Bayview arts pilot sparks community praise and legal complaints over selection process

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission heard a heated debate over a Bayview Arts Grant pilot on Wednesday as community leaders praised new funding but several applicants and residents alleged the selection process lacked appropriate protest rights and showed signs of bias.

The program, described by Arts Commission staff as a pilot to expand existing Bayview arts organizations, distributed $100,000 to 10 grantees chosen from 23 proposals. "These were to support the expansion of existing arts programming in Bayview Hunters Point," Judy Ninsolf, community arts and education program director at the San Francisco Arts Commission, told the commission during a presentation of the panel process and criteria.

After the presentation, several speakers urged changes. Kevin Williams, who reviewed panel records and applicant correspondence, alleged the process had no protest period, no oral interviews and that some panel comments characterized an applicant as "lacking sophistication," which he said could contravene the city's administrative code and Sunshine requirements. Williams said he had submitted a Sunshine Act request for the signed agreement between the PUC and the Arts Commission and that work products due from grantees had not been produced on schedule. "This is improper. This is illegal," he said during public comment.

Arts Commission staff and the City Attorney’s Office disputed some of the legal framing. Noreen Ambrose, an attorney in the City Attorney’s Office, said the administrative code provides protest rules for procurement processes but does not impose the same, citywide protest protocol for grant awards; she said any challenge would typically be handled by the granting department. Judy Ninsolf said the grant selection was governed by a public panel process, that panelists were compensated with a $200 honorarium, and that the Arts Commission had not received formal complaints about the process.

Several grant recipients and applicants addressed the commission. Nate Watson, executive director of Public Glass and a recipient, described participating in meetings and panel sessions and urged better grant-writing supports for first-time applicants. Other speakers including Larry Ware and Vivian Ellis said long-time neighborhood programs and artists felt overlooked and sought clearer feedback and capacity-building from the Arts Commission.

Commissioners pressed staff on safeguards for the next funding round. President Courtney asked staff to review the meeting tape and transcript and return with a concise memo and recommended procedural changes — options discussed included an explicit appeals or protest mechanism for grant awards, face-to-face interviews, clearer notification steps and pre-application workshops with grant-writing support.

The commission did not rescind the awards. Instead, it asked the General Manager’s office to summarize the issues raised and to present proposals the Arts Commission could adopt in time for the next round of funding anticipated in January. The commission said improved transparency and applicant support would be necessary as available arts funding is expected to grow with upcoming capital projects.