Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.15.16 BAC Packet Boulder Arts Commission Agenda June 15, 2016, 6:00 p.m. Canyon Meeting Room, Boulder Public Library CALL TO ORDER Approval of Agenda REVIEW OF MINUTES April 20, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENT Note: public comment is open to all topics, except for the “2017 Grant Program” agenda item, below, for which a separate public hearing will be included. GRANT PROGRAM ACTION ITEMS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOLARSHIPS Brenda Alderete, Moog Festival, Durham NC, Request: $1,000 Susan Boorman, Movie Maker Academy, Online module, $1,000 INNOVATION FUND 1. Process Review 2. Presentations by Applicants 3. Commissioner Response and Discussion 4. Call for Rescoring 5. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Grant Recipients GRANT FINAL REPORTS Stephanie Fida, FY14 R2 Arts in Education Grant, World Music Drumming (Attached) Alexa Allen, FY 16 Professional Development, School of Shoemaking and Design Imagination Makers, FY15 R1 Arts in Education Grant, Arts Education Partnership at Boulder School 2017 GRANTS PROGRAM BLUEPRINT PRESENTATION: Lessons from the Community on the 2016 Grant Program – Matt PRESENTATION: Staff Recommendations on Priority Issues to Address – Matt PUBLIC COMMENT FOR DISCUSSION: What are the priority improvements that should be considered for 2017?—Ann MATTERS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR DISCUSSION: Fact Finding Mission on Artist Live/Work Spaces – Felicia, Mark, and Richard MATTERS FROM STAFF FOR DISCUSSION: Manager’s Update – Matt FOR DISCUSSION: Subcommittee on the Public Art Policy Revision – Matt ADJOURNMENT Boulder Arts Commission - 1 June 15, 2016 CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER ARTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Date of Meeting: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Contact Information Preparing Summary: Mandy Vink, 303-441-4342 Commission Members Present: Richard Turbiak, Ann Moss, Felicia Furman, Tamil Maldonado, Mark Villarreal Library Staff Present: Matt Chasansky, Office of Arts & Culture Manager David Farnan, Director of BPL Mary Fowler, Creative Sector Initiatives Coordinator Mandy Vink, Public Art Coordinator Public Present: Lisa Curtis, Jan Osburn, Maren Waldman, Louise Grauer, Eva Yao, Sabine Smead, Sally Eckert, Melinda Harrison, Alexandra Dujardin, Amy Trempe, Amy Buckler, Wrenn Combs, Emily Norma, Emily Messina, Jamie Adams, Megan Mathews, Alana Shaw, David Ortolando, Heather Woolley, Scott Johnson, Heather Stenner, Brenda Pearson, Emily Kelton, Celia Macedo, Suzanne Schmidt, Avery Turner, Chris Seelie, Amy McIntosh, Travis La Bry, Jessie Friedman, Deborah Malden, Kathy Kucsan, Kevin Schlider, Natalie Portman-Marsh, Marcio deSousa, Jane Houssiere, Addrenne Amata, Kelly Russack, Cindy Sepucha, Jim Schwartzkopff Type of Meeting: Regular Call to Order: called to order 6pm CALL TO ORDER Acknowledgement of Linda Haertling, exiting commissioner REVIEW OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes COMMISSIONER BUSINESS  Swearing In of the New Commissioner: Mark Villarreal  Chair and Vice-Chair Appointments: Richard nominates Ann as chair, Ann nominates Richard as vice chair: unanimous. Keep Richard as chair for April meeting due to grant cycle  Consent for Former Chair to Lead This Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT Sally Eckart, Boulder Art MAtrix: Arts as quantifiable component in development in regards to Bus Stop development/Artery. How do we inform what we want at this space? Jenna / Band of Toughs: Object to decisions from last meeting. An exception was made for Kutandara and reviewed in weight class. How many additional organizations did not apply because eligibility requirements should be interpreted as concrete/objective. Amy Steward McIntosh/Kutandara: Thank you for the award, trust best decision GRANT PROGRAM ACTION ITEMS Boulder Arts Commission - 2 June 15, 2016 DISCUSSION OF ELIGIBILTY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL GRANTS – Richard Request received to reconsider eligibility with review by staff, BAC and City Attorneys Office. Commission apologized City Attorneys Office determined that threshold of $200K must be honored – COA determined they are ineligible. (COA only used Arts Commission criteria and nothing else) Next steps: remove process Motion to rescind Kutundara. Approved Unanimously Motion to grant BOT with Organizational Grants: Approved Unanimously PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOLARSHIPS Christopher Seelie, Nonprofit Storytelling Conference, Chicago IL, $1000 3.0 Ethan Hecht, Chorus America Conference, OH, $1,000 3.0 Amy Buckler, Stratera Conference, Denver CO, $450 4.0 Alexa Allen, School of Shoemaking & Design, Ashland OR, $1,000 3.5 Cynthia Sliker, League of American Orchestras 2016 Conference, Baltimore MD, $1,000 4.0 Emily Norman, Alliance Theatre's Toddler Takeover: An Arts Festival for the Very Young in Atlanta, GA, $1,000 4.0 All 3.5 and above approved! COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS 1. Process Review 2. Presentations by Applicants 3. Commissioner Response and Discussion 4. Call for Rescoring 5. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Grant Recipients Lisa Fasullo/Free Motion: not present Score remains: 3.08 Kat Gurley: not present Score remains: 2.60 Kelly Russack/Boulder Creative Collective: Ambition to pay artist for work, time and materials with an exhibition and studio visits through open call opportunity. Grant will support these components Score remains: 2.92 Maren Waldmann: Postcards to the Earth: Interpersonal relationship with mother nature. Personal contact with others changes individual actions, shared with others through art. Barrier for program is exposure to project Score remains: 2.12 Band of Toughs: Shakespeare reimagined to 3 locations which blurs the line between audience and actors. Will be toured to additional communities. Turbiak changed score: Community Priorities to 3, Eval uation to 4; score increased to 3.56 from 3.44 Boulder Asian Pacific Alliance: Free Annual Boulder Asian Festival Aug 13/14: Support Asian Pacific arts in Boulder in a smaller, intimate scale. Score remains: 3.32 Boulder Arts Commission - 3 June 15, 2016 Boulder Ballet: Youth Movement: youth program to be expanded, pre-professional class, middle school dance, autistic and sensory-friendly programs and classes Moss increased Cultural Offerings to 4; Furman increased Community Priorities to 4; Score increased to 3.44 from 3.36 Boulder Dance Coalition: Annual International Festival and measures of success through vendor evidence Villarreal increased Cultural Offerings to 3; Score increased to 3.20 from 3.16: Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra: Free Ticket pilot program to monitor evaluation program further supports openness and welcomeness in the program Score remains: 3.92 Boulder Photo Festival: not present Score remains: 2.24 Boulder Samba School: *photo hand out, see attachments* 2016 Colorado Brazil Fest offers 12-15 dance and music workshops. Grant will allow lower ticket price to underrepresented populations and covers close to 20% of festival costs Villarreal increased Community Priorities to 4, Full Access to 4; Score increas ed to 3.76 from 3.68 Bridge House: Clients are free to make and sell art, connects clients to larger artworld and evolves and grows through art therapy groups and experience of being homeless. Turbiak increased Evaluation to 4; Maldonado increased Cultural Offerings to 4; Score increased to 3.64 from 3.56: Colorado Music Festival: Artistic Currents is response to “get out of Chautauqua and quit playing classical music” such as partnering with a musician that wrote a song based on a Craigslist ad Score remains: 3.24 Greater Boulder Youth Orchestra: not present Score remains: 2.84 Interweave Dance Theatre: Choreographers create original works and is a blend of theatre, comedy and dance which serves broad audience through various modes of outreach Turbiak increased Full Access to 2; Score increased to 3.32 from 3.28: JLF Boulder: Significance and vision of program for Bolder as cultural destination from a world -wide perspective (free international literature festival) Turbiak increased Evaluation to 4; Score increased to 4.00 from 3.92: NatureMoves: Boulder City Dance: dance and activities along Boulder Creek inviting to dancers and non -dancers of all ages Score remains: 2.76 Public Works Theatre Company: “Lost and Found” is new work of physical theater for youth with a spectrum of theatrical styles Turbiak increased Full Access to 2; Maldonado increased Community Priorities and Cultural Offerings to 4’s; Villarreal increased Full Access to 3; Score increased to 2.76 from 2.60. Turning the Wheel: 14 artists signed up to collaborate via film, musicians, singing, facilitators in school system to interface culturally Moss increased Community Priorities to 3; Turbiak increased Community Priorities to 2; Villa rreal increased Community Priorities to 3, Boulder Focus to 4; Score increased to 2.96 from 2.80. Boulder Arts Commission - 4 June 15, 2016 University of Colorado Boulder: Conference on World Affairs is a very unique offering to the community and the world. Grant would enable them to remain viable as state funds are diminishing. Goal is for full access and wide diversity of arts and content for free Score remains: 2.96 Via Mobility Services: “25 Stories” features artists with disabilities and is a one-time community project. They will be partnering with VSA Colorado. Turbiak increased Cultural Offerings to 2, Boulder Focus to 3; Maldonado increased Cultural Offerings to 4; Score increased to 3.24 from 3.12. World Singing Day: Goal for World Sign Along (Oct 22) is to be larger than Boulder Boulder, foster awareness of how fun it is to sing, encourage folks who otherwise were rejected in singing. Partnering with FACE as lead group and communities in the region hope to partner. Moss increased Cultural Offerings to 4; Turbiak increased Community Priorities to 2, Evaluation to 3; Maldonado increased Cultural Offerings to 4; Score increased to 3.32 from 3.16. 21 received, 3 will be awarded. In the instance of tie, tie breaker will be determined through evaluation score 3 recipients: JLF $10K Boulder Phil $10K Boulder Samba $5K Bridge House $5K Ann motion, Tamil 2nd Discussion?: $30K available, awarded to Top 4 Unanimous ARTS EDUCATION GRANTS 6. Process Review 7. Presentations by Applicants 8. Commissioner Response and Discussion 9. Call for Rescoring 10. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Grant Recipients Catharine Brand: Raising funds for film about David Goodrich, string maker and story telle r Score remains: 2.6250 Paula Kehoe: **handout** Youth and Art Education for Social Causes: integrates art edu and workshop development Score remains: 2.4375 Janice Osburn: Benefits the 280 students of Flat Irons Elementary School; Teachers are excited about gain through Imagination Makers: Expand MLK, Jr program from music room to class rooms Turbiak increased Benefits to Students to 4, Complementing Curriculum to 4, Evaluation to 4; Score increased to 3.93750 from 3.3750 Sabine Smead: Imagination Makers to incorporate drama into the classrooms to benefit students Turbiak increased Benefits to Students to 4, Complementing Curriculum to 4, Evaluation to 4; Score increased to 3.87500 from 3.3125 Boulder Arts Commission - 5 June 15, 2016 Avery Turner: Students to become creative and cultural leaders in Boulder and worldwide; provides 35 -55 adolescents/class to improvisational forms with seasoned teachers, both therapeutic and artistically Moss increased Complementing Curriculum to 4; Turbiak increased Benefit to Students to 2; Score increased to 3.43750 from 23.3125 Blue Moon Dance Company: *handout* Only professional dance program available at Manhattan Middle School students passionate with desire to be in this dance program Turbiak increased Benefits to Students to 4, Complementing Curriculum to 4; Score increased to 3.75 from 3.5625 BMoCA: Art Lab teacher is Jason Garcia, formed incredible mentor program Score remains: 4.00 Boulder Opera: Outreach program to different schools, students partner with performers, students play with props and costumes, performers reenact their stories Turbiak increased Benefit to Students to 3; Score increased to3.7500 from 3.6875 Colorado Film Society: Film diverse topics that benefit students, and students speak with filmmakers and producers. Program reached 1K students last year Score remains: 3.9167 Colorado Shakespeare Festival: not present Score remains: 4.00 Friendship City Projects: not present Score remains: 3.4375 LOCAL Theatre Company: Adapt a young adult novel to the stage: providing exposure to theatre at a young age and literacy in the arts Score remains: 3.8750 OpenArts: *handout* Teachers partner with artist for collaborations that addr ess state standards and provide time to build curriculum and student time. Bring Boulder artists into as many schools as possible. Turbiak