A communication from Councillor Mallon, transmitting notes for the meeting of the Mayor's Arts Task Force held on May …

Geeta Pradhan, President and CEO of the Cambridge Community Foundation

Councllor Mallon opened the meeting with some points about housekeeping and explained how the breakout sessions and working groups would proceed. There are three outstanding topics before our last meeting next month, which will be centered around our recommendations going forward as well as topics the Task Force did not get to address. Tonight’s meeting will be about workshopping some of the conversations that are still unfinished and have been cut short.

Group #1 will be workshopping a new definition of public art and “buckets” for the funding that will be coming in from the 1% for art revenue from the Tobin School. 1% of the hard cost of construction will be roughly $2 million, so where will that funding be going? This working group should be establishing some guidelines.

Group #2 will be creating a budget for the additional funding commitments that the City has made. The City Manager and Deputy City Manager have agreed to additional funding for the arts in the form of 15% of the revenue taken in from hotel/motel taxes, which will be around $2 million. This group will have guidelines for existing deficiencies, funding goals and opportunities, and establishing benchmarks to evaluate effectiveness of funding. If we have the additional revenue, it needs to work for artists.

Group #3 will elaborate on our last conversation about the BID and Cultural District, which was an abbreviated conversation but yielded good feedback. This group should discuss whether we want to put together BID bylaws or a cultural compact bringing stakeholders together, and what that would look like. This group has an example from Melbourne, Australia of a cultural compact that brought all stakeholders together to ensure everyone was on board and codified best practices. This will be a continuation of Ms. Johnson’s breakout group from last meeting on the BID.

Councillor Mallon asked that everyone turn in their worksheets after so that we can collect notes on each breakout group’s work.

Because of the common focus on funding and interest from members on both topics, breakout groups 1 and 2 combined. Notes from breakout groups:

Group #1

The group had a discussion of what we are allowed to do with public dollars, because all funds allocated have to serve the public good and be publicly accessible. The group discussed the importance of asking who the definition of public art is for, especially if it’s for administrators who will be coming at it from a bureaucratic, not artistic, point of view. The group decided to list what they wanted funding to go toward, and then tackle the question of whether that funding would come from hotel/motel revenue or the Tobin School reconstruction.

The discussion turned to the funding of programmatic elements, rather than actual art itself: • Art objects and experiences in publicly accessible space • Long term funding for arts institutions • Student exposure to the arts • A program structured like Live Arts Boston, which puts money into the hands of creators themselves • Artist in residency program • Arts in the park • City-owned arts facility, akin to the EMF building • Outdoor public theaters • Paid internships for young, aspiring artists • Taking a closer look at arts in public education • Reserving a classroom in every school for an artist in residence and program around their work • Adding a City position that would be a “grant manager” for these new sources of funding • Installing neighborhood kiosks like Arts Boston – two models were discussed: advertising for professionally programmed kiosks vs. kiosks curated by specific neighborhoods • Embedding artists in municipal departments to encourage creative problem solving and not isolating the arts budget • Interactive exhibits at City Hall similar to the Science Festival

The group also discussed broader themes, like the ways in which arts relate to equity. It is important to ask who the gatekeepers are and recognize that every person has the potential to be an artist. The City needs to create an atmosphere where art is a public good, so that we can make the case for funding individual artists themselves and not over-programming from the top. Art making is also not formalized, and there’s yet to be a conversation that has really focused on culture, and how for many, art is really about food, storytelling, religion, decorating, or festivals.

The group also discussed how we can loosen up programming, suggesting that the City could have dates and funding available, and artists could apply for grants to program the City or a space. The group also suggested that any of the programs above could be turned into pilots which could be evaluated to see if it’s something that is deserving of a greater investment.

To address the issue of equity and effectiveness of funding, the group suggested that the Task Force could continue on and become an adjudicator based on an equity rubric. Different benchmarks could include neighborhood and socioeconomic diversity, community engagement, and generating arts innovation.

Group #2

Group 2 discussed the overall mission of the BID, and the history of BIDs as tools of gentrification, and how to prevent that here in Cambridge. The people who are setting up the BID right now are extremely conscious about this issue, but we need to future proof the BID to ensure that it takes care of not only the arts community, but also all members of the community that gather in Central Square.

The group discussed ideas such as: • Does the BID have a board with a mission, and if so, how is arts part of that? • The BID could hire a community engagement consultant who specializes in anti- gentrification to write a strategic plan for the arts • Is there a neighborhood driven, interactive design process for the BID? • Can the BID bylaws formalize the relationship between the BID and Cultural District? • The Cultural District “limits” can be expanded – should they be? • How can the BID steering committee express our arts values? • Ideas about an open public market • The Baptist church as an arts and culture space • Should this specific BID have a focus on arts, culture, and equity? • The idea of a “pedestrian shed” – new urbanist/urban design • How to we incorporate art into every day practices like cleaning and safety?

Groups came back together for a report-out

Ms. Ascolese gave a report-back for group #1. She stated that the group wanted to focus on art as a public good, so they did not want to be funding specific public art initiatives, but instead put more money in the hands of the creators themselves. She stated that in outlining what the group wanted funded, the theme was centered around more programmatic, educational, and community engagement elements than actual, physical art or performances.