by Elizabeth Stanard with Daniel Davis Clayton and Dana Oliver

Every year hundreds of local arts organizations and individual artists compete for city and state funding through the City of Austin's Cultural Contracts Program. Administered by the Austin Arts Commission (AAC) and the city employed Cultural Contracts Staff, the program, according to its guidelines, is designed to provide those who "produce, present, promote, exhibit, record or support" the arts with monetary assistance ranging anywhere from $1500 to 10% of the total funds available to the AAC annually.

Since most Cultural Contract contenders are arts organizations with 501(C)3 status, also known as non-profits, and emerging arts groups and individuals, they rely heavily on financial support from government sources. Each year they participate in an extensive application process in order to attain grant* money from a variety of local and national sources, Cultural Contracts often serving as the primary one. Therefore, it is no surprise that such groups and individuals are personally invested in the efficacy of the program.

Historically, the Cultural Contracts Program has been under scrutiny over its mission, administration and requirements, most notably receiving criticism for prioritizing larger, more established arts organizations over smaller, emerging ones and individuals. While the program has attempted to address this disparity by striving to equitably allocate funds in proportion to Austin's diverse demographics, one incident this year involving artists who applied for funding in the Mixed Arts category, a category designated for those who specialize in multi-disciplinary arts, has caused artists to again question the underlying motivations behind the program and unfortunately, each other.

The Cultural Contracts Program groups all of its applicants into one of the following disciplines: Dance, Music, Literature, Visual Arts, Media Arts, Theater/Performance and Mixed Arts. Each one of these disciplines has an Advisory Panel, a panel which, according to the program guidelines, is comprised of 4-10 individuals who have expertise in their particular discipline. In addition to reviewing the grant proposals in their discipline, each Advisory Panel is expected to evaluate artistic presentations made by applicants and accordingly make funding recommendations to the (AAC), who in turn make recommendations based on those of the panel to the Austin City Council for final allocations.

In the case of Mixed Arts, the Advisory Panel only had 3 members, instead of the minimum 4. It is quite possible that this glitch would have gone unnoticed by the Mixed Arts applicants if the panel's written scores and funding recommendations had accurately reflected the quality of the applicants' presentations. However, a number of Mixed Arts applicants noticed that: the panel's written scores were strikingly less favorable than were their verbal comments at the presentations; one of the panelists scored the applicants markedly lower than did the other two panelists; or the panelists' funding recommendations were dramatically less than last year, even when applicants scored high.

In the routine public hearing that followed the release of the Advisory Panel's results, many Mixed Art applicants expressed their outrage over the glaring inconsistencies in the panel's judgement to members of the AAC. In order to expediently remedy the situation, the AAC preserved the panel's score and ranking recommendations but overturned their monetary recommendations and redistributed the money to all of the recommended applicants, a total of thirty-three, in a period of about thirty-six hours. While a few applicants were pleased because their allocations increased significantly, almost bringing them up to the same level as last year, other applicants were shocked that the AAC had taken money away from their already paltry allocations.

The questions then became: Why did the AAC choose to immediately take money away from certain Mixed Arts applicants in order to monetarily mollify other applicants? Did they thoroughly investigate and reevaluate the Advisory Panel's actions and the applicants' qualifications before reaching any conclusions?

When Austin Downtown Arts (ADA) posed these questions to AAC Chairman Andrea Bryant, her response was, "That is our job. And the official name of the panelists is the 'Advisory' Panelists. And while we certainly regard them as those who do the greatest front-line work in this process, the situation this year was such that we couldn't just take those [recommendations]..."

Maybe so. But did the Commissioners have enough information at their disposal about the Mixed Arts applicants to make drastic changes in their levels of funding? Bryant answers, "We get the applications way back in April, shortly after they are turned in and you know, probably recorded. That's why each applicant has to turn in so many separate copies of his or her application. And of course the Arts Commissioners themselves get copies of all of the applications."

