Public commenters and applicants raise transparency, eligibility concerns about expanded Measure P arts grants

The Parks, Recreation and Art Commission on Aug. 15 heard public input on the city’s expanded-access arts and cultural grant round funded by Measure P, where applicants and observers raised concerns about review-panel transparency, inconsistent procedures and an eligibility denial they said was not explained in written guidelines.

Several speakers told the commission they observed or participated in the review process and found inconsistent rules for panel access, note-taking and recordings, and asked the commission to require clearer, public-facing guidelines for future cycles.

“I wanna thank this commission for the incredible labor done to make this grant round possible,” said Johannes Reinders, a former professional grant writer who volunteered to help several applicants and observed panel sessions. Reinders said the timing and notice for some review sessions were inconsistent and that the Fresno Arts Council limited public attendance at some panel meetings while allowing it at others. He asked that next year’s guidelines include a posted, transparent panel-review schedule and access rules.

Kyle Opeish Schmidt, identified in the record as executive director of the South Tower Community Land Trust, said his organization’s project review included comments from a reviewer he perceived as negative and that an apparent math error affected scoring. He also said some small cultural organizations were penalized for not meeting outreach expectations and that panelists questioned whether certain cultural activities were eligible for funding.

One applicant, Shanay Chan Goulston, said her LOI later reached the panel review sessions but that she was told her project was ineligible because “project staff as applicants are not current city Fresno residents as stated in the application narrative as required by the ordinance.” She said she could not find any such residency requirement in the Measure P materials supplied with the grant application, including the application, LOI guidelines, policy recommendations and the request for proposals. She said the only appeal instruction she received directed her to “reach out to the executive director, Liliya Gonzalez.”

Shanay told commissioners she emailed and called for clarification and that the executive director told her she stood behind the residency claim but did not cite a specific policy section when contacted.

Commissioners and staff acknowledged the concerns and described steps to provide more detail to the commission. Vice Chair Ward and other commissioners said the subcommittee and the Fresno Arts Council were collecting additional information for the commission’s September allocation recommendations and that staff would try to present clearer breakdowns of where funded projects would operate across the city.

Commission staff reminded the commission that the second round of expanded-access applications shows “slightly more than $6,000,000 available to be recommended for awards,” and that the panel review meetings had been held between July 28 and Aug. 15.

The public speakers asked the commission to require consistent, public notice of panel-review sessions, to make recorded panel sessions available to applicants and to ensure written guidelines explicitly list any residency or eligibility rules. Commissioners requested a clearer geographic breakdown (by ZIP code or council district) of recommended awards so the commission can confirm Measure P funds are distributed across the city.

No formal action was taken at the hearing; the item was presented for public comment and to gather input before the commission considers recommended allocations in September.