increased Benefit to Students to 4, Evaluation to 4; Score increased to 3.81250 from 3.6250 Parlando School for the Arts: Resources for music teachers and students whose families cannot afford private lessons. Provide lessons on-site during the school day for students with financial and travel limitations Moss increased Complementing Curriculum to 4; Score increased to 4.000 from 3.9375 Project Yes: not present Score remains: 3.1875 University Hills Elementary School: One of the most diverse schools in Boulder County – celebrate diversity through this program: create stories, illustrate, etc. Rainbow Press is no longer funded through school, instead through PTA. Score remains: 3.6250 RECIPIENTS BMoCA Shakespeare Colorado School for the Arts Janice Osburn Unanimous Approval Boulder Arts Commission - 6 June 15, 2016 GRANT FINAL REPORTS Supplemental Information was handed out from Ana Maria Hernando Laura Ann Samuelson, FY15 R3 Spark Grant, Goodnight, Courtney Love, Part 1 Colorado Film Society, FY15 R2 Arts in Education Grant, Boulder International Film Festival Youth Pavilion 2016 Diane Michel, FY15 R2 Arts in Education Grant, Marimba: A Cultural And Musi cal Experience Unanimously Accept Reports MATTERS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR DISCUSSION: Organization Liaisons – Richard ^Tamil added BIFF ^ insert Mark’s FOR DISCUSSION: Letter, Art as Community Benefit – Ann Letter to City Council in support of community benefit: thank them and address significance MATTERS FROM STAFF FOR DISCUSSION: Manager’s Update – Matt ^Matt to share studies on May agenda FOR DISCUSSION: Public Art Policy Revision – Mandy: Overall policy topics are currently being reviewed by the COA and a draft summary will be presented to BAC at next meeting. The updated policy will reflect:  Transparent process  Consolidated and streamlined  Serve as a guiding document for the entire life of a project, not just the commission Timeline:  April 2016: Preliminary draft  Summer 2016: Gather input for policy  August 2016: Present to Council  October 2016: Final presentation/acceptance by City Manager ADJOURNMENT Adjournment 9:24 Boulder Arts Commission - 7 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 8 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 9 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 10 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 11 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 12 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 13 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 14 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 15 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 16 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 17 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 18 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 19 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 20 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 21 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 22 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 23 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 24 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 25 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 26 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 27 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 28 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 29 June 15, 2016 TO: Members of the Boulder Arts Commission (BAC) FROM: Matt Chasansky, City of Boulder Office of Arts + Culture DATE: June 9, 2016 SUBJECT: Boulder Arts Commission Manager’s Update 1. Notes on the Agenda for April 20, 2016:  Innovation Fund Attached please find the jury process for review of applications to the Innovation Fund. Also attached are the score sheets for this process. We will be printing copies for your use during the meeting. In order to save paper, please do let us know if you would prefer to view these only on your device.  Grant Final Reports Attached please find the grant report for Stephanie Fida. It was not possible for this report to be posted to the online system.  2017 Grants Program Design: Findings from the Community The 2016 Grants Program was a bold step forward. The Community Cultural Plan articulated the desire in the community, among stakeholders to the grants program, and among city staff that the program be re-imagined with the following goal in mind: Have a substantial and positive effect on the ability of Boulder’s many cultural organizations to advance their operational capacity, promote organizational resiliency, and encourage innovation for the benefit of the community. To contribute to this goal, staff held a series of focus-group discussions during multiple commission meetings towards the end of 2015. These discussions provided for robust discussion about the overall direction, as well as the details, which resulted in the structure of the 2016 grants program. The key changes were a) the assigning of most of the funding to operational grants, b) a more flexible and applicant-focused process, and c) robust reporting. Many aspects of the grant application and jury processed were changed in the context of these three key improvements. Also critical to the restructuring of the grants program was the discussion among commissioners on how these improvements would develop over the course of the Cultural Plan. The changes to the grants program were intrepid, and thus would need to include an understanding that it will take years of experimentation, assessment, and progress to fully realize their potential. This discussion for the June meeting of the BAC is the first step in those iterative improvements. At the June meeting, staff and the BAC will host the first of several conversations with members of the community with the goal of making substantial improvements to the current program for the 2017 cycle of grants. To do this, our first conversation will be focused on identifying the priority challenges for which staff should begin working on solutions. Boulder Arts Commission - 30 June 15, 2016 With this in mind, I have conducted a series of conversations with individuals who applied to grants in order to gather feedback on how things went in 2016. There were things that went well, and we will capitalize on those healthy directions. However, no small number of people who applied to grants felt that there were urgent improvements needed. My findings from these conversations will be the subject of a presentation at the June meeting. However, in order that commissioners have time to fully consider each point, I have summarized my findings in the attached document. Of note is that I spoke with people on the promise of anonymity. This was done to ensure that the subjects of my interviews would speak candidly about their experience. It is my hope that, in addition to these notes, these people who are so passionate about the role of culture in our community will also speak during our meeting so that you can hear from them directly. Please see the attachment, below, for a summary of my presentation.  Fact Finding Trip on Artist Live / Work Spaces On June 1, staff organized a tour of the Loveland Feed & Grain live/work development and the Downtown Artery in Fort Collins. In addition to several commissioners were members of City Council, staff from the Office of Arts and Culture and Housing Division, local developers, and community members. The goal of the event was a fact finding mission to these successful developments and to spark conversation about how such projects might be possible in Boulder. We will ask members of the BAC who attended this event to speak about their experience during the meeting. Below are links to the websites for both destinations. http://www.downtownartery.com/ https://www.facebook.com/LovelandFeedAndGrain/  Subcommittee on the Public Art Policy Revision As work continues on the drafting of the final Public Art Policy, staff plans to consult with city staff and stakeholders. During the June meeting of the BAC, we will ask if one or two commissioners would like to participate in these advisory sessions. Boulder Arts Commission - 31 June 15, 2016 2. Staff Updates Work continues on the short- and long-term plans for the Civic Area. Staff will be participating in discussions this month about the proposed “market hall” in the east end of the area, as well as continued conversation about the concept proposed by members of the BAC that an arts focus be explored. Work has also resumed on a public art master plan for the Civic Area, including addressing the current sculptures for possible relocation. Members of staff and a number of leaders from the community attended the Colorado Creative Industries Summit. This two-day long summit in Carbondale was a convening of many arts professionals and government officials from across the state. Together with the Bonfils Stanton Foundation and Arts & Venues Denver, staff has made progress on the feasibility study for a regional cultural alliance. The steering committee has identified Corona Insights for a contract to conduct the study. Next steps will be to convene advisory groups and conduct interviews in order to establish a framework for conducting the study. At the request of the Dairy Arts Center and the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, discussions have begun on the renewal of lease agreements for those facilities. The Office of Arts + Culture manager has accepted seats on both the Convention and Visi tor’s Bureau Board and as an ex officio board member to the new CREATE BOULDER organization. Staff continues to participate on the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Work continues on the 2017 division budget. Work continues on the Boulder Community Hospital site engagement project. The staff of the Office of Arts and Culture welcomes the new team member in the City Manager’s Office, Deputy City Manager Tanye Ange. Tanye will join the team on August 1. We also welcome Laura A. Smith, our intern for the summer.  Grants, Organizational Support & Programs Staff conducted listening sessions with applicants to grants to inform possible improvements for the 2017 grants cycle. A significant issue occurred with the grants website. The issue was resolved, and no data was lost. Work has begun on the next Summit of Cultural Organizations, tentatively scheduled for July 13. Work continues on the Arts and Prosperity 5 study. Please encourage cultural organizations to participate! Work has begun on the reporting process for grant recipients.  Public Art & Neighborhood/Community Programs Boulder Arts Commission - 32 June 15, 2016 Internal Public Art Policy updates are underway after meeting with City Department Heads on June 7. The meeting was positive, with a resounding support and eagerness towards the next steps. All departments are currently reviewing a draft policy with feedback due June 20, and the next department-wide meeting is scheduled for July 7th. As noted above, we are requesting that two commissioners to join this working group. A progress update will be presented during our July Boulder Arts Commission meeting, and a request has been made to present a similar update to all affected boards and commissions within the month of July. The policy draft will be presented to the City Manager at the beginning of August. Current and Upcoming Public Art Projects: Experiments in Public Art:  A launch of Experiments in Public Art will take place in mid-August, featuring many of the commissioned artists and a few public installations.  