Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic comments by Jim Mosher for Item VII.A.5.Revisions to Council Policies I-9 and I-11 June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Comments The following comment on an item on the Newport Beach City Arts Commission agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 5. Revisions to Council Policies I-9 through I-12 As requested, this is a late comment, submitted on June 9, regarding an item I was unable to adequately prepare for in time for the June 8 meeting. Background The City of Newport Beach is a municipal corporation operating under a voter-enacted City Charter. The Charter adopts a Council-Manager form of government in which day-to-day operations are conducted by hired professional staff. The seven-member elected City Council is empowered by voters to set the parameters within which the staff must operate, through a variety of mechanisms, including, among others, the enactment of ordinances, most of which are assembled into a Municipal Code,1 and less formally through the adoption of a Council Policy Manual. In Section 712 of the Charter, voters empowered the City Arts Commission to “actively encourage programs for the cultural enrichment of the community” and to advise the City Council on related matters, as well as to perform such other arts-related functions as the Council might assign to it. Some arts and culture-related rules appear in the Municipal Code,2 but they exist mainly in the Policy Manual. Although there has rarely been any systematic effort to review the Municipal Code,3 for more than 50 years, the Council had a policy (most recently called Policy D-3) to annually review its Policy Manual. In 2017, newly-elected Council member Will O’Neill took it mostly upon himself to review and remove unneeded language from all the Council policies. This resulted in a 338-page document most of his Council members had little time to review presented and approved as Item 18 at the August 8, 2017, meeting. As explained in that report, a privately-meeting Council subcommittee spend 10 hours reviewing the existing policies and recommended eliminating 72 pages and 1 Because the City Charter appears on the same City webpage as the Municipal Code, many people mistakenly think the Charter is part of the Code. It is not. The City Council is free to change the Municipal Code using the procedures specified in the Charter. Only voters can change the Charter. 2 An example is NBMC Sec. 5.04.100 exempting Artists and Art Exhibits from business license requirements. Others include land use regulations, such as location and parking requirements for artists’ studios, special rules for landmark and historic buildings, etc. 3 The last I can recall was an effort to weed out dead wood instigated by then-Mayor Keith Curry in 2012 or 2013. See Item 16 on the February 26, 2013, Council agenda. June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6 over 12,000 words. And although the Arts Commission is charged by the voters with advising the Council on all matters related to arts, it played no role in the proposed “I-policy” revisions.4 As well as deleting the policy to annually review the Policy Manual, the table on page 156 of the staff report shows the August 8, 2017, action resulted in changes to Policies I-9, I-10 and I-11, as will be discussed further, below, as well as the deletion of former Policy I-13 (which, in 2013, had created a fund for art into which 2% of the unallocated public benefit fees included in future development agreements were to be paid). Current Effort As indicated in Director Hartson’s report, the current effort, again at the instigation of now Mayor Pro Tem O’Neill, was launched by a Council action on September 13, 2022 (consent calendar Item 5), appointing a new Council subcommittee to review not only the Policy Manual but also the Municipal Code, with the goal of improving clarity by deleting still more words, and additionally requesting all City boards, commissions and committees to conduct a similar review of codes and policies with their areas of expertise. The results were to be presented to the Council by June 30, 2023.5 Since it became apparent this goal was not going to be met, as Item 4 at its April 11, 2023, meeting, the Council extended the life of its subcommittee for another year, until June 30, 2024. It separately extended to June 30, 2024, the deadline for the Boards, Commission and Committees to submit recommendations to the Council regarding deleting or reducing language and sunsetting provisions. The minutes from that meeting indicate Council member Grant asked for the Council subcommittee to report back at the 6-month mark, and I had suggested the scope of the review be broadened to include not just deletions but also improvements to the remaining parts of the codes and policies, with which Mayor Blom concurred. However, it is not obvious from the minutes that either of those suggestions was included in the Council motion. Policy I-9 Comments At the Commission’s June 8 meeting, Chair Greer mentioned that in the past a great effort had been put into perfecting Policies I-9(?) and I-11. Given that, I would hope the Commission is puzzled by the Policy I-9 found on handwritten page 18 of the Commission’s June 8, 2023, agenda packet. It is not one perfected by the City Arts Commission. 4 This contrasts with the Finance Committee, which was asked to review the F-policies, the Harbor Commission, which was asked to review the H-policies, and the Planning Commission, which was asked to review the L-policies (August 8, 2017, recommendations “c”, “d” and “e”). 