community can participate in the\nfinal version of each component of the program without delaying its progress. He asked\nthat a timeline be given so they can respond to steps taken. He wanted input from the\nCommission on what role they would play in evaluating the program components. He\nwas interested in their preferences. In closing, he asked that the Grant Program reflect\nthe needs and desires of the art community.\nPat Colburn mentioned the current amount that the Commission has and suggested that\na portion of the fund be used to hire a grant writer. Her idea is that it takes money to\nmake money and if all the money that is currently in the fund is given out, there will be\nno more. Therefore, a portion of the fund should be put towards soliciting more money\nto grow the art fund.\nMike Sheppard, President of the Frank Bette Center for the Arts observed that despite\nthe urgency to get the program up and running, people are still learning how to work\ntogether. He mentioned some conversations he has had with different people nationally\nto get more information on how to structure the program. He pointed out some\nmisunderstandings and miscommunications and mentioned that one of the objectives is\nto open up the program as much as possible, to get as many voices in as possible. In\naddition, he wanted to clarify that the brainstorms and ideas are not formal proposals.\nMr. Sheppard questioned a couple of items in Mr. Vu's presentation. One was that\ngrants must be matched dollar for dollar and that there was a cap. He was surprised by\nthese new elements. He also asked about an overlap when it falls under the public art\nfund and if it is public art. He also expressed concern that grants go to individuals as\nwell as organizations. He addressed the community and invited them to participate in\nthe steering committee.\nCarol Burnett, president of the Alameda Art Association, started with a history of the\norganization and their purpose of helping artists present in many venues regardless of\ntheir medium. She mentioned that they want to use the money for an arts center for\nclasses and workshops. But her main concern was having the developers give a\npercentage to local artists. She felt that there should be an amendment to increase the\namount that developers give as public art and to artists.\nChair Huston gave a last call for speaker slips to the public.\nMs. Woodbury responded to a couple points to clarify. The graffiti issue will be\nforwarded to the appropriate department. In response to the questions of who receives\na grant, she clarified that the program is not even developed yet. There is nothing in\nplace and it is not known who will get grants. The amounts that Mr. Vu mentioned were\nexamples of what other cities are doing. She mentioned that this grant fund is supposed\nto be $50,000 over a two-year budget cycle and clarified that there is a dollar for dollar\nmatch, which was discovered upon review of the City Council direction.\nThere were several responses and questions as to what exactly a dollar for dollar match\nis.\nMs. Woodbury responded by clarifying that it can be matched by providing funds,\nreceiving another grant and getting sponsors.\n3", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 4, "text": "Vice-Chair Lee asked for further explanation.\nIn response to Vice-Chair Lee, Ms. Woodbury said that it shows an investment on the\npart of the person requesting the funding.\nChair Huston wanted to put that issue on an agenda to discuss how to approach it.\nMs. Woodbury clarified that the grant program wasn't to result in an actual \"piece,\" but\nrather to facilitate cultural arts in general and to help people to achieve their goals.\nDebra Owen expressed appreciation for the work of the Commission and the City for\nreaching out to embrace the greater arts community and the creativity. She feels that\n$50,000 is not a lot of money, but feels that there is a wealth of creativity in the\ncommunity and people who are willing to work to connect with the community to make\nthings happen. She prefers to see the $50,000 as seed money, this is just the\nbeginning. One point she made is that the diversity of creativity that is available is broad\nand she encourages whichever body determines where the money goes will categorize\nthe distribution to seed the growth of creativity. Her second point is that she is not\nunderstanding where the Commission stands and how their mandate fits in with the\nGrant Program. She thinks it would be wonderful if the support goes towards the\nenrichment of as many lives as possible.\nChair Huston asked if there were any more speakers.\nKim Nichols spoke to several items that did not pertain to the Public Art Grant Program.\nChair Huston closed the public comment section of the meeting. She reiterated the\nprotocol of the meeting.\nThere was a question from the floor regarding the two-year cycle.\nChair Huston replied that it is on a two-year cycle and thanked all of the people spoke.\nShe asked if there were questions from the public.\nMr. Sheppard asked about the formal protocol.\nMs. Woodbury clarified that since the Commission is a public body, rules and guidelines\nmust be adhered to.