November 23, 1998

To:Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

From:Chief Administrative Officer

Subject:Administrative Structure for Arts Grants

Purpose:

To submit the report from ARA Consulting Ltd. recommending an administrative structure for arts grants for the City.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The recommendations in this report have no direct financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the recommendations submitted by ARA Consulting Ltd. in their report entitled "Governance Model for Arts & Culture Grants" be adopted;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism modify the 1999 grants process to be consistent with the model proposed in the Consultant's report, should this be approved by Council;

(3)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism develop an implementation plan within Corporate budgetary guidelines and report thereon to the Economic Development Committee;

(4)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism work with the Chief Administrative Officer, Solicitor, and Toronto Arts Council to propose revisions to the legislation and the grant agreement with the Toronto Arts Council to address concerns articulated in the consultant's report; and

(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of January 2, 3, and 4, 1998, Council referred the following motion to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team: "The Arts Council should be based on the existing Toronto Arts Council model and it should report to Council through the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee".

On March 4, 1998 Council approved the recommendation of the Special Committee to refer the structure of arts administration in Toronto to the CAO for a report to the Special Committee. In the interim, the grant agreement between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council (TAC) was modified to permit Council to nominate 5 members of Council from across the City to TAC's Board of Directors.

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism consulted with major arts organizations and stakeholders and recommended an interim process for distributing grants for 1999. The Interim Measures report adopted by Council at its November meeting proposes extension of the agreement for one year beyond the March 1999 expiry date of the current agreement.

The five Councillors serving on the TAC Board of Directors requested that the Chief Administrative Officer report on the governance structure for arts grants at the November meeting of the Special Committee. To meet the requested deadlines, the CAO engaged ARA Consulting Ltd. to review the many background documents and position papers developed for submission to the Toronto Transition Team, conduct interviews with selected stakeholders and experts outside the City structures, and prepare a report recommending a conceptual model for administration of arts grants. The attached report articulates the relative roles of the major stakeholders in the conceptual model recommended by the Consultants.

Comments:

Prior to amalgamation, each of the seven municipalities made grants to arts organizations. The two major municipal funders, Metro Council through the Culture Office, and the Toronto Arts Council, both recommended grants using a peer review process to assess merit. The major difference, however, was that the former City of Toronto provided a grant to an external organization, the Toronto Arts Council, to administer the grants function, whereas Metro's used peer review panels in the formulation of grant recommendations for Council approval. The former City of Toronto did not have a culture office within the City organization.

Basically three categories of arts grants were inherited by the unified City as described in the ARA report. Metro provided sustaining grants to the major nationally recognized arts organizations based in the City and to organizations involved in a variety of non-profit professional arts disciplines throughout the region. The TAC distributed grants on behalf of the former City of Toronto to similar organizations and individuals within its jurisdiction, and the other former municipalities primarily provided grants to organizations providing services and support to professional organizations and to community based arts and culture organizations.

The respective funding roles of each of the municipal governments has been developed and refined over the past 25 years in the context of funding provided by the federal and provincial governments. Government funding of professional not-for-profit arts organizations has been a balanced partnership among 4 levels of government, each with clearly stated public policy objectives. Both the federal and provincial governments use agencies of the government, the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council, to provide the independent grant adjudication and distribution function. In both cases, there are also related culture policy functions resident in a ministry or department. The consultant's report did not pursue the creation of an agency for this purpose at the City.

There were clearly a range of objectives driving the grant programs within a two-tier municipal framework. In the absence of a policy review for the new City, it has been assumed that the new unified City will continue to support the collective policy objectives of the former cities. Once the structure for administration has been decided, consideration of policies and priorities should resume. In the meantime, however, there is a need to rationalize the process for distributing grants in each category to ensure that all City districts have access to funding on the same footing.

Recognizing the different objectives for each of the grant categories, the ARA report recommends roles for the various stakeholders which optimize peer review concepts within legal bounds and effectively links process to objectives.

The process for 1999 recently approved by Council is inconsistent in some ways with the model recommended by ARA. In the absence of a reformed structure, the intent was to make changes in the structure and procedures of the TAC and modifications to the grant agreement to implement the 1999 approved process. If Council approves the model proposed by ARA or any variation which is inconsistent with the process designed for 1999, it would be preferable that the 1999 process be modified to be consistent with the model approved by Council rather than proceeding with the 1999 process as defined and change again in 2000.

The ARA proposal is a high level conceptual model. The precise organization of the various business units, the staff placement, and budget assignments will need to be planned and implemented by the department. In addition, changes to the grant agreement with the Toronto Arts Council are recommended in the ARA report. The Commissioner should work with the City Solicitor, the CAO, and the TAC in initiating these changes and recommending any legislative changes necessary.

Conclusions:

The structure appropriate to administer arts grants has been the subject of much discussion over the last two years by stakeholders and other interest groups. The report from ARA Consulting Ltd. recommends a conceptual model which strengthens accountability and public participation, while maintaining the arms' length process where appropriate. In addition, the model facilitates coordination with other City activities and reinforces accountability within the City structure. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism concurs with the recommended directions outlined in the Consultant's report.

To operationalize this model or any variation of it, implementation must be planned and activated, the 1999 process revised, and the grant agreement revised.

Contact:

Nancy Autton 397-0306

Michael R. Garrett

Chief Administrative Officer