Emma Hardy will be showcasing her Boulder Beetles at the Jamestown 4th of July celebrations. For more information visit http://boulderarts.org/experiments-in-public- art/participating-artists-emma-hardy/  Staff met with Boulder Parks & Rec and Transportation to discuss a few upcoming opportunities. Significant projects will not be announced until the completion of the Public Art Policy update. Public Art Maintenance Projects: Conservation of a diptych by Marilyn Nelson was complete, as this diptych will be included in the History of Visual Arts in Boulder. Nelson’s diptych is one of many city - owned pieces included in the History of Visual Arts in Boulder exhibitions This survey runs September 29 – January 15th and showcases over 300 artists in 16 venues, spanning over 121 years of Boulder’s art history. For more information visit hovabcelebrations.org  Creative Economy & Creative Professionals Programs As noted above, staff facilitated a tour of artist live/work space in the region. On the tour were members of City Council, BAC members, stakeholders in the community, and city staff. As of the writing of this memo, staff is working on the Forum for Professional Artists to take place on June 14, 2016. This program is in partnership with the Boulder County Arts Alliance, the Hemera Foundation, and activists in the community. The goal is to facilitate a discussion about the challenges faced by artists in Boulder. We hope that this will lead to a regular convening of professional artists. Staff is working with the Boulder County Arts Alliance to evaluate the results of this year’s Dance Month promotional campaign, and discuss if it is possible to roll out these types of targeted campaigns to other disciplines. Work continues on Boulder Arts Week, and plans for the 2017 event. Boulder Arts Commission - 33 June 15, 2016 Attachment One Process Steps for Jury of Innovation Fund Applications Vote Discussion Reading of Final Scores, Motion to Approve Proposed Motion: "I move that we approve the following applications for awards in from the Innovation Fund...". Call for Rescoring Commissioner Response and Discussion Applicant Presentations Review of Preliminary Scores Boulder Arts Commission - 34 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants David Cumming Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.08 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 3 2 2 4 2.60 Tamil 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Ann 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Richard 1 1 1 1 2 1.20 Mark 2 2 2 2 3 2.20 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? From the application materials provided it appears that OWM is a startup content marketing company. Application states that the $4K requested will be used for advertising to gain a following. It appears to me that the business itself is the experiment and that the Rendezvous workshops, although possibly unique in the self-actualizing tools it uses, are a part of their model. Please help us better understand your theory and why it is a new and creative concept. Not sure what the experiment is. It sounds like a marketing workshop. Is the workshop free? How do you persuade folks to participate? How many people will be in the workshop? A lot of sweeping ideas, and I see a lot of over -reach. Really needs specifics with measurable goals How will you conduct the experiment? It appears that the “experiment” comes down to the development and launch of content marketing campaigns along with ongoing feedback and evaluation to tweak the ongoing process. Again, it appears more generally applied to the business concept. Application lacks any recognition of challenges or risks. What challenges will you face and how will you overcome them? Boulder Arts Commission - 35 June 15, 2016 Is there a risk involved? Is the Rendezvous outside of what you normally do? long on philosophy, short on specifics. Measurable goals would provid e a path to success. What do you hope to learn? The applicant hopes to learn if the Rendezvous workshops work. But regardless of the abundance of words and syllables, applicant doesn’t provide answers to the points. I don’t know what success specifically looks like. What tools/methods will be used to measure specific results? I would think that a marketing company should be able to provide this. Further, the application states that the project will be completed and reported on by year’s end. But applicatio n also states that outcomes are known not for six months to a year, a perhaps “far into the future.” Then how does the project complete by the end of the year? Will you follow your participants far into the future; if so how? How will you get participants; especially artists? What makes this really unique; aren't there already programs like this that get at helping individuals and businesses? Can you be more specific about what you will learn and offer a vision of how to apply what you learned. What might the impact be? Application offers too vague an answer to this criterion. How is this focused on art and culture? What will you do differently based on your implementation of this program? Please explain more about how this project will impact Boulde r. How will you measure the success of the workshop in the short run and the long run? How will you incorporate what you learn. Will you share it with other businesses? Boulder Focus Business is based in Eldorado Springs. Business isn’t just focused on Boulder organizations. It can’t be to be successful. (Not yet registered with SOS’ office.) Please explain more how you will focus on Boulder? Boulder Arts Commission - 36 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Joshua Doolittle Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.28 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 3 3 3 3 4 3.20 Tamil 1 1 1 1 2 1.20 Ann 2 2 2 2 2 2.00 Richard 4 1 1 1 2 1.80 Mark 4 3 3 2 4 3.20 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? Appears to align with an expanded community view of supporting creative industries – in this case design (if we use CCI creative sector definitions as our reference). It experiments with building and fine-tuning a housing system utilizing a new technology – bamboo a-framing. Further, the plan is to open-source the technology internationally through on -line instructional guides and educational clinics. Do you have a letter confirming where the experiment will take place? Has the city confirmed the homeless location? Is there a broader view of the experiment? Will you be talking to city housing, Bridge House to discuss needs of homeless? Or is the experiment only to determine viability of t echnique. How will you conduct the experiment? If you look at the budget and what’s stated in the application, the extent of the experiment seems limited to building the prototype “somewhere” in Boulder. And the prototype would stand for five years or longer to test its strength, durability, and wind resistance. That seems to be it. Nothing further is said of the educational component(s) of the concept. Although applicant says there are no challenges to be faced (it’s his 4th full-scale prototype using this framing), he later states that there will be inevitable challenges in moving from a small-scale model to a full-scale prototype and that the challenges have already been calculated into the Boulder Arts Commission - 37 June 15, 2016 scaling. There appear to be inconsistencies in the application. If there are challenges, what are they? And what’s the risk mitigation? Please tell us a little more about how you'll study the success and failure of the bamboo structure. What will the two open sides be covered with? Will it be studied during all season s; if so how will the experiment work during different times of year? What do you hope to learn? The applicant states that he’s hoping to learn how to mass produce these structures. How do we get here already from a prototype standing the test of time “somewhere” in Boulder? What's the learning curve? What does success look like? How/what are the specific measures the project is being evaluated against? Applicant doesn’t say. Please provide us with a little more evaluation criteria. Will there be different criteria for studying having it Boulder and in tropical climates? Is creating a successful prototype enough? Are there collaborators that can help look at the big issues? This reminds me of "The Dome Book" from the late 60's early 70's. Alternative ways to build with alternative materials should always get some airtime. What might the impact be? It’s not clear to me how the applicant’s building of the prototype leads to the impacts stated in his request. What happens if BAC doesn’t fund the request? I'm not sure of the impact on Boulder unless it is used for homeless shelters. it seems to be more of a solution for the tropics rather than Boulder. I can see that it might become a good model for other places and perhaps give Boulder a good name as the place it was created. What are your next steps after building the prototype? Have you talked to the planning department or buildings department about permits and viability of option for Boulder? I would score this higher if more real world examples of need are listed, not just the overall history of bamboo. examples beyond homeless issues: temporary firefighter camps, emergency medical pavilions, rock concerts. What does that community in Utah look like? Boulder Focus Possible potential as base of operations for an international business but direct focus seems minimal. Although Boulder may serve as a pioneer by providing transitional housing for the homeless through this program, it still appears more of an idea at this stage. It seems like it's more focused on helping in other places than Boulder and doesn't seem like it's that reflective of our local environment. Boulder Arts Commission - 38 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Ethelyn Friend Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.56 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 2 2 1 4 2.20 Tamil 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Ann 3 4 3 2 4 3.20 Richard 1 1 1 1 4 1.60 Mark 3 3 4 3 4 3.40 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? Not a new management concept. Not a new technology. An ongoing, untried programmatic practice? It doesn’t appear if that’s the case here. Not to diminish the work, but isn’t this more in line with an exploration of the artistic form and process? Isn’t that what artists normally do? I’m not seeing this as innovative within the intent of the InnoGrant. How will you produce the mix of improvisation and opera so it doesn't look unfinished or poorly integrated. How do you make a smooth performance. I don't see what the experiment is. There is a memorized libretto but the score will be improvisational? Why? Personal need for artistic challenge. Growth as an instructor How will you conduct the experiment? The execution appears to be straightforward – in line with the exploration of an artistic idea/theme through design and performance. Challenge and risk mitigation appears narrowly confined within the artistic process. Meanwhile, if this has been “tested and highly successful” as the application states, what’s the risk? What’s the experiment? Boulder Arts Commission - 39 June 15, 2016 Seems appropriate and thought through. How/why do you conduct the improvisation during rehearsals? I don't understand the importance of doing this experiment. What do you hope to learn? It’s not clear what the applicant is looking to specifically achieve. The evaluation method is defined generally as “feedback” of project participants without offering what the range success will specifically look like. Too vague. What might the impact be? Please describe a little more about what a successful project will look like. Not a strong statement of innovation. Good educators will look for ways to be students again. "As an artist, this project represents both a huge step and a broad risk in the area of responsibility and community building. As a solo performer, I have worked within my own visions without the complex negotiations involved in group collaborative efforts. Although I have been part of a large team of teachers and performers at Naropa University, and have as an actor worked in large casts successfully, this if the first time I have written work for a large ensemble. It is an exciting brink to be standing on, and I believe it will impact my work as a teacher as well as performer." What might the impact be? What is the concept to be proven? Impact on project participants appears vague. Couldn't the points stated be generally applied to any artistic work? Please explain more about what might happen if your project is successful - next steps. How will it benefit the Kinder community. What are the benefits to the people of Boulder? completion target dates listed as 4-10-16 & 4-30-16. Should these be 2017? Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 40 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Brian Jack (Boulder Bassoon) Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.92 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 3 3 3 3 4 3.20 Tamil 3 3 2 3 4 3.00 Ann 3 2 2 2 4 2.60 Richard 3 2 1 1 4 2.20 Mark 4 3 3 4 4 3.60 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? Concept focuses on technology and programming. Applicant adds that the collaboration is a new management concept but with little elaboration - I'm not convinced it adds much weight to this request. Please explain your theory a little more so we can better understand exactly what you want the funds for. Experiment is to see if they can develop an audience for multi-media mash up, electronic and classical music. It's risky but is it innovative. What are the innovative audience development techniques being experimented with? I like the risk of pushing audience boundaries. Also the musicians, filmmakers stretching other artistic muscles. How will you conduct the experiment? The steps to prove the concept appear to be clearly listed. But challenges are focused primarily on the artistic development of the concept, while mitigation of these challenges is directed toward audience development. Importantly, I'm not convinced that one performance during Boulder Arts Week is enough to fully test the concept. Application would be stronger if success of Boulder Arts Commission - 41 June 15, 2016 the concept was tested throughout the season. The methodology isn't that clear, please explain more about how you'll test the idea and mitigate risks. Answer more focused on what success will look like. What really is the experiment? Will you be using any new marketing techniques to discover new audiences? more detail regarding the controls that will be in place that would lead to your desired outcome. Maybe add a social media component? What do you hope to learn? Other than that the audience will provide "feedback" there is very little from which to measure and evaluate the success or failure of the concept. There is no specificity provided as to what success would look like. And from only one performance? Please better explain your methodology. Seems like you'd need more concerts/showing to study success? How do you understand success or failure? Will you learn what marketing techniques helped to attract audience. The before and after discussions with the audience is a strong part of this. I would like to see more detail about how those would be managed. What might the impact be? It's not clear to me that the impacts of the concept can be measured against one performance during Boulder Arts Week. Seems to me such a concept needs at least the full season to proof. And if the proposed grants aren't secured (79% of revenues), what happens then? How many people do you feel you'll reach and what are their demographics? Does the group want to become a group? Or is this a onetime collaboration. Is the impact more mash up performances in Boulder? Will more musicians be willing to experiment--inspired by your success? Cross disciplines will build a larger / diverse audience base. Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 42 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Gabriel Pastrana Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.36 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 3 3 3 3 4 3.20 Tamil 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Ann 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Richard 1 1 1 1 4 1.60 Mark 2 2 2 2 3 2.20 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? This is an experiment in building cultural participation. But it's the same issue all cultural artists/organizations experiment with for each performance, for each season - partly, how to build my audience? I'm not finding anything innovative about the project at all. please better explain why this project is unique and innovative. If you successfully determine that the public will engage in the building of an artistic experience, then what? I am looking for the innovation here. Granted there is a big serendipity component, this needs to have more structure so that there are improved odds for success. How will you conduct the experiment? Again, I'm not finding anything innovative about this project. No unique idea is being tested. No challenges/risk mitigation addressed. Maybe what this project needs to build from is a well - developed marketing plan. what processes will you use to engage the public in the performance and in feedback loop. Boulder Arts Commission - 43 June 15, 2016 Adequately described. There should be more detail regarding how you will conduct the experiment. This section needs to be more in depth than the description of the play. What do you hope to learn? The application offers no specifics as to what success would look like, other than the 1000 social media views of the performance. There are valid questions/audience behaviors to explore, but not elaborated further within the parameters of the InnoGrant. Please explain more about how you will measure success and how that will affect future productions. What do you do next with what you have learned? What might the impact be? Application's point is too vague to be of value. I don't see how this one, documented performance moves the needle for the applicant or the Boulder community. (Applicant requests over $11K - the entire budget for the project. And if the grant is not awarded?) It'd be helpful to know more about how the project will really engage the public in a deep and engaging way. If the impact is to create a sense of communal engagement, then what next? What impact will it have on Boulder long term? Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 44 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Ellie Swensson Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.96 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Tamil 4 3 4 4 4 3.80 Ann 3 3 3 3 4 3.20 Richard 2 1 1 1 2 1.40 Mark 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? The application states that the experiment is to test the major tenets of the CCP first hand – a micro-test of the macro-approach of the CCP? Wow! Really? What does that mean? Less grandiosity would bring application more into line with what the project sounds like it could be - an interesting adaptation of a residency program for writers collaborating with artists of other disciplines. That said, I question the programmatic innovation as presented in the application. How is this different from the creative process(es) of other artists and cultural organizations? I would think that if this project is the culmination of a three-year discussion of a number of Boulder arts community stakeholders, the whats, whos, whens, wheres, whys, and hows would be better fleshed out. Sounds like an interesting concept. Please better explain how you will select the artists/participants. How will you ensure the work is high quality? Don't really understand what the experiment is. Is it to see what happens when writers are working alongside other kinds of artists. Is the out that they will development collaborations. How will you conduct the experiment? It would’ve been very helpful if the application offered what the final “product” would look like that tests the idea/concept? Much could stem from that. Also, it seems that the challenges would Boulder Arts Commission - 45 June 15, 2016 be greater than just program and facilities management. And even if that is the primary challenge, the application would be stronger if it stated what those specific risks were and how the applicant was prepared to meet them. How will you use the data you receive to improve the project in the future and know how to move forward? How do you plan to integrate other organizations such as BMoCA, Naropa into your process? Don't understand what the experiment is. I would like to know strategies on how to engage underrepresented groups and sectors, groups in isolation? and efforts for accessibility of low-income groups/individuals. I understand there is a free cost, my question is more about how to attract, market and make it available/accessible to these groups? I agree that your proposal is what the Cultural Plan is expecting." The 6-month scope of this experiment serves as a microcosm to test the elements of the Cultural Plans macro-approach." What do you hope to learn? Application states the project will offer what makes a sustainable, diverse, and engaged arts community work. Though no specifics are provided as to what that success actually looks like. What do the measurements look like? How are they being evaluated? Please see question 2 above, plus please explain a little more about what success will be like. Will you also be trying to understand how well the space worked and when it was most and least successful? Will you be able to keep using that space if it works well. What are the measures of success? 3 new collaborations or such? What are the outcomes specifically. Appreciate the time spent fostering relationships with the following: Boulder Fringe, BMoCA, Boulder Public Library, CU Museum of Art, Boulder Arts Week, Naropa and CU students and professors. What might the impact be? How do we know any of this? And what is the impact to the CCP? Further, what I find paradoxical is that the project is set up to test the CCP but its execution is only focused on how it affects the arts community – a common trap. It doesn’t offer how the project then impacts the broader Boulder community. If you can’t speak to that, how are you testing the CCP? (And if BAC doesn’t fund this request?) Please explain more about how this project will benefit Boulder, you and the entities/individuals involved. Boulder Arts Commission - 46 June 15, 2016 Don't feel like this question is addressed very clearly. Explain what theory is, please. This is one of the Cultural Plan goals - "The goal of this project is to create an infrastructure which empowers a diverse group of Boulder writers to explore the full potential of the written word in community with painters, sculptors, designers, photographers, architects, and more workin g in the BCC's surrounding studios. It also invites the Boulder community as a whole to participate in creative practice." Boulder Focus We know the project is based in Boulder. But we don't know where the participating writers are coming from, particularly important if we the project isn't intended to benefit the broader Boulder Community. Boulder Arts Commission - 47 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 48 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants artopolis Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.00 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 1 1 1 1 4 1.60 Tamil 3 3 2 2 4 2.80 Ann 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Richard 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 Mark 2 2 2 2 3 2.20 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? At the risk of sounding like a Philistine, after you take all the adjectives and adverbs out of the application, I read that the “experiment” comes down to arts appreciation through a multi - media, multi-disciplinary event. Even though it’s being produced through the lens of the applicant’s Synthesis theoretical model, I’m not seeing anything here that aligns with the intent of the InnoGrant – funding to experiment with a new management concept, new technology, or an untried programmatic practice. How will you manage the project so the shows are cohesive and high quality? Please explain more about how this is a unique programmatic model. How do you get members? I'm having a hard time seeing reality in this proposal or even what they are trying to achieve. There are no specifics. Who are the "we?" Who are the other artists that will participate? What will they be participating in? Is it a series of workshop? A lot of sweeping ideas, and I see a lot of over -reach. Really needs specifics with measurable goals How will you conduct the experiment? Conducting the “experiment” comes down to producing the event. Much of what the applicant Boulder Arts Commission - 49 June 15, 2016 provides here is too theoretical to be of any worth. An outline of a clear and concise operational/marketing plan would’ve provided perspective of the project. Further, applicant hasn’t demonstrated that they’d be able to produce such an event. Other than the supplemental documentation provided through the application (which includes two letters of recom mendation dated late 2009 that appear used to extend his visa) there is no on-line reference to the Art Gate project or Web site, or anything beyond the simple Artopolis Web site (unless you’re a number of Artopolis-named eateries across the country). I'm a little unclear how you will get the audiences you desire and the people for the workshops. Please explain more about the management of the project in terms of how you will pull all the parts together to make a unified show yet with individual expression s? How will you set the standard for excellence? Answered inadequately. Don't understand what applicant is trying to do. They say they are going to create a low cost space but the budget seems to mainly support producing a film. long on philosophy, short on specifics. Measurable goals would provide a path to success. What do you hope to learn? Although application offers a couple of target points, there are no tools offered to evaluate success. The brief reference to questionnaires appears to fail to cap ture the broad scope of what the applicant states success would look like. Please expand on how you will measure success and use the data to make future improvements? Project is so broad and jumbled I can't understand what they hope to achieve or how it will have a positive impact on Boulder. What might the impact be? Too vague to be of any value. And on an $11.7K budget? I really like the idea of creating a collective art space but I'm having a little trouble understanding how it will truly sustain itself; how much involvement do other organizations have now; how many members do you expect to have; what if your sales are lower than expected? There really is no project or program here. Too vague. Who will be participating in this? Boulder Focus Although the applicant lives in Boulder, I have difficulty in believing his project in anyway is intended to benefit Boulder than serve as a launch pad for greater recognition nationally and internationally for the applicant. Boulder Arts Commission - 50 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Boulder Digital Arts Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 3.12 