Assuming that the AAC had actually read all of the applications, it is still uncertain how many, if any of them, attended the applicants' presentations and sponsored events. (Traditionally, Advisory Panelists are expected to attend applicant sponsored events to better familiarize themselves with their work, although this expectation is not printed in the guidelines.)

Giving the AAC the benefit of the doubt, even if they had comprehensively researched all of the applicants, conducted their background checks, did that give them the right to throw out the panel's decisions without notifying the applicants beforehand or creating a new panel altogether?

ADA interviewed three Mixed Arts applicants to give them the opportunity to voice their opinions about the affair. In talking to Texas Folklife Resources (TFR), Progressive Arts Collective (Pro Arts) and Austin Latino/Latina Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization (ALLGO), organizations coming from very different perspectives and positions on the decision, ADA discovered that there are many deeper issues underlying this singular incident.

A fundamental issue that the applicants addressed is simply why they think the AAC acted so quickly in overturning the Mixed Arts Advisory Panel's recommendations without taking more time to review the applicants before they started reallocating out money. Executive Director of ALLGO Martha Duffer argues that "there was no way to review all of them equally. There wasn't time." Pro Arts Director Boyd Vance speculates that "because they [the ACC] are so deadline driven. They're so hyped up and jacked up about getting the scores in, having a process, that that [reviewing all of the Mixed Art applications] was not an issue for them."

Expediency aside, why did the AAC take money away from some Mixed Arts applicants in order to allocate more money to others? It is my guess that in a perfect world the AAC would have allocated as much money as was requested to all applicants whom they deemed qualified. Unfortunately, the Cultural Contracts Program, primarily funded through the city's Bed Tax, the hotel/motel occupancy tax, only has a budget of 3.6 million this year.

When divided among over one hundred arts organizations and individual artists, a number of whom have million dollar budgets themselves, there just is not enough to go around. And it is quite rare for any of the applicants to get all of the money that they ask for.

That being said, why did the AAC ostensibly favor some organizations at the expense of others? Before I answer that question, it is important to acknowledge which applicants received substantial increases and decreases in funding upon the AAC's reallocation recommendations. Of the thirty-three total recommended applicants, those who received substantial increases include: La Pena, DiverseArts Production Group, Center for Women & Their Work, Sally Jacques, TFR, Austin Children's Museum and Leadership Educational Arts Program. Those who received substantial decreases include: Access Arts Austin, Oralia Diaz, Center for Mexican American Cultural Arts, Donnelle McKaskle, ALLGO, Margery Segal and Benne Rockett.

Boyd Vance states that the favoritism occurred because "there were four groups in that room [at the public hearing that followed the release of the Advisory Panel's results] that were majors, that significantly got [allocation] cuts [this year]. And I can say who they were." And he does. Later in the interview, Vance states that the Mixed Arts "majors" include Center for Women & Their Work, Austin Children's Museum, Texas Folklife Resources and Sally Jacques.

"Because they felt jeopardized more, because they had the most to lose, [they] got together that evening after eleven o'clock and then railroaded Bruce Willenzik and Bobbie Enriquez." He adds, "Those are the two Arts Commissioners who went back and reallocated the money and came up with a proposal for the next day."

When I asked Vance if he could prove that these four applicants had contacted the Arts Commissioners to ask for more money after the hearing that night, he replied, "Well, somehow between eleven o'clock that night and the next morning those things changed. That's what I feel. All they would have to do is pick up the phone."

Although Vance admitted that his allegations were merely speculative, it is important to mention that both Duffer and Pat Jasper, Director of TFR, evaded the issue of whethermor not these four applicants lobbied the Arts Commissioners that night or not. But even if they did lobby them, it is completely within their rights to do so. Although the guidelines fail to mention anywhere that lobbying is a part of the Cultural Contracts Program, Andrea Bryant states, "It's an open process." The applicants can contact whomever they want.

