posted with permission of Chris Johnson, Chair of the Oakland Cultural Affairs Commission:

From: Chris Johnson
Subject: Retreat Reflections
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:39:05 -0800

In my experience there is always some degree of tension between two dynamics within retreat discussions. On the one hand there is the teleological, pre-determined vision of the organizers and facilitator of what an ideal outcome should be. The other is an emergent process that results from the complex interaction of the participants with the underlying realities of the subject being dealt with.

My sense is that the success of our recent retreat is that the managed, pre-assumptions of the organizers provided a means for the deeper issues to emerge, and then the facilitator was open enough to allow the emergent processes to steer the discussion to an unanticipated end. For this I would like to sincerely commend Steve, the facilitator (sorry, I didn’t record her name), Suki and Hyland and the staff for all doing excellent jobs!

Given the complex and daunting concerns that are real for us, we should not be disappointed that the retreat seemed to end without any concrete and sharply defined action plans and roles for us to play.
Here is my assessment of some of these issues:

1) The citizens of Oakland and our elected officials are not instantly going to revise their devotions to market-driven attitudes and suddenly recognize the powerful contributions that the creative process makes to our well-being and productive ways of life.

This means that the Commission cannot assume that there will be a watershed of support for the taxes that would be required to substantially increase the allocation of the City budget currently being committed to our programs. In fact, just the opposite is in the offing.

2) As you could see from the presentations by the City Attorneys who met with us, there is currently no clear and defensible rebuttal to Sanjiv’s use of the Sunshine and Brown Acts that hamper the Commission’s ability to meet with and plan strategically either within itself or together with the Mayor’s Office and CCAD staff.
3) Given the major staff reductions the CCAD has experienced, it is not practical to plan or develop programs that would require the implementation and maintenance that the Department might otherwise provide.

All of this became clear to everyone at the retreat. And of course, these are things that some of us have been aware of for some time. And it’s daunting.

But, as I tried to articulate towards the end of the meeting, we also have many strong and positive factors that provide opportunities for fresh thinking:

First of all, the arrival of so many talented, energetic and committed new Commissioners is exciting and gives us some new possibilities. People who complain that we are not doing enough don’t take into account the fact that the Ordinance that governs the Commission was to some extent based on the assumption that Commissioners would be retired volunteers with lots of free time to devote to civic projects. And that was once much more the case than now. The fact is that, if you add up all of the contributions that are currently being made to the arts culture of Oakland by the current membership of the Commission, it would be an impressive list; even though that activity does not fall within the parameters of the Commission itself.

Nevertheless, I sensed a strong willingness by those at the retreat to become more directly involved, if there are clear guidelines pointing to meaningful results.
This first factor dovetails with the second new reality that has emerged recently; and that is the sophisticated activism represented by the Spokes and other neighborhood-oriented organizations who have appeared and presented at our meetings.
Before I agreed to be appointed to a second term as Chair of the Commission I consulted withBen Hazard, the then Director of the CCAD, andErica Harrold, Jerry Brown’s Executive Assistant, to see if they would support an initiative I envisioned that I called the Oakland Neighborhood Arts Alliance (ONNA). They did and the following is a draft text I used as talking points for this idea:

Oakland Neighborhood Arts Alliance

“To explore the feasibility of creating a coalition organization of neighborhood arts organizations for the purpose of:

Collective fundraising

City-wide strategic planning and lobbying

The efficient use of the services of a proposed CCAD part-time staff liaison.

Other goals and mandates as determined by the member organizations.

Oakland's local arts organizations belong to the citizens of the neighborhoods they were created to serve and it should be a fundamental principle of this proposed organization that no policies or projects undertaken in any way compromise the autonomy, independence or unique visions of participating members.

The leadership, goals, organizing policies etc. will all be determined and implemented by ONAA members.

The Craft and Cultural Arts Department will provide a designated part-time staff person to facilitate any yet to be determined services deemed appropriate by ONAA and the Cultural Affairs Commission liaisons.”

Leslie Holzman, the then Public Arts Coordinator, and I had a very promising meeting organized by the Eastside Arts Alliance at their offices that suggested that this idea had real promise and, for a short time it seemed feasible to imagine that the political will could be generated to support the designated staff person I envisioned. Then the major budget cuts were forced on the CCAD and I had to table this idea.

I wonder if it might now be possible to revisit this notion but with the following modifications:

If a small group of Commissioners were willing to take responsibility for working closely with the new emergent groups, it might be possible to provide the array of varied neighborhood arts organizations in Oakland with the kinds of databases of information and collective voices the ONNA was calling for. The idea of creating a booklet of City services that has been mentioned could be a part of this idea. This would not be the kind of “one-stop” neighborhood arts savvy staff person I was hoping for, but it would be a move in that direction.

My second suggestion relates to the Sanjiv-factor. First I should say that as annoying as he can be, I actually greatly admire his passionate commitment to the public good. I just think that he is overzealous and too embattled to be reasoned with. I have even tried asking him directly to sit in on the strategic planning Working Group meetings we once had but, for some reason he never responded to that idea. I’ve even considered just meeting in secret but that did not seem like a sustainable option.

As you heard, the City-Attorney’s Office could never give us the kind of clear and positive support that we would need to go forward with those meetings. But perhaps I didn’t try hard enough to get that.

I wonder what would happen if we sat down with John Russo himself, outlined what we are trying to accomplish to see if there is a position and means to do what we want that he would declare his Office is willing to defend against Sanjiv’s attacks? Certainly other Commissions or public bodies MUST have ways to regularly meet in groups that are large and varied enough to meaningfully plan and strategize general policy goals and directions. With the City Attorney’s Office solidly behind us it might be possible to hold Sanjiv at bay enough to get stuff done.

These are just some personal reflections on what happened on Wednesday and, I’m assuming, are appropriate to share. But of course, I’m coming to the end of my six years on the Commission so I’m not inclined to feel threatened by policies I don’t agree with.

Thanks again to all of you and the staff for a productive and stimulating retreat and I look forward to seeing you at the next Commission meeting.

Sincerely,

Chris Johnson