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 3 3 2 4 4 3.20 Tamil 4 3 4 4 4 3.80 Ann 4 4 3 3 4 3.60 Richard 1 2 2 1 4 2.00 Mark 2 2 3 4 4 3.00 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? I’m not convinced that producing a festival is actually an innovative experiment within the intent of the InnoGrant, even though featured are the juried exhibits of digital artists. Sounds really great. This could have the potential to be an excellent yearly event. Good to have at Dairy and have their support. BDA is a wildly success business that has created in Boulder a place to learn and grow in the digital world. It has a great reputation and enthusiastic following. Although a festival would be a great addition to the community, I don't see it as particularly innovative. The technology may be innovative, the goal of the experiment seems limited. It seems like they could get serious corporate sponsorships to fund the festival. Concerned that budget does not reflect the true costs of producing the festival. Experiment is not compelling. I don't see the experiment being innovative, while agreeing that this festival would serve as an acknowledgement for innovation in the digital arts. Certainly has the ability to germinate into something like BFF or CWA. How will you conduct the experiment? The steps to produce the festival appear straightforward. Although the applicant states that the Boulder Arts Commission - 51 June 15, 2016 biggest challenge is in curating the work for the viewer, the biggest challenge to me is how to attract the viewers to begin with. The application offers little to explain how and why a particular audience would be attracted to the event. Marketing seems too passive. Testing success will be important. Please explain a little more about how that will be done. Challenges are well explained. Explanation is adequate. It seems that it will bring a new component with the Digital Arts Festival. I would like to see sparking interest in teens, maybe adding workshops for youth, a contest, or other ideas to involve possible future digital artists. Also I would like to know how this event can be inclusive with underrepresented and low income individuals, maybe providing equipment or seminars to interested individuals (?) This score is directly tied to the experiment score. What do you hope to learn? Application states what success is based on, but not what it would look like. Specific measures of what is being evaluated would provide context. Please explain in a little more depth how you will acquire information on the event's success and how you use the information to move forward. I not sure what you learn other than if there is an audience for a digital festival. I think that answer is yes and hope BDA will pursue corporate sponsorships to fund the event. What might the impact be? Although the applicant emphasizes their excitement in producing the festival , the application doesn’t really speak to any potential benefits to BDA or the community through this festival - as an innovative experiment. There is hope that children will start careers in the digital arts after “seeing this stuff,” but the application doesn’t go further. And is the Dairy really impacted? Will this event happen yearly if it's successful or will other positive programs spin off from it? There would be benefits for the digital folks in Boulder in coming together to show their work to each other and the community. This is something that deserves support as the following comments indicate: inclusive as possible and inspire many people to submit. Involving many non-traditional "digital" groups, including youth, LGBT, military veterans, and sen ior citizen categories. At the end of the day, we actually hope it might actually start a few careers after kids see some of this stuff! Another nice Boulder Arts Commission - 52 June 15, 2016 bonus is that the Dairy Arts Center will have the opportunity to present within its walls the rapidly-growing artistic medium of digital art in all its many forms, further illustrating how the Dairy represents "all" kinds of art. Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 53 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 54 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Boulder Ensemble Theatre Company Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 3.28 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 4 4 4 4 3.60 Tamil 3 3 2 2 4 2.80 Ann 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 Richard 1 2 2 1 4 2.00 Mark 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? I’m not convinced that this networking effort to increase participation through a targeted business sector is innovative - a new focus and hopefully more effective perhaps, but not an innovative programmatic practice. This is the core of building cultural participation, a strategic framework discussed throughout the arts community for over 15 years. To state as part of the application that “no other arts organization has a program that will build relationships through networking and arts events” is incorrect. Arts organizations are doing this all the time. Because the target is the technology community doesn’t make it innovative. This is really worthwhile experiment and can potentially help not only BETC and other art related entities. Application was well written and persuasive--up to a point. It's an innovative approach to expanding audience. But I don't see that a pre show cocktail party is enough of an incentive for tech folk to buy tickets on Tuesday except that maybe other tech people will be there. The experiment seems to not do enough to incentivize the proposed ticket buyers. Attendance goal of 400 seems high for year one. I would suggest that you offer discounted or two for one tickets to employees of the companies you have been able to connect with. This effort is a very difficult Boulder Arts Commission - 55 June 15, 2016 endeavor for any arts organization and I applaud BETC for being willing to try to infiltrate start up and other companies in Boulder. I would love for this plan to succeed but I'm not convinced the idea includes enough incentives. Actually, when I first read the application, I thought about a different but similar effort sponsored by the Dairy for the ROs (and themselves). A Tech Tues at the Dairy, where the tech folks could choose between a film, a play or a performance in the Gamm, see a special tech art exhibit and a have a party on the deck or in the lobby. People will be attracted to the newly renovated Dairy (a curiosity factor) and be introduced to the Dairy's ROs over four or five Tech Tuesday's. Nonetheless, this proposal needs to be bigger in scope and collaborative to be successful. Proactive, instead of waiting for the audience to find you, you go searching for them. How will you conduct the experiment? Straightforward audience development strategy looking to deepen individual and corporation participation in BETC. Challenges and risk mitigation generally addressed. I think your approach is good to really focus on tech related people and see how best to encourage them to go. Your direct contact appeal k with hopefully be worthwhile. BETC has clearly described how they will conduct the experiment. BETC has found a niche to provide a social event catering to the tech sector. What do you hope to learn? I’m not doubting BETC has the tools to evaluate success. But specific success is only being measured by how many are attending the Tech Tuesday events. What are the other participation targets? Repeat attendance? New donor gifts? Volunteer time? What does building on -going relationships for future support actually look like? Your approach to measure results seems appropriate. Well presented evaluation plan. What might the impact be? Impact on BETC and the Boulder community is very generally stated - such could be said for any arts organization in Boulder. I’d assume these practices are already operationalized within BETC through their marketing and development efforts – just a more focused target in this case. I hope the project is successful and helps BETC and other art organization's and does get the tech groups more engaged in the arts. Your results could affect the performances you develop in the future. The benefits would be huge for BETC and I think for the entire arts community if it were successful. Boulder Arts Commission - 56 June 15, 2016 It seems that it is for the exclusive benefit of BETC's. Good that the BETC has identified were to start fostering donor a nd audience relationships. Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 57 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 58 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Boulder MUSE Foundation Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.88 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 3 3 3 4 3.00 Tamil 4 3 3 3 4 3.40 Ann 2 2 2 3 4 2.60 Richard 1 1 1 1 3 1.40 Mark 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? The applicant states that they wish to experiment with how to increase exposure of and participation in the MUSE program by members of the in-need Latino community. Fine. But such a marketing program that lacks much detail is not innovative. Neither is an unexplained “innovative approach to management.” The Boulder MUSE program holds a large and ambitious vision. It’s thinking big and that’s where the innovation may be living. But the focus of the application on implementation from year one into the second comes off as very constrained and limited and does not do the potential of the program justice. I’ve difficulty committing city funds to this program as addressed through their InnoGrant application. Please explain more about why this is a unique project and a new management concept. This seems like a typical project applied for under the art and Ed grant category. Certainly the merits of this program are laudable but it would be more appropriate as an Education grant. Is your goal of doubling enrollment and increasing to 80% the number of financial need students attainable? Boulder Arts Commission - 59 June 15, 2016 How will you conduct the experiment? The experiment as defined through the application is focused on marketing. It is not the implementation of the MUSE program itself. Therefore, a series of steps on how the program will be implemented and evaluated is irrelevant. Important is what the outreach to the target community looks like? How? Why? There appears to be an inherent conflict in targeting the program’s participants. MUSE wants to focus only on in -need families and their children, but the principal at Columbine Elementary wants to include all children. Why is MUSE only focusing on the Latino community as in-need. This is the part of the application that appears patronizing to me. They appear to be building a program "for" the “in -need Latino” community, and how beneficial it is "for" them. This is contrary to proven, successful strategies in building cultural diversity. The program should be developed "with" members of the community and "with" their desires addressed. Otherwise, no matter what your outreach looks like it’s not going to work. Please explain more how you specifically plan to engage Latino parents beyond the normal approaches you've been using. It seems a special outreach approach is needed since they and their children lack engagement now. How will you encourage the parents to complete the surveys? How do you reach out to the ones that didn't fill out the survey? Good concise list of action steps What do you hope to learn? The applicant has failed to align their answers to this point to the actual experiment. I'm unclear about how you will get parent's and children's perception of the program to increase by 40%, please explain more. Outreach and action with a population that does not see the value will be challenging. Building on your past success / allies at Columbine should bear fruit. What might the impact be? The applicant has failed to align their answers to this point to the actual experiment. The impact appears to be minimal. If your theory is proven to work will you need funds beyond your donor to continue? Please explain more about how you might change your program based on what you learn. Impact on students would be high but application more suitable for an Education grant. I understand one of MUSE 's interest is to introduce music, including classical music to Latinos. It is also good to be mindful that not been exposed to that musical genre or to instruments within that genre, does not mean that Latinos are not exposed to music, they may be exposed to other cultural musical genres. Boulder Arts Commission - 60 June 15, 2016 "Concerning Columbine parents, the hope is that conducting this experiment will create a higher consciousness about what MUSE's musical education brings to their lives. It is our hope that our efforts to communicate with them will ease parents’ anxiety about being outsiders in a program that they may not feel is historically an integral part of their culture". Very thou ghtful. Good to have a goal for broader