Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 11, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT

4:30 pm
five people to go after the program. of that, 57,000, 38,700, that's most of it, with the city attorney, 18,600 was to our program director. so that's wrong. that assessment is wrong. my second package here i came here for the full blessings of the street artist program. there are 400 of us. we were able to speak to 260 street artists. of those 248 voted again for second time, in four years, leave the street artists program alone. keep us in the street under the art commission. do not move us, do not privatize us. i come here with full support of the street artists. i'll give this to the grand
4:31 pm
jury. 248 people signed. these are the community that you're supposed to be representing. these are the people who are street artists, artists and entrepreneurs. leave us alone. we're happy where we are. it requires a change to the charter which it's a serious issue too. i'm running out of time. thank you. >> president farrell: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, supervisor elsbernd, john gul gullenner, the chair of the coit tower effort. it is 78 years old born after the arts commission charter was created and the murals painted the following year. i want to thank richard rothman for championing the preservation of the coit tower mules and he and city guides for literally being up there week after week,
4:32 pm
showing people who had no idea what they're looking at, what it's about, what san francisco has. and jane blachly whose father has an oil painting. there are four or five oil paintings. her fearlt's painting is a good example of what's missing at coit tower. there is not a tag next to her father's painting saying who painted it. it's fallen off years ago. we want to pay attention to the grand jury's report recommendation which blame a dysfunctional dynamic between rec and park and the art commission that we hope the board will help fix. as to art funding -- get zero funding for the coit collection. not 1% of what coit towers brings in, and the proposal under the new concessionaire would bring in about 6800 a year under the new concession for coit tower meaning the entire
4:33 pm
value of the 27 pieces of art there is worth 680,000 in total. think about that. you think what's built at coit tower, what's painted at coit tower is worth just 680,000? i think it's more. after communication we urge the arts commission to reconsider engaging the community in a new forum. what's existed hasn't worked a advisory committee would be a way for the public to point out problems, help fix them and a way for rec and park and the arts commission to talk more regularly. the fact that things are as broken as they've been we know they're trying to fix them but engaging the public in new ways would help a lot. >> president farrell: thank you. any other member of the public that wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, i want to thank everyone for coming out, especially the
4:34 pm
civil grand jury and those members of the public who had strong feelings one way or the other. at this time the board of supervisors, we've been asked to respond to a number of the findings and recommendations of the civil grand jury. and so what i thought president chiu i know will be back momentarily but what i thought i'd do was run through one by one about the ones we been asked to respond to and give the recommendations as we run through those. and i'm going to take this subject matter by subject matter as opposed to just findings and recommendations. so finding one, the city through the sf arts commission and gfta devotes -- in more generous amounts than any other municipality in the united states. i think the answer there is because the study hasn't been completed would be -- guess agree partially. we're proud of what we do but we don't have the actual data to support a strict finding right now so that would be my
4:35 pm
recommendation. and tom, i think you've heard a lot of great comments, not only from the civil grand jury but department heads and public comment of things. and i think some of our questioning that would be great to see going forward. so that would be my recommendation. for finding number one. for the recommendations, i'll take recommendations one through three almost together here. this is talking about increasing the number of commissioners, the at large commissioners, establishing a citizens advisory committee, or a nonprofit organization that talked about tom talked about a friends organization. again, we have a few ways we're able to respond here somewhat restrictive. what i'm going to suggest is that our responses that this requires further analysis i think. i know tom, being somewhat new in this role and it's great to hear that the civil grand jury obviously thinks highly of the
4:36 pm
current staff and is hopeful of what will happen in the future. i suggest as you evolve in your role, that we get feedback from you about what organization you think would be best to support kind of ongoing either governance structure of the organization. so as the civil grand jury knows to increase the number of at large members that is a charter amendment, requires going to the voters. that's something i am open to looking at going forward for sure. but the first election that would be would be next november. so we have some time in the middle here to come back and hear from tom and see how things are going. so i'd like to proposes recommendations 1 through 3 require further analysis. >> can you hear me? under the state rules, you would have to actually provide some more specificity on sort of how that analysis will be conducted
4:37 pm
and the timeframe. >> president farrell: so when i suggest in six months to have the director come back, and provide an evaluation, and -- of all of those potential options, and i would like to hear from tom after six months going forward. would that be sufficient enough? >> uh-huh. >> sure. i'll go along with six months. and i'm not going to be here in six months but i would say i think a charter amendment is something i would completely disagree with. i think there would have to be a lot of things that would fail before we would take a very extreme step of trying to amend our charter in this regard. i think that's a lot longer away than six months, but six months study is fine. >> president farrell: all right. sounds good. to the civic art collection section, finding no. 9, the
