Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission approves Measure P grant recommendations amid disputes over process and equity

The Parks, Recreation and Arts Commission on Oct. 13 approved the Fresno Arts Council's list of recommended Expanded Access to Arts and Culture (EAAC) grantees and funding amounts tied to Measure P, while dozens of artists and nonprofit representatives urged commissioners to address alleged conflicts of interest, procedural errors and to release funds quickly.

The commission voted to approve four categories of awards as recommended by the Fresno Arts Council and the PRAC Cultural Arts Subcommittee: Emerging organizations general operating support; Emerging organization project-specific support; Established organizations general operating support; and Established organization project-specific support. Each motion was made and seconded and the chair announced the items approved. Vice Chair Laura Ward recused herself from the vote on at least one project-specific item due to a declared conflict of interest.

The vote follows a detailed presentation by Guilia Gonzalez Chavez, executive director of the Fresno Arts Council, who described the EAAC process this year, panelist recruitment and training, and the scoring rubric used to adjudicate applications. Gonzalez Chavez told the commission that the RFP and adjudication began in 2024, that 277 letters of intent were submitted (269 were eligible to apply), and that applicants requested $16,140,816.31. She said approximately $5,562,800 was available for this cycle and that a combination of recovered funds and unspent project carryover added $740,571.31, bringing the recommended funding pool to about $6,303,371.31.

Why it matters: The Measure P-funded EAAC program is a major new infusion of ongoing arts funding for Fresno. Applicants and panelists said delays in approving recommendations and disagreements over process risk undermining small organizations and individuals who depend on grants to deliver programs in neighborhoods across the city.

Commissioners and staff emphasized process improvements are planned for the 2026 cycle. Andrea Mehl of the Fresno Arts Council explained scoring procedures: established organizations were scored on a seven-question rubric (1'16 scale) with weighted questions for operating and project support; emerging organizations were scored holistically on the same 1'16 scale and averaged across panelists.

Public testimony at length: More than 40 people signed up to speak during the EAAC agenda item and in online public comment. Supporters of the recommendations described the grants as vital to operations and public programs. Arianna Paz Chavez, executive director of Arte AmE9ricas, said the organization needs recommended funding to cover basic safety and accessibility costs for its public programs and requested the commission approve the awards so organizations can begin work.

Other commenters and some panelists pressed the commission to delay approval until allegations and complaints about the review process are investigated. Multiple speakers alleged inappropriate input by Fresno Arts Council staff during panel reviews, denied public access to panel recordings, raised concerns about panelist recruitment and demographic balance, and questioned category allocations that left emerging project applicants with lower odds of funding than other categories.

Several speakers, including Hugo Morales of RaADvi Bilingue and Amy Kitchener, executive director of the Alliance for California Traditional Arts (online), urged the commission to allocate additional funds to fund more emerging projects. Morales proposed funding all emerging projects that scored in the "3" range at 30% of their requested amount, which he estimated would require an additional $442,577 and would raise the funded percentage in that category to roughly 81%.

Allegations and legal references: A number of public commenters asserted statutory or Brown Act violations, citing closed meetings, denial of recording by observers, and other procedural failures. One commenter referenced specific California statutes and codes in arguing the process had legal defects; commissioners and staff acknowledged public concern and said they would consider process changes but did not pause the vote.

Commission action and next steps: The commission approved the recommendations as presented. Commissioners and staff said they will schedule public meetings to solicit feedback and pursue process improvements prior to the next funding cycle, and that award letters will require budget revisions and reporting. Vice Chair Ward publicly recused herself from at least one project-specific vote because of a conflict of interest.

Context and timeline: FAC staff said the RFP and outreach included workshops (in-person and virtual), an LOI phase and multiple panel review sessions held July 28—Aug. 13. FAC reported substantial outreach and technical assistance but said some applicants remained ineligible due to missing state or federal clearances and that state reporting systems sometimes delayed applicants' ability to meet requirements.

Commissioners did not provide a roll-call tally in the meeting minutes beyond the chair's announcement that each item was approved; the meeting record shows motions, seconds and the chair's announcement of approval. Commissioners and FAC staff said they will post revised guidelines and host additional public meetings to address equity and transparency concerns.

Ending: Commissioners said the approved awards will allow many organizations to begin or continue programming funded by Measure P, but several speakers said they will continue to press the commission for investigations and reforms to address allegations of bias and to ensure equitable access to future funding.