Matthew Goudeau, San Francisco’s first-ever leader of a newly consolidated arts and culture agency, is a creature of City Hall. Beginning as an intern under Mayor Willie Brown in 1999, Goudeau has spent more than two decades working for S.F. mayors. He’s also had career interludes in arts fundraising, at the Chinati Foundation in Marfa, Texas and the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts.
In an interview with Mission Local, Goudeau traced his leadership approach to Brown, who insisted on hearing directly from residents, he said. That taught Goudeau that repeated public criticism should prompt officials to look for solutions.
Goudeau discussed his goals for the new agency, his plans to rebuild trust with artists and arts organizations — and changes to proposed grant-payment rules that have raised concerns about whether local artists can afford to make public art.
This interview took place on Wednesday, July 22, at Goudeau’s office in the War Memorial Veterans’ Building. It has been edited for length and clarity.
Mission Local: You’ve been in the role since June 1. How does it feel?
Matthew Goudeau: It feels great. There’s a lot of work to do. Several months of discussing the merger and different ideas related to it put decisions about existing policies and new initiatives on hold. Now the energy is: How can we do everything at once? That’s inspiring, but it’s a lot.
ML: What are your priorities for the first six months?
MG: I look at the first six months, or perhaps the whole fiscal year, as having three priorities.
The first is restoring trust. There was a lot of uncertainty among staff about what the merger would look like. The organizations we serve also had questions, and over the last several years, a lot of people have felt unheard. I need to spend time repairing those relationships and showing my leadership style, which operates from extreme transparency.
Second, we need to repair and rebuild systems, including our grant-payment policies and the rules surrounding them.
Third, we need to establish a process for completing a strategic plan for the agency, a creative-economy plan and a citywide arts plan. We’ll have a deep public-engagement process, so that may take longer than six months. But we need to establish the structure for it during that period.
ML: That sounds like a lot of change.
MG: It is. The third step is the most exciting because it’s forward-looking. What are we going to do about public art, bringing it into neighborhoods and making it accessible?
I hope we can reach a point where the communities we serve don’t have to focus so much on the Arts Commission’s bureaucracy. People should not have to constantly attend commission meetings to comment on our systems.
We should be having robust conversations about what public art means, who participates in choosing it and how it’s funded. Artists should be focused on what they’re creating, rather than worrying about what percentage of a grant gets advanced or how much documentation they have to submit.
ML: So you want to get back to art-making.
MG: Yes. We’re still a bureaucracy and a city department. We have responsibilities that distinguish us from a private foundation. We’ll continue making sure public funds are used for the purposes outlined in grant agreements.
But externally, can we get back to a place where we focus on the art? That is the debate we’re having: What is public art? Who should have access to it? Which artists should we work with, and how should we pay for it?
I support public-private partnerships and engaging people who have the resources to support public art, so we can make it accessible to more people. But I’m open to hearing what others think.
ML: How can the Arts Commission’s bureaucracy change for the better?
MG: Consider the discussion around grant-payment policies. Most city grants are reimbursement-based. You receive a grant, spend the funds, submit documentation and then receive payment.
That can apply equally to a large nonprofit receiving a multimillion-dollar grant and an individual artist receiving $50,000. But an individual artist or small organization may not have the resources to advance that money.
More robust compliance measures were developed to safeguard city funds, but their effect on artists and small-budget organizations was not fully considered.
In my first few weeks, our team went to the Controller’s Office and made the case that individual artists, cultural centers and small organizations need rules that reflect their circumstances. The Controller approved changes.
I reviewed months of Arts Commission meetings and listened to public comment. People had spent countless hours expressing frustration with the payment policy. Our job was to determine whether it could be fixed.
The Controller’s Office was willing to work with us on a solution that better reflects the organizations we serve while preserving accountability.
ML: What will change?
MG: One proposal would have reduced the portion of cultural center grants paid in advance from 75 percent to 50 percent. They will now be able to continue receiving 75 percent.
Individual artists previously could receive up to 90 percent of a grant in advance. That was going to drop significantly. Some artists receive $100,000 over two years and cannot front those costs.
They’ll now be able to receive 90 percent in advance over two years: 50 percent in the first year and 40 percent in the second. There will be similar provisions for smaller organizations.
That will come with more robust reporting. We’ll trust organizations with advance funding, but we’ll also verify how it’s spent.
ML: What role do you see for public art under Mayor Daniel Lurie?
MG: I think what’s exciting under Mayor Lurie is the ability to bring back robust public-private partnerships and philanthropic support for the arts. San Francisco’s corporate and philanthropic communities once had more robust arts programs, while the city’s direct support has grown.
The city can’t afford to put up temporary public art or commission art across the whole city. So how do we bring more organizations to the table to partner on that? How do we give more opportunities to artists to commission more work?
And I think what’s interesting about this mayor is that he really is passionate about art as an experience — performances, concerts, festivals and installations that attract people to a neighborhood and gather people together.
Those events can support economic development and create jobs for artists, musicians and cultural workers. We’re also looking at culturally specific artists working within specific communities that have an art form that is in need of support to survive.
Art as beauty is important. Beauty is a civic value and is worthy of civic funding. Art is also good for the economy. I see no tension between those things.
ML: Critics say private funding can allow wealthy donors to dictate public art. How do you address that concern?
MG: I can appreciate that criticism. The Arts Commission can help offset those criticisms by using public dollars to make sure we support those who may not be as significantly supported by private funders.
Art has been supported by patrons for thousands of years. We live in an era in which it’s supported by both patrons and government. We’re so fortunate to have a city government that understands the importance of funding the arts.
It’s up to me and the staff of the Arts Commission to find the happy medium between those tension points.
ML: What will test your experience most in this job?
MG: I learned different things from each mayor I worked under. What I’ve learned most is how quickly administrations pass. You really have a limited amount of time to implement the vision a mayor was elected to carry out.
All of a sudden, one year passes, then two, and it’s like, “Oh wow, we only have two more years to get this done!” I have a limited amount of time to accomplish these larger goals and leave behind a stronger agency.
That’s not a philosophical idea about time. It’s literally how government works.
ML: How will you know you’ve left behind a stronger agency?
MG: Success could mean reducing by one month the time between a grant application and a payment to a grantee, or figuring out a way so that every resident of San Francisco can be within walking distance of a piece of art, or an Arts Commission-funded activation.
I’ll also know we’re successful when I can walk around the city and I can be in any neighborhood in San Francisco, along any merchant corridor, and see a nonprofit arts organization thriving, or a piece of public art in the neighborhood.
ML: How many mayors have you worked under at this point?
MG: Six. All great mayors in their own way. Don’t make me choose between them!