4:38 pm
civic art collection is a vast assemblage representing a substantial cultural and financial asset of the city and county, i would fully agree. finding no. 10, promotion of the collection -- attraction of the city is limited. i'm going to suggest we partiallpartially disagree. it could be a lot more but i suggest with the funds that are available that the arts commission is doing what theg. and i think a lot of civil grand jury points i found in my first year and a half of the board we receive a lot of things we'd like to do but it is based upon funding and resources that we can't do everything we want so i suggest we partially disagree but that means we are partially agreeing with it. finding 13, the inventory and cataloging function is dedicated to a single staff member and two interns which is insufficient. my understanding from the arts commission is that there's actually one -- registrar, a
4:39 pm
full times collections project manager, part time collections programs associate, as well as a number of interns. so that's a different staffing factually so i suggest we disagree with that one. finding 18, that the art maintenance is more property operating than exal cost which is day-to-day responsibility of the arts commission. i would actually agree with that 100%. to me maintenance is an operating item. and therefore i would also agree with finding 1 finding 19 that d as a capital expense by our city government. recommendation no. 8, that human and material resources adequate to -- >> vice president elsbernd: can i ask a question of the staff on maintenance and capital there. i agree with the theory that supervisor farrell is putting forward but in the budget game that happens every year, and the capital dollars that are
4:40 pm
available, isn't it more likely they're going to have a better shot at getting money if it's appropriated as capital? because operating costs are going all over the place. capital costs not so much. wait 'til you get to the mic. >> of think some of the wording here whether it's an operating cost or an operating expense, a capital cost, exal expense, from a funding perspective if it's coming from capital planning we're going to defend it and we haven't increased it in the last few years. >> vice president elsbernd: what do you mean defend it? as a priority because we are focused on long-term funding. >> vice president elsbernd: i guess i was thinking there's more money available for this kind of capital work than looking at the operating pot of money. >> not a lot there. >> vice president elsbernd: so that would be my one concern. i agree with the theory.
4:41 pm
supervisor farrell is right on that. if the end game is to maintain better characterize it as capital. >> for us as well i think in terms of staff work, having the different departments come to us to talk about their maintenance on a regular basis makes our jobs easier in terms of looking at the larger issues of renewals and replacements of things. having that dialogue is useful to us just process-wise. >> vice president elsbernd: out of curiosity to the grand jury was that argument presented to you? now that you're hearing this your end game is not to be specific about characterizing money your end game is to maintain the art. do you agree that to best maintain the art we should forget about the term of art operating in capital and who should call it capital if our end game is improvement of the art? >> (no audio).
4:42 pm
>> vice president elsbernd: you're going to have to come to the mic. no one can hear you. i thought this would be an easy yes or no. i want to avoid theory. the point is practical, where is the money coming from? >> be honest, is our response. >> vice president elsbernd: so bite off our nose to spite our face. let's be honest but we're not going to be able to fund it? >> i hope you would be honest. >> vice president elsbernd: we're honest. we're saying it is operating but we want to fund it. don't you want to characterize it as capital so we can fund it? >> i'll let you think about that. >> vice president elsbernd: okay. >> president farrell: mayor's office, do you want to comment? >> leo chiu with the mayor's. i would say the maintenance cost -- you can see at the technical level the maintenance
4:43 pm
is classified in a maintenance subobject that is classified as maintenance. we are able to make sure as a city we are funding renewals and maintenance at a bare minimum level. we can make sure that we are at least doing an adequate baseline amount of maintenance that's happening in the city. certainly departments can choose to allocate additional parts of their budget for additional operating costs. thanks. >> president farrell: all right. we can maybe come back to that one in a minute here. >> i want to make sure i missed it. on finding 17 was there a response to that? >> president farrell: sorry, thank you for catching that. the maintenance budget for collection grossly inadequate to the task -- i would agree. suggest we agree. >> okay. >> supervisor farrell: president chiu just walked in.
4:44 pm
we talked about the categorization of the maintenance here. do you want to change it? >> vice president elsbernd: no. we'll leave it as it is. better to be honest than to maintain. put that on the grand jury's head. >> president farrell: all right. we will move on here. recommendation no. 8, human materials resources adequate task be devoted to the rapid completion inventory and cataloging of the collection, this recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future and i know the arts commission is currently interviewing candidates for positions solely focused on inventory so that would be the recommendation. no. 9, redesignate maintenance and conversation of the collection as a -- rather than a capital budget item, i will agree with that.