Whether these four applicants contacted the AAC or not, they all received "major" increases, increases amounting anywhere from ten to forty thousand dollars. In fact, among the thirty three applicants, it was these four applicants who received the highest increases across the board. Center for Women & Their Work, who was allocated $43,567 by the Advisory Panel, was given $82,500 by the AAC. Austin Children's Museum, who originally received $48,296, was allocated $79,500. Sally Jacques, who was given $12,667 by the Mixed Arts Panel, was awarded $37,000 by the AAC. And TFR, who originally received $51,333, was increased to $60,125. However, it should be noted that even with these increases, the applicants, excluding Sally Jacques, still did not receive as much money as last year.

Although TFR Director Pat Jasper would not comment directly on whether it was equitable that TFR and the other three applicants received such high reallocations at the expense of their colleagues, she argued that it was the Mixed Arts Advisory Panel, not the AAC, who was poorly advised in affording "emerging artists and their organizations a chance at the expense of or in exchange for [larger organizations]" without telling "DiverseArts, TFR, Women & Their Work, and the Austin Children's Museum that was going to be the basis on which things were decided."

Many applicants agree with Jasper in holding that such increases were called for, even at the expense of smaller organizations, as TFR, Women & Their Work, Austin Children's Museum and Sally Jacques are simply larger and require more money because they serve more people. Yet other applicants contend that while it is important to support and reward these larger organizations, it should not in effect curtail the efforts of smaller ones.

Duffer states, "When you are comparing an individual artist to the Austin Museum of Art or a tiny organization that produces one folk art event a year to the Paramount Theater, you just end up with apples and oranges. And when these groups are competing with each other, I think it ends up being an injustice to both. I mean, I can understand million dollar organizations saying, 'How can you compare us? We're not being funded at the level that we need.'

"At the same time, if you continue to leave those huge organizations in there, individual artists, emerging artists, developing organizations -- the breadth of the artistic community that these funds are meant to support, can't happen because the truth is that the symphony and the art museum and the ballet could use all the money. So I think there needs to be some way to separate that out. They don't need to be competing against each other. That doesn't make sense," she adds.

In addition, Duffer believes that continuing this practice of pitting larger and smaller organizations and individuals against each other forces the Cultural Contracts Program to address "what kind of arts are most valuable to the Austin community."

Duffer asks, "Are traditional arts like the Ballet of Austin and the [Austin] Symphony [Orchestra] and the Austin Museum of Art more valuable than cultural arts, folk art, new and emerging artists? I think that we can't say what art or work is more valuable. [But] when you have a very small pot of money, it's like, what's your priority?"

Duffer admits that this question "gets into very deep philosophical issues that the city's going to have to confront." She believes that "the people who are in the position to get the money are the strongest organizations [and] are of course the white organizations who have the art that has been valued overall by society." And she asks, "Do I think it's critical that people of color be supported in producing their own art? Of course."

Vance agrees, "When you look at our art, Pro Arts, you have to look at the state of black people in Austin. And you can't not look at that. Because you have to look at where we are, how far we're behind, why there are no theaters, why there's no galleries, why there's no poetry. You've go to look at us, which is very different from looking at Sally Jacques."

So what now? As far as the AAC goes, according the August 3rd edition of the Austin-American Statesman, the Texas Commission on the Arts is conducting a formal investigation of the AAC and withholding $158,000 in grants due to possible irregularities and impropriety.

Perhaps the moratorium of the Cultural Contracts Program will enable the Mixed Arts applicants to focus on remedying their internal discord. When Vance was asked if he had a solution, he replied, "I think all these people need to get together, and the person that they need to be lobbying is the damn City Council to give us more money."

∗ The Cultural Contracts Program does not allocate grants. It allocates contracts. But in this sentence, the two are synonymous.

[Many thanks to AndreaBryant, Pat Jasper, Martha Duffer and Boyd Vance for contributing their thoughts and time to this article.]