\nChair Huston started the conversation within the Commission and what they are\ndiscovering is while they are on the same page, there is a lot of misunderstanding. She\nmentioned that the Commission is new and they are still learning how to proceed as an\nappointed body. She talked about how they are trying to gain instruction from superiors\nand that nothing has been decided. She mentioned Mr. Vu's timeline and expressed\nappreciation for its direction. She wanted to address the question associated with the\ngrants and feels that art that is publicly funded must benefit the public. It must offer a\nprofound contribution. She outlined the qualifications for public art:\n1.\nIntellectual merit\n2.\nBrilliance in design, craftsmanship, vision or execution\n3.\nAccess\n4", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 5, "text": "She talked about applications, access and how all products should be treated with equal\nconsideration. The art must serve the public and she has no opposition to funding artists\nor organizations.\nCommissioner Arrants responded by saying that he is new to serving on a Commission\n,but has been an actor and director for 40 years so he has been on both sides of the\npodium. He gave a short history of what he has worked on regarding public art and\nprograms. He talked about the enrichment of the generations and how important it is.\nHe asked if stage production companies are obligated to contribute to public art. He\nhopes that together they can come up with something that is beneficial for the\ncommunity.\nVice-Chair Lee spoke to some things brought up by the public. She said that $12,500\nwas going to administration, $6,250 per year. She pointed out the contingency that was\ninterested in brick and mortar projects such as art centers; gallery space and physical\nplants of some sort as well as the many organizations that would like to receive grant\nmoney. She asked about organizations and if they have to already exist and be\nproviding a service to receive money. She spoke to the selection process for individuals\nand should not be done in the first week. She replied to Ms. Colburn's suggestion about\ntaking money to make money and said that a track record is required to be able to get\ngrant money. She said that some groups exist because some federal money has been\ngiven already. She would like to see modest goals and objectives, which are achievable\nwithin the first two years.\nCommissioner Wolfe expressed appreciation that so many people showed up to the\nmeeting. He supports the idea of a grant program. He thinks the mission of the\nCommission is for public art and the review of art for public spaces. He also thinks that\nthere must be a group to address the grant program.\nCommissioner Rosenberg stated that she wants to make sure that an outside influence\nexist along side the grant program. She wants to make sure that everything is clear and\nunderstandable.\nChair Huston concurred and talked about the dollar for dollar and how it would be\nvirtually impossible for individual arts grants and how prohibitive it would be. She thinks\nthat there should be a way for the Council to support individuals by funding existing\nopportunities. There should be a way to foster individual grants.\nMs. Woodbury said that a program should be developed to recommend to City Council.\nShe said that Council is counting on the PAC to advise them on grants programs. In\naddition she mentioned that there are in lieu fees as a way to match the dollar for dollar\ngrants.\nChair Huston responded by saying that its useful and interesting to see how people\nmight spend money, but she thinks there will never be a proposal that doesn't have a\ncomponent that serves the greater public. She brought up an item that was mentioned\nat a prior meeting to find a specific model to accommodate the folksy nature of Alameda.\nMr. Sheppard pointed out that Peducha contributed much more on a per capita basis to\npublic art.\n5", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 6, "text": "Chair Huston said that success breeds success.\nMs. Woodbury provided some suggestions on how to develop the program. She said\nthat the \"who\" should be refined and what kind of things the grants should fund.\nChair Huston brought up that the mission is the first thing. She wants it to be community\nbased and referred back to the criteria she gave earlier.\nCommissioner Rosenberg said that because of what was said, it is about the whole of\nthe community.\nChair Huston said that she hears two sides. She stated three goals:\n1.\nSupport the arts community\n2.\nElevating the level of art within that community\n3.\nExpanding art to the public, making it accessible to the public in general\nCommissioner Rosenberg responded to the statement of elevating the level of art is the\nintellectualism of it and is afraid of marginalizing some. She feels that it is not\nnecessary.\nChair Huston asked for a mission statement.\nVice-Chair Lee gave a statement for the grants \"to include the richness of the community\nin an arts program, which would develop existing resources and make them available or\naccessible to the greater community,\" so that you don't have to be an artist to enjoy it.\nChair Huston responded by saying that she wouldn't mind including examples of how\nsome things should not be set in stone.\nCommissioner Rosenberg talked about economic viability and how it could bring in\nrevenue. A cultural arts center could be a great thing for the community and wants that\nput in the mission statement.\nVice-Chair Lee responded by saying that $50,000 could easily be spent to raise money\nfor a $500,000 brick and mortar venue.