5 Director Hartson believes the Boards, Commissions and Committees were directed to submit their recommendations to the three-member Council subcommittee, which would, in turn, consider including them in their own recommendation to the full Council. But this is not clear from the Council actions, which say the BCC’s should submit their recommendations “to the Council.” June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 It articulates only two policies:  Section B promises the City will do something it clearly does not normally do: namely, involve artists in the design of public works and incorporate works of art into them.6  Section G relegates the Arts Commission to the review of plans to modify existing installations, without any clarity as to how that review will be used. Even then, I am not sure what “parts or works for Art” is supposed to mean, or if it is typo.7 It, notably, sets no standards for art in public places and much of Policy I-9 (Sections D, E and F) is mysteriously marked as “Reserved.” The Commission may wish to compare this to the 2003 version of Policy I-9, which seems to be the one gutted by the Council subcommittee in 2017:  Former Section D listed the six responsibilities of the Commission in connection with art in public places  Former Section E listed seven criteria the Commission was to consider in making recommendations to the Council  Former Section F asked the Commission to periodically suggest projects to the City Manager for inclusion in the budget to be presented to the Council for consideration. Guessing from the table on page 156 of the August 8, 2017, staff report, these provisions were deleted to “Remove language exceeding the City Charter concerning Arts Commission responsibilities.” Given the massive size of the staff report, I do not believe the full Council had a chance to give the validity of this, or any of the other recommendations, much consideration. What the Council subcommittee thought “exceeded the City Charter” in the former version of Policy I-9 is completely beyond me. Indeed, the deleted provisions seem completely in line with the voters direction for the Commission to advise the Council and the Council to assign additional arts-related duties to the Commission. The page 5 of the archived minutes of the Commission’s August 10, 2017, meeting show I brought the Council’s gutting of Policy I-9 to the Commission’s attention, and Commissioner Greer asked for a discussion of this to be put on the next agenda. But I can find no evidence of that happening.8 Although the current mandate is limited to deleting still more words, the Mayor, at least, was supportive of improving the codes and policies. So, I would suggest the Commission recommend restoring the missing sections to Policy I-9. 6 The only recent examples I can think of were the mostly unfulfilled effort to include art in the City Hall design and a homeless Rex Brandt mural into the new Corona del Mar Branch Library. I do not recall any art being integrated into the design of, say, OASIS, Marina Park or the new Peninsula fire station. 7 My guess is it may have been intended to read something like “works of art or parts of works of art.” 8 The next Arts Commission meeting was an August 29, 2017, “retreat”. The loss of I-9 does not appear to have been discussed there or at any later meeting. June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 Policy I-10 Comments Policy I-10 (“Financial Support for Culture and Arts”) was not included in the Commission’s June 8, 2023, agenda packet. The Council made only minor changes to it in 2017,9 but it has a complicated history involving the consolidation into one of two separate former policies and in its present form it lacks clarity as to what it commits the Council to doing in support of the arts. The Commission would seem wise to review it. Policy I-11 Comments This is the item I attempted to comment on at Commission’s June 8 meeting, but was unable to do so in an understandable fashion. Before attempting to repeat that, I would first note the “clean” version Library staff started with may not be the currently active one. Although through a possible error on the part of the City Clerk, the revision history does not show the Council’s August 8, 2017, to add the words “owned by the City” to Section F (see pages 295 and 125 of the 2017 staff report): “The City Council may sell, donate or otherwise remove any Art owned by the City in the City collection.” Second, I learned after the meeting that there is uncertainty about the Commission’s attitude toward appraisals of donated art. Formerly, this was considered a matter between donors and taxing authorities which the City did not want to be involved in. I now understand some Commissioners may believe the City should know the value of works being offered to it, and this is something the donor or seller should be required to provide. I also understand some people believe the City should insure works based on their appraised value. And others may believe requiring an appraisal places an extra burden on those wanting to donate something the City may already know it wants – in effect saying they have to pay the City for the privilege of donating something to it (although many may do so anyway to take a tax writeoff). Third, as I tried to explain at the meeting, the existing policy mentions “exhibit” as a means of “conveying” art to the City. But I believe the inclusion of that word is erroneous since the policy is entitled “Acquisition of Art” and exhibits are normally a form of loan rather than acquisition. Much of Policy I-11 makes little sense with regard to, for example, works on temporary exhibit at the Central Library or in the Sculpture Garden, not to mention the City Art Exhibition, as none of these involve works expected to be retained permanently in the City collection. That said, here is an attempt to show and explain the revisions I would suggest to shorten and clarify the current Policy I-11 (including the previously-approved revision from 2017 mentioned above). The version I am starting from is the proposed one presented as Attachment F starting on handwritten page 27 of the June 8, 2023, Commission agenda packet. 9 The 2017 Council staff report describes it as saying the “Council will fund $55,000 a year from the General Fund for culture and art” and the changes being to remove “specific language referencing two individual groups to highlight broad community support. June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 ACQUISITION OF ART BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A. The City of Newport Beach (“City”) believes that paintings, sculptures, drawings and other art (collectively, “Artwork”) placed on City property and in City buildings increases the aesthetic appeal and beauty of the City in general. B. All proposals to convey Artwork to the City by donation, loan, sale donate, exhibit, loan, sell or commission Artwork to the City via conveyance shall be reviewed by the Arts Commission for recommendation to the City Council. C. The Arts Commission shall be responsible to: 1. Confer with persons who have offered to Cconvey Artwork to the City, informing them of this policy, including criteria for approving Artwork and the policies, criteria and approval process. 