4:45 pm
and no. 10 -- >> for no. 9 would agree to that. is that what you guys -- >> president farrell: this is derivative of the same argument. >> vice president elsbernd: is there a controller here? you're not supporting what the controller is suggesting. >> correct. >> vice president elsbernd: i agree with the controller. >> so we can change. there are three members here. >> vice president elsbernd: i would like to practically fund this. this is public record everybody knows what we are doing but we want to achieve the end game of maintaining approximate. >> from my perspective i would be more comfortable supporting the controller's response. >> president farrell: so you would like to change -- hold on let me make sure we're clear on this, change recommendation no. 9 to not -- will not be implemented.
4:46 pm
finding no. 19, and no. 18 as actually disagree. >> okay. would you reflect that. >> finding 18 and 19 committee said disagree and recommendation 9 will not be implemented. >> supervisor chiu: we disagree and defer to the controller's response to those answers. >> president farrell: we won't take roll call on that but i would have voted differently. recommendation no. 10 -- >> supervisor chiu: maybe we should do a roll call. that's fun. >> president farrell: recommendation 10 redirect and dedicate a million dollars over two years of the grants for the arts hotel taxed on a one time
4:47 pm
basis to fund the inventory maintenance storage et cetera of existing art location located in the city and airport and other city properties. i'm going to say this will require further analysis during the annual budget process. so that's going to take a longer timeframe but that's something we're going to have to look at in next year's budget. and the same would be said for recommendation no. 11, regarding designating hotel tax for -- so forth. i suggest that also would require further analysis based upon next year's budget. and apologies, also for recommendation no. 12. that is designating hotel tax funds 1% of the value of the collection on an annual basis. i think that's something everyone would agree to but again we are in a restrictive capital and budget environment and it is competing priority
4:48 pm
with everything else and i think it is incumbent to look at everything at a wholesale kind of wholesome way during the budget process and we will do that. >> on this one, this will not be implemented or this requires further analysis -- >> president farrell: further analysis, no. 12. no. 13, clarify ownership and -- on rec and park property. my understanding the sf r commission is currentlying working with rec and park to make that happen so it will be implemented. complete an arts commission rec and park agreement to ensure compensation for maintenance of art in city parks adequate to support that task and that's recommendation 14. i hope that happens. that is not under the purview of the board of supervisors. that is a rec and park/arts commission thing so that's something that the board is not
4:49 pm
going to implement. finding no. -- now we go to neighborhood cultural centers, finding 23 that the arts commission has not given support and maintenance of the cultural centers of the priority the charter requires. i understand the comments. i think they could get a lot more support. i r recommend we disagree partially. and similarly for finding 24, regarding not having addressed long-term funding, stability and safety needs of these cultural centers. thank our police department again for come forward. obviously it is an issue that people are aware of but i think tom in your work, and -- work and rebecca with capital planning i think is going to be a big part of this so i'll say we disagree partially 3-6r7b8g9s one clarification, there is little nuance between
4:50 pm
disagreeing partially and agreeing partially. i think we ought to be providing more support and maintenance of our cultural centers and doing a better job of addressing long-term stability and safety needs. with the work being done, from my perspective, whatever we can do do move that agenda forward would be very helpful. >> president farrell: agreed. then recommendation 15, for the arts commission to hold public hearings about the cultural centers and their funding this is from the board of supervisors perspective that won't be implemented that is under the per view of the arts commission. sounds like a good idea but i trust there will be comment about that at the arts commission itself and something i hope you will look into. >> supervisor chiu: if i could make one point on that. if the arts commission feels differently about holding public hearings on this topic i have offered to the arts community to do a hearing at the board. do you think it's appropriate if the arts commission wants to do it at your forum, let me
4:51 pm
community let me know if we want additional discussion on that. >> president farrell: finding 27, the district attorney has failed to respond to sunshine complaint, we're not in a position to agree or disagree. that's under a department that we don't have purview over the district attorney's office. so i'm going to -- >> (no audio). >> president farrell: understand that. i know a number of department heads or department representatives were waiting for but for the board of supervisors that is a different department under a separately elected head so we're going to -- we can't respond to it i would say so i suggest we disagree with it because to a degree i think it's something we're not able to do. for recommendation 17, to move the street artist program to the office of small business, personally i think there was a
4:52 pm