outreach in BVSD Boulder Focus Although the pilot program is focused on Columbine Elementary in Boulder, I took a point off because the applicant’s answer to this criterion comes off as too “great-white-hopeish.” They could’ve just said yes. Boulder Arts Commission - 61 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 62 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Lemon Sponge Cake Contemporary Ballet Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.88 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 4 4 4 4 4 4.00 Tamil 3 3 2 3 4 3.00 Ann 3 3 3 4 4 3.40 Richard 1 1 1 1 4 1.60 Mark 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? I’m not looking to diminish the work of LSCCB, but I’m not certain as to what the innovative experiment is here. I’m seeing a request to fund an outdoor production of a new work. It’s not a new management concept and it’s not an emerging technology. And if the production of “White Fields” aligns clearly with the core mission of LSCCB, is it an untried programmatic practice? Especially when similar components have already been used for the “White Mirrors” production in Denver last fall. The request doesn’t seem to be aligned with the intent of the InnoGrant. Perhaps it’s more appropriate as a project grant. (Or funded through the city’s public art dollars?) Sounds like an excellent dance in a different outdoor performance space. It fits the innovation category as a cultural activity to engage in civic conversation in a new venue for performance arts. However, it would help if you'd better explain the experiment and what makes different from your other performances in terms of research and sending out a message? This project demonstrates a huge risk for the company (untried programmatic practice) and an incredible opportunity for Boulder. The experiment is multi fold. Can this international dance company, which performs in opera houses in Europe, be successful performing at a n outdoor untested venue in Boulder? The experiment is also about whether the neighborhood arts district can successfully support a major performing arts event in their community. It is also a test for Boulder. Will we support a major local dance company of high artistic quality in creating and Boulder Arts Commission - 63 June 15, 2016 performing a new and controversial piece in an up and coming arts focused neighborhood? What does it take to produce this kind of event? Can Boulder make room for artistic excellence in the realm of public art without drowning the project with rules and regulations? Needs more detail on how this outdoor performance benefits all Boulder cit izens. More specifics on the following: transformation of Holiday Park, help build character and quality to the site and surrounding area. Its certain inspire an increase in site-specific, public art. How will you conduct the experiment? There appears to be no experiment to be conducted other than what’s involved in developing and performing an LSCCB production, and what’s already been tested and proven then over the past 16 years. The steps are clear but could you help us better understand what you're testing and how that will be done? What are you doing to really get at the impact you may be having related to gun violence? Applicant adequately describes how the performance will be produced and what challenges must be faced in producing literally outside of a mainstream venue. Can you describe in more detail the educational programming? How many times it will be shown? It would be best if it was a series of events. Other parks and locations in mind? How underrepresented and low income groups will get informed about this event? Expensive. Any other secured funds? What do you hope to learn? There are means to evaluate the production that would appear to be used for any LSCCB seasonal performance – but no specific measures. So I’m not clear as to what success will specifically look like and how that’s applied against the InnoGrant’s purpose. Please help us better understand how you will measure the results of you experiment. I think the take away for the company and Boulder is whether we can/will support risk -taking original choreography in a unique public setting. LSC, the neighborhood and city will learn about what it takes to produce and support a high quality, outdoor, free to the public, art event of new work than can be produced annually in North Boulder or another location. LSC will use quantitative and qualitative measures (tools) to understand success or failure. good examples showing the variety of marketing outreach and the addition of a documentary filmmaker, but needs more details on what you hope to learn. What might the impact be? Isn’t the production of “White Fields” already operationalized in LSCCB programming? It’s who they are. Perhaps more could be elaborated on the production’s impact on anti-gun violence Boulder Arts Commission - 64 June 15, 2016 efforts. The potential impacts could be excellent since you're also making a film, developing education programs and having discussions. The project provides access to dance of high artistic quality to all of Boulder. Free and open to the public. It is sure to be a draw of audiences from surrounding communities and Denver. This project can demonstrate the viability of presenting high quality performance in an unconventional venue advancing many of the community priorities of the cultural plan especially--focus on the expression of culture and creativity in the public realm through public art, the urban landscape, culture in the neighborhoods and serendipit ous encounters with the arts. This is an incredible opportunity for Boulder to "amplify the vibrancy of Boulder's cultural destinations." It will also engage the civic conversation about gun violence; it is Art presented in new and/or uncommon venues; it includes Creative place-making activity as well as programs for underserved communities through its free ticket policy Funding this project at this time is especially important as little of the BAC's largess has been awarded to the dance community this year. It would take a secure annual funding source to "operationalize" (what a word) an annual performance free and open to the public. Should provide details of past success, ex: outdoor / interactive performance of White Mirror. Boulder Focus LSC is a local dance company that performs locally and internationally. Boulder Arts Commission - 65 June 15, 2016 Boulder Arts Commission - 66 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants Spark Boulder Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 2.96 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 2 2 2 2 4 2.40 Tamil 4 3 3 4 4 3.60 Ann 4 4 3 4 4 3.80 Richard 1 1 1 1 2 1.20 Mark 4 3 4 4 4 3.80 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? The “experiment” is to create the Spark Boulder Proto Lab – a new maker space on The Hill. Very interesting and possibly worth pursuing further. But it seems that Spark Boulder is looking for the city to be an investor in their start-up business, which appears to me to be contrary to what the intent of the InnoGrant is. Perhaps they should be directed with a business plan to the city’s economic vitality offices or the Boulder Economic Council at the Chamber. Further, by stating that their program’s multi-disciplines are “entrepreneurship, technology, education, innovation, professional development,” I question how aligned they truly are to the cultural arts community. And BAC would be the sole investor? The co-working space for people doing physical products seems good. How do people join and how much does It cost? It seems the current maker type spaces are quickly getting over crowded how will people schedule use/how will the space and use of equipment be managed? What exactly are you testing? How will you have funds for long term/day-to-day maintenance? How will you market the space? Please provide some examples of the type of innovations you're hoping will be created at your space. What is the experiment? Why is building a photo lab innovative? Who will use the lab? Budget does not look like the expenses of a photo lab. Boulder Arts Commission - 67 June 15, 2016 Good to provide an alternative maker space that fills gaps with existing spaces How will you conduct the experiment? Seems misaligned with the intent of the InnoGrant. What may be more appropriate is that their business model/plan be better developed and shopped elsewhere for start-up investors. Seems like an appropriate way to test the idea but wouldn't some longer term tracking be needed to see how successful the companies/products have become? What is the experiment? I would like to see pictures of the space. The scalable ability is a good contingency to have in place. Need to provide specifics regarding marketing campaign for donations. use of social media perhaps? What do you hope to learn? Seems misaligned with the intent of the InnoGrant. What may be more appropriate is that their business model/plan be better developed and shopped elsewhere for start-up investors. How will you market and advertise the space so the community at large knows about and appreciates what you're doing? Not compelling. How will this project will be engaging underrepresented groups in our community? Any Strategies. What might the impact be? Seems misaligned with the intent of the InnoGrant. What may be more appropriate is that their business model/plan be better developed and shopped elsewhere for start-up investors. It seems like there is a gap in providing equipment and space for hardware entrepreneurs in Boulder and that this might help. Impact seems small. How many people get to use this lab? Who are they? Boulder Focus Although they are located on The Hill, I’d like them to clarify their business status. They say they’re a non- profit (501[c]3) but the CO Secretary of State’s Web site does not appear to recognize them in that way. (Nor can I find them on Guide Star.) Instead, the most recent filing with CO identifies them as a Foreign Limited Liability Company with their principal office in Chicago (Delaware jurisdiction), while their registered agent (Corporation Service Company, a legal service) is headquartered in Denver. The person filing the documentation is a notary based in San Francisco. Hmmm. Boulder Arts Commission - 68 June 15, 2016 Innovation Fund Grants square product theatre Average of All Boulder Arts Commissioner Scores: 3.16 What is the experiment? How will you conduct the experiment? What do you hope to learn? What might the impact be? Boulder Focus Average Felicia 3 3 3 4 4 3.40 Tamil 3 3 3 4 4 3.40 Ann 4 3 4 4 4 3.80 Richard 1 1 1 1 4 1.60 Mark 4 3 3 4 4 3.60 Questions and Comments from the Arts Commissioners What is the experiment? I’m not looking to diminish the work of square product. But I’m not seeing the organizing of a season’s productions under a common theme as innovative. It’s not experimenting with a new management concept, or a new technology. And although a thematic element to the season is new for square product, I don’t see it really aligning with the InnoGrant as an untried programmatic practice. This project seems like a good experiment that will hopefully engage many people in important and hopefully meaningful discussions. Not sure what the experiment is. Are you working with local groups like Boulder Coalition and Alliance on Race and Showing Up for Racial Justice (Boulder). SURJ is a national network of groups and individuals organizing White people for racial justice. BCAR meets to face racism. Racism affects everyone. BCAR holds a space for all to dialogue freely. Through nonviolent communication, critical thinking, learning and activism, we achieve right relationship, racial and social justice. Also, you might speak with the folks who produced the Immigration + Arts program about dealing with difficult subject matter as well as the YWCA, with its goal of eliminating racism. You will need a professional facilitator to facilitate Q&A and other meetings especially if the audience is not all Anglo. Boulder Arts Commission - 69 June 15, 2016 I believe Power and Privilege is a needed topic to discuss. It seems expensive. Are the other grants secured? A thematic schedule with an edge in the content looks like it will challenge the audience and the theater company. How will you conduct the experiment? There appears to be no experiment to be conducted other than what’s involved in developing, marketing, and performing a square product th eatre performance season. Can you provide a little more information so we clearly understand how you will test the concept and how you'll utilize the information you gather for future productions, discussions, collaborators, set design, etc? I would like to see these presentations in locations in which under-privilege people participate or are active. How many times will you show it? What do you hope to learn? There are vaguely stated means to evaluate the season’s success - but no specific measures. So I’m not clear as to what success will specifically look like and how that’s applied against