2. Advise the City Council of the artistic merit and value of Artwork offered to the City. 3. Advise the City Council regarding appropriate City property or City buildings for display of Artwork, in conjunction with the every City board, commission, committee, board and/or department which has responsibilityresponsible for planning and/or maintaining the proposed location. D. The Arts Commission shall consider the following criteria in making a recommendation for accepting an offer to Cconvey Artwork to the City: 1. The Artwork should be an original creation or a limited edition by the original artist, and be of the highest quality and level of artistic excellence. 2. The Artwork should add to the balanced inventory of the City’s collection, representing a variety of style, design and media. 3. The person(s) seeking to Cconvey Artwork to the City shall complete all required forms, as provided by the Library Services Department – Cultural Arts Division. 4. The Artwork should be of satisfactory physical condition, be sufficiently durable as to not be easily damaged or destroyed, should not require restoration or extensive long term conservation, and should be of a physical size and weight that the Artwork can be managed in storage, transport and public display without difficulty. Artwork requiring periodic maintenance and/or restoration may only be considered with full disclosure of the restoration and maintenance costs provided by a licensed art appraiser. 5. The Artwork should be consistent with and relevant to the civic interests and broad variety of tastes within the Newport Beach community. E. Artwork may only be recommended by the Arts Commission to the City Council for acceptance upon the majority vote of the Arts Commission. Commented [A1]: This phrasing avoids the awkward “Commission Artwork to the City” and introduces the word “convey” in the sense used in later paragraphs Commented [A2]: “be responsible to” adds nothing to the meaning of “shall” Commented [A3]: The City Clerk, and other policies, consistently refer to “boards, commissions and committees” in that order. The “and/or” construction is ambiguous (does it mean “and” or “or”?) and unnecessary with this phrasing. Commented [A4]: The proposed revision added “maintenance” earlier in the sentence, and it would seem to need to be included here for consistency. June 8, 2023, City Arts Commission Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 F. Artwork accepted into the City Art Inventory by the City Council is accepted with the understanding that the City Council reserves the right to place the Artwork on public display on either a permanent or temporary basis, and to store the Artwork when not on display. Acceptance of Artwork by the City Council does not guarantee that the Artwork will be displayed in perpetuity. The City Council may sell, donate or otherwise remove any Artwork owned by the City in the City Art Inventory. Any proceeds received by the City from the transfer of Artwork shall be expended to acquire, restore or display Artwork. G. Artwork considered for inclusion in the City’s Art Inventory collection must conform to City Council Policy I-9 (Art in Public Places). H. The City does not provide professional appraisals of Artwork Cconveyed to the City. The value of Artwork should be presented by the person(s) Conveying Artwork to the City at the time of Conveyance. It is the responsibility of the person(s) Conveying Artwork to the City to furnish a certified appraisal. I. The person(s) Cconveying Artwork to the City shall obtain all intellectual and photographic property rights to the Artwork and transfer such rights to the City. The City reserves the right to photograph Artwork for any and all purposes, including, but not limited to, publicity and informational literature. J. Any person(s) that Cconveys Artwork to the City shall represent and warrant in writing that it owns the Artwork and that the Artwork shall be Cconveyed to the City free and clear of all liens, restrictions, security interests or agreements by which the City would be bound, but subject to allother than laws generally applicable to the transfer of title of any Artwork. K. Subject to compliance with California Civil Code Section 987, the City shall assume no liability in the event of loss or damage to any Artwork accepted into the City’s Art Inventorycollection. Adopted- February 24, 1986 Reaffirmed-January 24, 1994 Amended & Reassigned-April 8, 2003 Amended – May 12, 2015 Amended – August 8, 2017 Amended -- ____________ Formerly F-23 Formerly I-13 Commented [A5]: This phrase was added by the Council in 2017. Commented [A6]: I personally like “collection” but the Commission’s proposal was to change it to “Art Inventory,” so this would seem to need to be changed for consistency Commented [A7]: See note preceding the redlining. My understanding was intent of the previous version was to do nothing more than warn donors that if they wanted a value for tax purposes, they would be responsible for obtaining an appraisal themselves – which is their problem, not the City’s, and hence doesn’t need two sentences to explain. If it is the Commission’s wish to require an appraisal, I would instead propose a different single sentence saying something like “The City may require a certified appraisal before accepting any Artwork” (using “may” since there may be circumstances in which one is not needed). Commented [A8]: I think the intent is to acknowledge there may be laws neither the City nor the donor can waive. Commented [A9]: For consistency with decision to change “collection” to “Art Inventory.” Commented [A10]: As noted above, the Council made a minor revision on that date which was not included in the version presented to the Commission.