lot of great comments and reasons why and we heard from the street artists that there seem to be a majority support not to do that. my suggestion will be to say that this requires further analysis and ask our rs commission to look into that and whether it's wholesale supporting it or there were some suggestions. i want to thank the head of our small business office coming out to look into if it's either a wholesale change or some form of working together there is merit to that so that's what i would suggest going forward. >> vice president elsbernd: let me say on that, again one of these things that will happen down the line. i would be -- i would be thrilled to see that happen. i was around when the office of small business was created. this was never intended to be a part of that. i think it would start to pull away from the initial -- and i would hate to see that office of small business commission expand
4:53 pm
to the point where that core mission in any way gets threatened. >> president farrell: that sounds right. i think i would agree with that as well. to be honest with you i think the notion of working together with the small business office and whether it's pulling on their resources to aid you seems the right direction but i want to give you the ability to do what you think is best in a number of months. >> vice president elsbernd: if i could comment on that i have a slightly different perspective on the office of small business in that they're underfunded and i agree we wouldn't want to disfract from the focus but i think that office should not be underfunded and needs to have more resources because it is very difficult for a lot of businesses to access all the different bureaucracies that we have. so i want to say i definitely appreciate i guess what was written to us from the office of small business and in the future i think it's appropriate for that office to expand to actually remove redundant
4:54 pm
bureaucracies in other departments but i do think it's probably a longer conversation just given how many departments there are that impact different aspects of our small business community. >> president farrell: okay. >> can i clarify, this will not be implemented or it requires further analysis? >> president farrell: further analysis. >> then you want them to come back in six months. >> president farrell: that would be great. we are mandated to have them come back in a certain time timeframe. let's do that. recommendation 18, the attorney response to sunshine complaint 11023. again this is something that's not going to be implemented by the board of supervisors. that's a separate -- for the district attorney and has been passed on. ta's not something we're in a position to control. then we get to the symphony fund. i know there was disagreement here. appreciate the civil grand jury's comments. i heard your comments, and thank you to the city attorney and
4:55 pm
also the rs commission for talking about it. finding 34 for general operating and gallery exhibition expenses they rely on public funds designated for symphony orchestra. again i'm going to bow to the judgment of our city attorney who i know has looked into this. and disagree with this and that the maintenance of the symphony orchestra is being handled appropriately. finding 35, i will agree with. i think we should agree with that the arts commission has chosen symphony as beneficiary of those funds. finding 36 that the arts commission without legal or practical recourse, if the money's revoked, the 40% is revoked, understand the comment. again, practically speaking i have to disagree because they can't come forward for supplemental appropriations. i hope the doesn't happen.
4:56 pm
but practically speaking i will disagree with that. the manner in which the arts commission funds its operations by giveback donations creates at least an appearance of fiscal improprietary and -- the intent of the charter. i mean i could go with partially guess agree but i do disagree with that. i understand the appearance but i think by the letter of the law everything is above board. i appreciate raising the issue, if you will. colleagues i don't know if you have any comment but i would suggest disagree with that. and then finding 38 about the funding of 600,000 would agree with. recommendation 22, that the arts commission symphony agreement comply with the intent of the charter and full amount of revenue go to symphony operating dispenses. my understanding that is being
4:57 pm
implemented. and then recommendation 23 to redirect the hotel tax funding money, tax fund money allocated that is go to i think require further analysis in the course of our budget process. so that was a long list colleagues. any comments, questions, additional thoughts? all right. seeing a motion with those findings? >> resolution as amended. >> seconded. >> so we can do that without objection. again, i want to thank the civil grand jury for your work on this. you highlight issues that would not have been brought to light otherwise. again, understand that we may agree, disagree, or understand that we are constrained by certain budget issues that make us kind of punt things down the line until next fiscal year but i want to thank you for your
4:58 pm
work on this. this is a great report and i know we will see you in a few weeks on other items as well. thanks for your help. we can do that without objection. >> what action would you like on the hearing? >> president farrell: table item no. 2, and we can do that resolution with full recommendation. all right, madam clerk, can you call item 1. >> a motion revising the priorities of the budget and legislative analyst 2012 performance audit schedule. >> president farrell: thanks very much. we have -- from our budget budgd legislative analyst office. >> good afternoon, chair fairlyl and members of the committee. the purpose is to reassign priorities to what have been approved to the board of supervisors by a motion. we are completing the audit on
4:59 pm
professional services contracts for dph and sha. we have committee the final report to the departments and are awaiting their response and will have the final report submitted to the board the week of october 22. however the way the audit motion was set up blark