the InnoGrant’s purpose. Sounds like you should be able to learn what ways work best to reach Boulder audiences related to difficult topics and hopefully help you move forward in new ways. Will there be an effort to attract an audience who has first hand experiences with white privilege? Need to flesh out the social media component that your audience and the community will be using. What might the impact be? Seems rather vague and generally stated. If we don’t know what success specifically looks like, how do we know impact? It's good that it includes local residents, students, professionals from outside of Boulder and new ways to get at the discussions which should all help broaden the conversation, broaden Boulder residents and help all involved. Any effort to get people talking about white privilege is worthy as few white Americans have any idea of their inherent racism. Will you have an action plan to recomme nd to the audience for dealing with privilege? Having your audience / community drive the content of the next season sounds like a great & Boulder Arts Commission - 70 June 15, 2016 challenging outcome. Boulder Focus Boulder Arts Commission - 71 June 15, 2016 Submitted by Stephanie Fida on May 31st, 2016 World Music Drumming Grant Report Financial Accounting I purchased the Remo 12 tubano package from West Music at a cost of $2641.90, and with shipping the total came to $2861.20. The rest of the money has been set aside to put toward more drums once we receive the remainder of the grant money. Below is a copy of the purchase receipt: Please Note: This email has been generated by an automated service. Do not reply to this email to respond. Please contact West Music customer service at service@westmusic.com with any questions. Order Confirmation Information Order #351584 Order Date: 5/26/2015 4:09:20 PM This is a receipt for the order you placed with West Music. Once your order has shipped, you will receive a shipping confirmation email with tracking information. For added security, we may contact you about your order. In-Store Pickup Orders - Don't Head To The Store Yet! If you selected in-store pick up at one of our Iowa or Illinois locations, your shipping confirmation email will indicate that your items are ready for pick-up. Store locations and hours can be found here. Thanks again for shopping at West Music. Shipping and Billing Billing Info Shipping Info Columbine Elementary Columbine Elementary School 3130 Repplier St. Boulder,CO 80304 USA stephanie.fida@bvsd.org 720-561-2500 Stephanie Fida Columbine Elementary 3130 Repplier St. Boulder, CO 80304 USA 203-215-7054 Order Details Product Name Availability Ship Via Qty Price Remo RT-WEST 12 Tubano Package (204087) In Stock, Ready to Ship! Standard 1 $2,641.90 Shure SM58S Vocal Microphone w/On-Off Switch In Stock, Ready to Standard 1 $104.00 Boulder Arts Commission - 72 June 15, 2016 (630150) Ship! Total Merchandise: $2,745.90 Total Taxes: $0.00 Additional discounts applied: $0.00 Total Shipping: $219.30 Order Total: $2,965.20 School Day/After School Use The goal for this grant money was to provide instruments to students in order to implement the World Music Drumming curriculum in the 2015-2016 school year, and in doing so engage more students in learning to play an instrument with a large group. In our Title I school where resources are meager, we are not able to provide all students with identical instruments during all musical activities. With this grant, we are moving closer to having enough large drums (with the capacity to play low and high tones) for all students. With our new set of 12 drums, our inventory now stands at 16 large sized (tubano and conga) drums, plus 2 medium sized djembes, 2 bongos, and 10 small sized hand drums. It was wonderful to have access to a sufficient amount of drums for the entirety of the school year. I unpacked our new drums in August 2015 and they saw continuous use all school year until I put them away on the last day of school in May 2016! In Kindergarten and 1st grade, I used our tubano drums to teach ensemble skills (specifically beginning and ending together) and to improve fine motor skills. Students learn the difference between high and low sounds that these drums can create (not all drums can create high and low sounds; one of the reasons why I chose to purchase these drums), and use different parts of their hands to create these sounds. I also used the drums to teach some introductory improvisation skills in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade. Improvisation requires students to listen carefully and create their own rhythmic patterns that fit into a specified space and time. Improvisation becomes much more accessible on drums since most students can easily master hand techniques, and do not need to be concerned with playing different pitches (as on piano, guitar, and xylophone). During the spring of 2016, 4th grade worked on both Ensemble 1 and 2 from the World Music Drumming curriculum. These ensembles have students practice patterns of high and low sounds on drums, and then introduces layering in many different parts at once. When there are 3 drum parts, along with cowbell, shaker, and agogo bell parts happening simultaneously, it helps students to hone both listening and teamwork skills. Furthermore, we were able to integrate drums into our grade level concert programs this year. With our first grade, we did a program of all African music. It was great to have authentic looking and sounding drums for this performance in particular. Students were very motivated to try out to play the drums in a small group during this performance. For graduation, several of our 5th graders were able to use the drums to accompany “Waving Flag” which added a rhythmic layer Boulder Arts Commission - 73 June 15, 2016 to the singing performance. (5th graders only participate in instrumental music instruction in our school, so this was their only chance to use our new drums this year) I was not able to secure funding for a African drumming specific after school class this school year. However, late last spring Columbine Elementary was chosen to be the pilot school in the Boulder Valley School District for an El Sistema style after school music program that is free to all students in our school. This program includes choral, instrumental, and music theory instruction. As one of the teachers for this program, it has been helpful to have drums available to teach rhythmic concepts and small ensemble skills to our group which serves students from 1st to 5th grades. Overall Effect/Successes Receiving this grant has given our school access to another musical medium that has diversified how we are able to teach concepts in the classroom, improved behavior, and been beneficial for the multitude of learners in our school. With these new drums, we were able to expose most of our Kindergarten through 4th grade students (approximately 450 students) to African drumming techniques. I noticed that my students are always very excited when I tell them we will be working with drums that day. They are eager to explore the different sized tubanos, so we switch instruments throughout class. Students take pride in moving the drums from storage and especially like to “put them to sleep” (cover them up with blankets) when they are done. The World Music Drumming curriculum stresses teaching/learning through an aural tradition, and is incredibly kinesthetic in nature. This is incredibly beneficial for our students who are English language learners (ELLs) as they do not need to learn how to read music (yet another language) in order to participate. We have a large population of ELLs, and I noticed that two of my newest students (Spanish and Vietnamese speakers) had no problem following along with what I was teaching. Furthermore, I have many students that come from high poverty and traumatic family situations, and these students remain very focused in class when we are playing drums (and much less so when they are not playing drums). I believe they are invested because drumming is fun and perceived as a “cool” instrument to play. For some of my students, I believe it is a form of therapy to be able to hit an instrument and create beautiful music (whereas when they hit other things/people they get in trouble). My main evaluation method was that which I already use in my classroom. BVSD employs a 4 point system in order to evaluate students on benchmarks in the classroom. 4 indicates excellent understanding, 3 indicates basic understanding and means a student has reached the grade level standard, 2 indicates they are just below the standard, and 1 indicates that they need much more practice before they reach the standard. In Kindergarten and 1st grade, I evaluated my students by asking if they could create low and high tones on the drum (technique) and if they could start/stop together. For 2nd and 3rd grade I asked each student if they could perform self created, improvised 4 beat patterns on demand. Most students achieved 3’s and 4’s on these tasks throughout 2 trimesters. Boulder Arts Commission - 74 June 15, 2016 In 4th grade, I asked students to memorize parts and play individual parts in a musical ensemble where 5-6 different rhythmic layers are occurring at the same time (see videos). As ensemble work utilizes listening and playing skills, more students were in the 2 and 3 range, with only a small handful receiving 4’s. Although I thought 4th grade was successful with the tasks put before them, I would have liked to get through more complicated ensembles. This school year we got through the first 2, mostly due to time constraints. Next year, I hope to start earlier and give the drums more exposure in class so students are quite comfortable playing in ensembles with multiple parts and instruments. And I would ultimately like to perform one of the World Music Drumming Ensembles in our grade level concert. Since these drums now reside in Columbine Elementary’s music department permanently, every student in our school will get a chance to play them throughout the upcoming school years. This means that hundreds of students will have exposure to drumming techniques. Although this does not directly affect the economic vitality of the city of Boulder, it does contribute to everyone’s education and life experience. If a child’s love of music is fostered through drumming, perhaps that means they will participate in band, or play in church, or ultimately choose music over being involved in a gang. Videos: 1. Ensemble 1: 4th graders practicing multi part ensemble with drums. 2. Ensemble 2: 4th graders performing for another 4th grade class. Ensemble 2 World Music Drumming Boulder Arts Commission - 75 June 15, 2016 Ensemble 1 World Music Drumming Boulder Arts Commission - 76 June 15, 2016 Attachment Four Summary of Interviews The 2016 cycle of Boulder Arts Commission (BAC) grants is a major step forward in recommendations from the Community Cultural Plan. The goal of making these changes was a bold experiment. As stated in the memo, above, the new program was primarily designed to take a big step in fulfilling the goal of the Support our Cultural Organizations Strategy: Have a substantial and positive effect on the ability of Boulder’s many cultural organizations to advance their operational capacity, promote organizational resiliency, and encourage innovation for the benefit of the community. In order to do this in a manner that was productive, well stewarded, and a good return on the investment of the Public Trust, staff and the members of the BAC agreed to deploy certain principles: Focus on operational grants guided by the “six principles of operational grants” set out by the Alliance of State Granting Org… Ensure that the process was oriented to the applicant, rather than for the convenience of either staff or the BAC. Design the grant categories, funding amounts, and reporting structure to truly matter to the organizations and the community. With the majority of the first cycle of this new system now behind us, it is clear that the experiment was a success. The principles above are proved valid, and the progress towards the strategic goal is clear. The grant program is in its infancy and, for it to mature during the next nine years of the Cultural Plan, we need to take this opportunity to bolster the things that went well, and improve on the shortcomings. In order to get broad input about what went well and what needs improvement, I conducted a series of individual and small group meetings in April and May of this year. I spoke with more than 20 people about the experience folks had with applying for, and having their applications juried, in the 2016 grants cycle. It was my goal with each interview to a) compile all thoughts on what areas of the grants program needed improvement, and b) to gather honest and forthright opinions by guaranteeing the anonymity of the conversation. Some had received grants, most had not. But, all had valuable criticisms and ideas that will be useful in the discussion of how to take steps for improving the 2017 grants cycle. A few notes: First, in the interest of making sure every opinion I heard is articulated, a small number of the people I interviewed simply felt that their application was worthy of an award, and were upset that it was not funded. There is some contradictory information in the summary. This is only because I made an attempt to express every opinion I heard, even if I received incongruous suggestions. Also, there are several issues which have been the subject of discussion in past BAC meetings. Finally, please know that these are only observations about the problems people told me were important to solve. I received many suggestions for improvements, and no doubt the members of the BAC have Boulder Arts Commission - 77 June 15, 2016 their own thoughts on what to do next. However, the purpose of this document, and of the presentation and discussion at the June meeting, is to set forth the priority problems to solve. We will get to the discussion of solutions in a future meeting. Summary of Findings: A. Communications. Many people expressed the opinion that staff and the members of the BAC could have done a much better job in communications. This is true both of the clarity of communicating the process and in the tools for conveying information that were built into the process. 