The Audit

As part of the internal effort to review and revise its system of allocating funding to artists, the city of Austin undertook an audit of the Cultural Contracts Program this year. Staff from the city auditor's office observed the FY 2003 process and produced a draft report, which was presented to council on Oct. 1. It lays out the history of the program and ways in which the Arts Commission and allocations process has failed to fulfill their mission as defined in a 1986 ordinance. As reported in these pages by Mike Clark-Madison ("Austin's Creative Clash," Oct. 4, 2002), the draft focuses most of its criticism on the commission for focusing on short-term problems at the expense of long-term solutions and its poor communication skills. The report is available at www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/com_au02304.htm. Here are a few excerpts.

"As passed by the City Council in 1986, the ordinance states that the Arts Commission is an advisory body whose duties include developing long-range plans, establishing an allocations process, and coordinating the implementation of a comprehensive arts plan. However, the Commission has not allocated its time to long-term planning, but rather to resolving immediate problems of each funding year. Further, the Commission has interpreted the requirement to conduct an annual review survey of the allocation process as a call for incorporating modifications in the process after every funding year. In addition, the Commission has not effectively communicated information about conflict of interest as it applies to the funding allocation process."

"The Commission, though empowered by ordinance to implement the recommendations and strategies in the ACAP [Austin Comprehensive Arts Plan], has made minute progress, because the Commission appears focused on short-term issues."

"The Commission has not developed any policies that establish programming priorities."

"The absence of sound criteria for assessing and scoring artist's applications and artistic presentation and applying the scores to a fair allocation scheme for funding erodes faith in the process. To compound the problem, commissioners step in with contingency funding and modify funding amounts recommended by panels, using what appear to be personal criteria and applying them somewhat arbitrarily."

"Verbal communication among commissioners, panelists, and artists sometimes becomes emotional and mean-spirited."