Human Relations Commission: conciliation agreement near completion; Metro Arts grant policies sent to council

The Metro Human Relations Commission reported on an ongoing conciliation agreement with Metro Arts and said key documents and grant-policy changes have been submitted to Metro Council, but some errors in the paperwork require corrections before final approval.

The update matters because the conciliation agreement — arising from a Title VI complaint and intended to change how Metro Arts distributes public arts funding — affects how roughly $3.2 million budgeted for Metro Arts grants will be allocated and administered this fiscal year.

MHRC staff member Ashley (last name not provided) told commissioners that Metro Legal completed a legal manual for boards and commissions as part of the conciliation agreement and has printed copies for distribution. Ashley said the Arts Commission approved a slate of grant policies on Dec. 5 and that the policies and supporting guidelines were submitted to Metro Council on Jan. 6 “so that deadline was met.” She added, however, that when MHRC staff reviewed the documents late on the prior Friday they found omissions and errors: “There is just a lot of errors, decisions that had been authorized by the arts commission…were not in the paperwork that was being submitted.”

David (MHRC staff) described the legal manual as long-awaited and useful, saying it “is an excellent document” and that it explains bylaws, Robert’s Rules and the powers and operations of boards and commissions. Mel Fowler Green, who served as outside counsel on the Title VI work, and Tessa Ortiz of Metro Legal were also present and identified during the discussion.

The packet MHRC reviewed shows Metro Arts had approximately $3,200,000 appropriated for this fiscal year. MHRC reported 201 Thrive applicants and 109 general-operating applicants; requested funds in applications exceed available funding by approximately $6 million, according to Ashley’s summary. Staff had recommended allocating $900,000 (about 28%) to the Thrive program, but the Arts Commission voted in December to allocate 40% of the available grant budget to Thrive (the staff memo and subsequent discussion put the Thrive allocation at about $1.3 million). MHRC staff explained that change reflects a community-engaged policy shift aimed at directing more resources to smaller organizations and artist-led projects.

Key policy and procedural changes highlighted by Ashley: - Funding formula for operating grants: The Arts Commission authorized a size-based, rightsizing formula that gives higher percentage awards to smaller organizations; MHRC staff explained the approach was developed through prior community engagement and is intended to broaden access. - Thrive program administration: Because many Thrive applicants are not 501(c)(3) nonprofits, the Arts Commission approved a requirement that non‑501(c)(3) Thrive applicants use a fiscal agent (fiscal sponsor). Ashley said the fiscal‑agent approach was chosen over alternatives (a single nonprofit to manage awards, converting Thrive to a fellowship, or seeking legislative changes) because it was the fastest viable option for getting grants out in the current fiscal cycle. - Fiscal-agent agreements and disclosures: Applicants will be required to submit a fiscal agent agreement between Metro and the nonprofit fiscal agent and a letter of agreement between the fiscal agent and the applicant. Metro Arts plans to publish a resource guide listing organizations willing to serve as fiscal agents; those fiscal agents may charge up to a 10% administrative fee but are not required to do so.

Ashley warned of timing and operational risks. The Thrive application originally allowed requests up to $20,000; the Arts Commission capped awards at $10,000 this cycle. With the increased Thrive allocation and the lower per-project cap, Ashley said there is a risk of a “surplus” if many applicants either do not resubmit or request smaller adjustments; the commission could either redistribute any surplus across Thrive awardees or alter the funding formula (for example, funding projects at a percent of request and rank-ordering) before awards are finalized.

Commissioners and guests raised concerns about implementation capacity and staff engagement. Ashley and MHRC leaders said substantial staff time has been spent supporting the Arts Commission process; MHRC reported that staff time devoted to the Arts Commission work has materially reduced time available for other MHRC priorities. The resignation of Metro Arts interim executive director Paulette Coleman (reported during the meeting) was noted; MHRC said Coleman’s resignation should not delay performance under the conciliation agreement but acknowledged it could affect Arts Commission operations.

Metro Legal and MHRC emphasized that the conciliation agreement remains in force and that public and inter‑agency review processes are ongoing. Ashley said that Metro Arts will hold additional special meetings to correct deficiencies in the legislation submitted to council, and that Metro Arts is planning info sessions and technical assistance so applicants understand fiscal‑agent requirements and reporting expectations.

MHRC members present urged continued oversight and follow-through. David thanked MHRC staff and legal counsel for their roles in documenting and enforcing the agreement. Metro Arts commissioners and staff in the room — and MHRC staff — said they expect further tweaks to the policies but expressed a shared goal of finalizing the package quickly so affected artists and organizations can receive funds within the fiscal year.

The commission’s next steps include monitoring the Arts Commission’s special meetings later this week, tracking corrections before Metro Council consideration, and continuing to provide technical assistance and oversight related to the conciliation agreement.