1. Clarity of Guidelines and Eligibility. People I interviewed reported many mixed messages on the criteria for calculating and reporting their budgets, on how the distribution amounts would be calculated, on how decisions would be made in the case of tied scores, and other issues. While the process had been established for these areas, we did not do a good job making sure that information was available. In some cases, we purposefully built in flexibility to the process. For instance, we allowed applicants who did not appear to meet eligibility criteria to make their case to the full commission, rather than be rejected outright by staff without recourse. It was observed that, where this flexibility was included, staff did not do an adequate job in communicating and clarifying these steps for applicants or to commissioners. Related to this was the fact that a few people experienced contradictory recomendations from staff and members of the BAC. 2. Scoring Criteria/Rubric Unclear. The lack of clear scoring criteria and a published rubric put organizations at a disadvantage in how to write and present their grants. 3. Clear Point of Contact. It was suggested that there be a single point of contact for questions about the grants, and that commissioners should not be in contact with applicants. B. Application and Jury Processes. 1. Timing Issues. Some observed that there was too little time for both the development a strong application, and for the commissioners to properly review those applications. In addition, the timing of project and eligibility was observed to be clumsy. The eligibilty criteria states that, for project grants and scholarships, people may apply if the project takes place after the grant deadline. However, there were a few projects and scholarships for which the project took place after the grant deadline, but also before BAC review. 2. Number of Jury Questions and Scores. Many applicants felt that there were significant limitations to having a set of only three or four jury questions. That fact, combined with the fact that the scoring was limited to 1-4, creates a rubric that ties the commissioners hands on how nuanced and clear their scores could be to reflect the variety of applications they reviewed. 3. Juror Comments. Though generally seen as a positive tool for the applicants, many people expressed the opinion that the juror comments were only useful if it was a requirement for every juror to supply a clear question when they gave a low score. One person observed that these juror questions were uncomfortable, as everyone could see the negative comments that were associated with their application. Boulder Arts Commission - 78 June 15, 2016 4. Three Minute Presentations. There were mixed thoughts on the new process step which allows applicants to provide presentations in answer to the jury comments. Some felt this was a good step forward in providing for some response and interaction between the BAC and the applicants. Others thought that this was inadequate, and did not provide for the back-and-forth that was desired. 5. Expertise and Sophistication of the Jury. Many comments were made to me about the challenges that commissioners face as jury members. Most people wished that there were a way for the members of the BAC to visit events, exhibitions, and performances from every organization that applied. This is admittedly not possible. However, it is a fact that first-hand experience with the work of these organizations was not always something the jury had available in making decisions. A few individuals felt that the jury comments, and discussion during the meetings, were inexpert and exposed a lack of understanding among commissioners about certain disciplines or about non-profit management. (I will note that, while acknowledging this observation, qualifications for application to be a member of the Boulder Arts Commission do not include a comprehensive knowledge of all arts disciplines or experience with non-profit management.) It was widely observed that the small number of jurors caused problems due to the outsized influence that every jurors scores have on the outcome of a decision. It was the opinion of some people that certain members of the BAC have biases that affected the scoring and decisions. Some felt that the jury members should be completely impartial and without any form of bias. A few people had a more nuanced view, acknowledging that bias or preference will always occur, and that it can sometimes be healthy to the mix of personalities on a commission. However, they point out that any specific agenda that is reflected in the scoring should have been clearly part of the grant categories or application so that organizations had the opportunity to address that initiative. 6. Common Grant Questions. There was general praise for the inclusion of language and questions from the Colorado Common Grant. One person felt this was biased towards large organizations and at the expense of small groups. 7. Jury Comments. There were several issues people brought up around the structure and use of the jury comments: As stated above, it is troubling to many people that jury members gave low scores but did not provide questions or justifications for the applicant to address in their presentation. Further, what is written in the comments section needs to be clear. And, if it an issue is going to affect the score, it cannot be left out of the comments section. One person observed that the jury comments, available for everyone to read, can be insulting and embarrassing. Many people felt that a critical piece of dialog between jury members was missing in the rescoring step of the process. They observe that knowing the thought process behind a change in score is necessary for transparency. On a related note, a few folks pointed out that the purpose of the rescoring is to discuss new information that has come up from the presentations. Boulder Arts Commission - 79 June 15, 2016 For that to work, it is necessary for the jury members to discuss what was presented, and put forward arguments that might convince others to revise their perspective. 8. Scoring practices. A few individuals said that scoring between commissioners should be consistent. One person offered a more specific description, saying that the justifications for a score, even if it differs widely from that of other jury members, should be justified within a clearly articulated rubric. There should be no reasons outside of the rubric to score low. C. Strategy. 1. Organizational Grants and Multi-year Funding. Most people I interviewed approved of the concept of operational funding and multi-year grants. There is a singular challenge to the way we have structured it, which is discussed below. 2. Good Questions. There were several applicants who found the jury questions much improved over the previous grants system. 3. Artistic Merit / Excellence. The exception to this approval of the new questions is the lack of an opportunity to applicants to present, and jurors to score, issues of artistic excellence. This, they felt, eliminated the ability for the grants program to fulfill aspects of the Cultural Plan that encourage innovative work, and the improvement of Boulder as an environment for artists to live and do their work. Contrary to this observation, one person felt that it was good to not have a specific criterion for excellence. By doing so, they believe, the grants were oriented to community good and not to the individual taste of the jury members. 4. Some Disciplines Not Represented. It was pointed out that there were not equitable distributions of grants to all the arts disciplines. 5. The Challenge of Diversity as a Focus. Several people pointed out that diversity, as a intentional focus area of the grants, poses many challenges. First, it was not clear that this was a criterion of the application. Also, diversity of ethnicity appears to have been more important than other forms such as age or socio-economic status. Finally, there was some discussion about the fact that, in a place like Boulder, it is difficult to make blanket assumptions about how diverse audiences, leaders, and artists can be engaged with organizations, especially for small, niche groups that have a targeted mission. 6. Investment in Boulder Organizations. One person articulated the opinion that the city of Boulder invests less in cultural programs than do other cities; that they receive more funds from other municipalities to come and present work in their own communities versus what is received right here in Boulder. 7. Eligibility Criteria. Several questions were raised about how our eligibility criteria reflect our strategy and philosophy for the grants: Some observed that there is a gap in eligibility which prevents large organizations that are community-oriented for-profit groups from applying for grants. On the other hand, one person was of the opinion that no organization that is not a 501c3 non-profit should be allowed to apply. One person voiced the opinion that they were uncomfortable with the fact that we have opened certain grants to applicants outside of Boulder. Contrary to this, it was another person thought Boulder Arts Commission - 80 June 15, 2016 that large organizations from outside Boulder should be eligible for funding if they offer substantial benefit to our community. A few people felt it was challenging for the grants to continue to allow grant recipients to apply for multiple opportunities in a single year. There was a significant lack of clarity among both applicants and among commissioners around the process for determining eligibility and how the “appeal” process functioned. 8. Too Few Grant Categories. People I interviewed expressed that the spectrum of different grant categories was too few and that this fact created some inequities in how the funds were distributed. For instance, some smaller organizations have enormous portions of their budget from the operational grant while larger organizations within the same category have very little. Similarly, issues like innovation, diversity, and broad cultural change seemed to creep into what was intended to be a straight-forward operational grant that was not intended for those purposes. If it is important to promote these initiatives, those categories of grants should be established. 9. Bias for Large Organizations. One person felt strongly that the grant application and process was biased towards large organizations with the capacity to hire grant writers. 10. The Funding Landscape. As of the drafting of this memo, the members of the jury gave scores of 3 or higher to [50] applications, yet staff was only able to provide funding for [27] of those applications. Thus, there is a significant gap between what the jury members felt was adequate community need, and the budget available to meet that need. In addition, it was observed that the grants program is unintentionally exacerbating a financial cliff that exists in the funding environment in Boulder. The other significant operational grants available to our organizations come from SCFD. Yet, the structure of SCFD has a built in problem when it comes to the larges of the Tier III organizations. They receive very little of a percentage of their budget compared to the smaller Tier IIIs and Tier IIs on either side of them. There was a hope that our grants program might be able to fill in this serious gap. However, because of the few number of grants that were awarded, the lack of nuanced spectrum of different grant levels in the large organizational category, and the fact that the grant cycle has a three-year gap between opportunities, it was observed that the organizations that find themselves victims of the SCFD cliff are doubly endangered. Boulder Arts Commission - 81 June 15, 2016