\nCommissioner Wolfe brought up what some one had said about the catalyst and the\nseed capital.\nChair Huston responded to Mr. Wolfe by saying that there should be no limit to how little\na grant can be.\nCommissioner Rosenberg suggested starting small but having larger goals and plans.\nCommissioner Wolfe said that it should be about stimulating public art in the community.\nHe wants to broaden the reach of the program. He thinks that grants should look at\nvoids in the community to reach out and fill those voids.\nChair Huston responded to the mission statement and said that a good statement would\nbe \"To stimulate public art in the community\". She likes the idea of a catalyst. Another\n6", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 7, "text": "statement from Chair Huston was \"The goal of the Alameda Cultural Arts Grant Program\nis to serve as a catalyst to stimulate public art in the community.'\nIt was agreed upon that it was vague.\nCommissioner Arrants pointed out the statement on the literature he was given by Mr.\nVu. He read the points out loud and related those points to the conversation. He\nrealized that the struggles are the mechanics of the program. He wants to know things\nsuch as what is going to happen with such a small amount of money.\nChair Huston reiterated the protocol. She clarified that what Commissioner Arrants read\nwas the mission statement for the Public Art Commission and how their original initiative\nwas to administer money on the percentage for arts but it is shifting and now they will be\ndefining and administering the Public Art Cultural Grants Program. She feels that\neveryone is on the same page as to how the program will proceed; including grants to\nindividuals and organizations and would not include bringing in people from outside\nAlameda. She added a part that is related to a long-term goal that involves an art\ncenter.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated that just the calling for arts would stimulate a lot of interest.\nChair Huston brought up a 'social practice artist' and described what that is. Her\nexample illustrated how some artists rearrange exhibits to show the contradictions\nbetween what is represented and what is not said. It's about a reframing of an\ninstitution. An idea she had was to seek out practitioners do not participate and include\nthem in the grant program.\nCommissioner Rosenberg suggested creating some sort of call for artists.\nChair Huston said that dealing with the basics such as the individual and organizational\ngrants is first but then it's about digging out the rest of the community and finding ways\nto include them.\nCommissioner Rosenberg replied that was a good idea.\nCommissioner Wolfe stated he thinks that whatever happens, the \"first launch\" should be\ngood. He wants to try to capture as many as possible in the first go around.\nChair Huston brought up the criteria and how there could be an easy misapprehension.\nShe mentioned the tile project and how conflicted it is. It included a lot of people but\ndidn't show a bigger picture. She is concerned with issues of quality.\nMs. Woodbury said that they have made good progress. She said this is the preliminary\nstep to creating a program.\nVice-Chair Lee mentioned that there is no website of an inventory of who is doing what\nand what they would like to do. She thinks it would be nice to start a website that has a\ncatalog of who has done what as well as having a blog. She suggested a \"wiki\" style site\nso people could add to it.\n7", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}
{"body": "PublicArtCommission", "date": "2007-09-27", "page": 8, "text": "Ms. Woodbury clarified the budget by saying that some of the money is being used for\nadministrative purposes. She wants to take the PAC program to City Council in\nDecember for recommendation as to how the money is spent.\nChair Huston asked when the annual plan goes to Council.\nMs. Woodbury responded by saying that typically it would go during the first meeting of\nDecember but it may be likely to go the second meeting of December.\nChair Huston noticed the urgency of a website and a blog to accommodate community\ndiscussion.\nMs. Woodbury suggested scheduling a workshop or meeting that would allow interaction\nwith each other and to brainstorm ideas in order to bring forth a formal discussion to\nregarding the grant program at a later time.\nChair Huston proposed scheduling of a special meeting. It was unanimously agreed\nupon. She suggested tabling the minutes and the discussion of item 4-B. She asked if\nthey should name agenda items for the upcoming meeting and asked about the one\nthing still on the agenda, which is the review of the guidelines.\nMr. Vu suggested addressing the other agenda items first before the review of the policy\nguidelines.\nCommissioner Wolfe brought up the percentage for public art and the ordinance.\nChair Huston reminded the Commission that the ordinance is still on the table and wants\nit to be agendized. She noted that she wants the discussion of things to be wide open\nsuch as the ordinance. She asked if there are any subcommittees that will be needed\nfor anything.\n5.\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS:\n6.\nADJOURNMENT:\nMeeting adjourned at 9:00 pm\nRespectfully submitted,\nDouglas Vu, Secretary\nPublic Art Commission\n8", "path": "PublicArtCommission/2007-09-27.pdf"}