After my first article about Richmond's Public Art Commission, I received some criticism for not knowing all the facts about the PAC and how the city decides to fund the arts in Richmond. To an extent, I agree with these criticisms, but in my defense, information about city arts funding in general and the PAC in particular is hard to find, and what is out there is often misleading. However, I am interested in getting the story straight, and hopefully helping the RVA community understand the situation a bit better in the process. So to that end, I went to my first PAC meeting at city hall on March 12th.
When I walked in, the session was already in progress. The first item on the agenda related to discussions amongst members of the board, what constituted a meeting, and what conversations could take place between board members outside of public meetings that had been announced in advance. It was clear that intricate rules and bureaucracy often acted as an impediment to quick and efficient operation, a fact that created frustration amongst the community volunteers serving on the PAC board.
A board member then mentioned that the $1.3 million sum that had been earmarked for the PAC as part of the construction costs for the new jail (as reported in Style Weekly and mentioned in our previous article about the PAC) had been approved. However, a member of the city council was interested in discussing a cap to be placed on the dollar amount from future construction projects that could be allocated to the PAC. A meeting about this cap was scheduled to take place later that same week, but we have not learned the results of that meeting as yet. Discussion related to the possibility of hiring a paid manager for the PAC's affairs also took place, but this seemingly-sensible idea was also prohibited by the PAC's bylaws.
At this point, to my surprise, a PR person for the Jones administration brought up my original article about the PAC, and passed around printed-out copies of it to each member of the board. He also passed around a formal response from the city, presented in full below:
1) The article implies that the Justice Center 1% appropriation is missing. The Public Art Budget line item reflects a projected amount that is earmarked in the capital budget for the Justice Center. The funds are not missing, rather they have not been transferred into the Public Art Commission's budget yet because the Justice Center project is ongoing and the funds would not be transfered until the project is finalized.
2) The existing 1997 1% ordinance does not specify that the public art must be provided on the specific site, but it is the general practice of the Public Art Commission to install the public art on or near the site that is the source of the funds. Although, the Public Art Commission is not required to do so strictly and has the flexibility to use the funds for permanent public art installations elsewhere in the city, this is not a program where one begins by "applying for the funds". Rather, the Percent For Art program has specific procedures to be followed, in which the Public Art Commission first determines the site of the proposed public art and then sends out requests for applications. The procedures also include approval by the Planning Commission and City Council for all proposed expenditures. With funds of this size, the Public Art Commission will certain be considering a wide range of options and will listen to all suggestions from the public. Simply email one of the Public Art Commission's city staff contacts to share your thoughts or to be added to the Agenda of a Public Art Commission meeting.
3) Susan Reed was elected as Chair and William Hutchins was elected as Vice Chair at the 01/08/13 meeting of the Public Art Commission. the Public Art Commission website is in the process of being updated.
4) The Public Art Commission meets the second Tuesday morning each month and meetings are always open to the public. The Public Art Commission's city staff contacts are always able to answer any inquiries, should they be asked.
In response, let me first mention that the PAC's website was updated to reflect Point 3 after my article was published on March 4.
The information contained in Point 1 is helpful, but also inspires more questions. The March 12 meeting revealed that the $1.3 million earmarked for the PAC has been approved, but also, that at least one member of City Council would like to change the rules so that this level of PAC funding does not continue in the future. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch article I quoted in my previous article, there is nearly $2 million more out there that could be transferred to the PAC in future. Will the PAC still receive that funding if City Council gets their way? And if not, where else might it go?
Point 2 indicates that the PAC volunteer board designates the site and approves the artists it funds, but still needs the additional approval of City Council and the Planning Commission for funding to go forward. There is an open call for submissions by artists once the site has been determined, and the public is able to make suggestions. But in the end, the selection process is not as transparent as it could be, and the public does not, as far as we can tell, get a voice in what artists are ultimately selected for each project. We'd like to see a more open selection process, and we'd also like to see the artists who are able to apply for the projects limited to Richmond-based, or at least Virginia-based, artists. Keeping the funding and artistic representation within the local artistic community would be a huge step in the right direction.
Finally, would it be possible to change the requirement for PAC projects to be "permanent installations"? The inclusion of non-permanent local art projects in the range of works that could potentially receive funding from the PAC would greatly increase the amount of local arts projects that could potentially benefit from support by the PAC. For example, 1708 Gallery's InLight Richmond project, various Art 180 projects, and some aspects of the First Friday Art Walk are all non-permanent but highly valued local arts endeavors that could benefit from a widening of the PAC's scope of projects for consideration.
I found the city's response to my article to be a positive step. My goal with publishing the original article was to get a conversation started, and hopefully to learn more about what was being done with taxpayers' money. I will continue to attend PAC meetings in the future, and report back to you with my thoughts. I encourage anyone who has any interest in the local artistic community to attend as well, and to contact the PAC with your opinions on how they should utilize the funds they have been allocated.
Visit Richmond's Public Art Commission online at: http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionPublicArt/index.aspx