IFCC: an update
Jesse Beason
The Interstate Firehouse Cultural Center is an important place to a lot of folks. I know because I've spoken to many of them over the past months since our office has taken a direct interest in seeing it succeed.
Some attended classes at IFCC when it first opened in 1982. They tell me that IFCC was a home away from home, a place that built self-confidence, friendships and community. Others tell me that IFCC was their first gallery show, or that they saw a performance that moved them to tears.
This is a special place. We are working to keep it that way.
Working with Parks and Recreation, Sam and I helped solicit a new interim board to study the options for IFCC--the organization. Does the non-profit have what it needs to carry on? Can a merger be a successful solution? Over the next three months, the board will attempt to answer these questions by looking at the books, asking questions of management and doing that which a board does best--provide oversight and direction.
There is a conversation for the community as well. That is, what about IFCC the building? What can a building like this do for a community? What can it do for the arts? Is it a rental space, or a community space, or both? Is it an arts facility or a cultural center? Is it too small? Can it be part of a larger vision?
I don't know that there is a right answer or not. I do know that funding at Portland Parks and Recreation for community and cultural centers will end this year. So, IFCC is not facing this battle alone. The Multnomah Arts Center, the Community Music Center and community centers around Portland are making the transition this year to 100% privately funded organizations.
What are your thoughts about IFCC and the future of cultural centers in Portland?
Posted by Jesse Beason on July 27, 2005
(8) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Arts & Culture, North Portland
Comments by site visitors
It seems really tragic to me that our society is fighting a losing battle with youth drug and alcohol addiction, gang involvement, pregnancy, interrupted education and lack of a moral compass while we continue to slash character building activities in our schools, such as music, art, sports. First we eliminate all the "frills," which in my generation, were an integral part of everyone's education in recognition of their life long value, then we force the community to come up with extra money by supporting nonprofits then we let the nonprofits die, as if it is all their fault.
What is wrong with this picture? Government has failed to provide the residents of Portland and Oregon with these essential services for our youth, then clamors for more prisons.
Go figure.
Posted by: Allanya Guenther | Aug 3, 2005 10:10:27 AM
Allanya,
To be fair, the City has done much to address your concerns. Tom Potter has recently allocated funding for youth programs to address the very concerns you raised and Commissioner Dan Saltzman serves to oversee the Childrens Investment Fund, which provides City funding support to youth organizations that also address the issues you have raised.
I am not advocating for endless City funding of the arts non-profits that I work with or for the community center that my non-profits have chosen to partner with. Rather, I hope to prove the value in our work when administered in a partnership model that serves to address public issues facing our youth.
The partnership model, when done right, additionally allows for self-sustaining funding that is applied to organizational and programming over a specified period of time. When the City is involved – or a “public body” is involved – these partnerships are referred to as Public Private Partnerships.
In these instances, the grants and any monies from the City are viewed as Public Private Investment dollars as opposed to the more common notion of “charity funding”. The City “buys into” or invests in the purpose of the partnership – its objectives, if you will -- for a specified period of time until the organization, mission and programming is self-sustaining.
In the case of the IFCC partnership, that purpose, in part, is to assist N/NE schools in meeting educational standards set forth by the Department of Education and adopted by Portland Public Schools in the areas of Arts and Technology.
You see, our nearby partnering schools are part of a larger PPS “Jefferson Cluster Magnet Project” which includes Jefferson High school and Ockley Green Middle School.
Under the Magnet Project, the Ockley Green School is designated to become a K-8 Arts Magnet in the 2006-2007 school year. This is why PPS is looking towards our “Education, Arts and Community” partnership to develop programming that will complement the Magnet Project district plans in the arts and technology.
We rise to that call for help from our education community but cannot do so without the City endorsing us to do so.
When it’s all said and done, however, I am grateful for the City’s involvement with IFCC. Jesse and Sam have been truly sympathetic to the changes there and they, as well as the Interim Board, do have a lot on their plate in catching up with where IFCC has been and will be -- in the future.
As I tell our current Adminsitrator at Parks and Recreation “I can’t imagine what you are going through in this time of transition!” – however – some things are too important to be lost during the transition. So...I’m placed in the unfortunate position of putting yet one more tiny morsel on their plate. I do hope they accept it as food for thought.
Posted by: allehseya | Aug 3, 2005 3:07:30 PM
Commissioner Adams,
As you move forward with the IFCC issue, I would definitely suggest a Request For Proposal (RFP) from community arts organizations. This RFP could be designed to evince a community-based vision for the best use of the important IFCC space.
If you would like to move the IFCC from a government funded organization to a wholly privately funded organization, I would also suggest partnering with an arts organization that has a proven track record of success in North / Northeast Portland community.
Furthermore, the selected organization should be financially secure and should not have had any budget deficits in the past several years. It wouldn't make sense to partner with an organization that already has its own financial problems (as deficits reveal).
A panel of experts could be convened to evaluate different community proposals for the space. Selecting a financially secure arts organization that has a proven record of success in the IFCC's neighborhood would make the most of the critically important IFCC space.
Take care,
Charles
Posted by: Charles Lewis | Aug 3, 2005 10:06:29 PM
In response to Charles' suggestions:
While I agree with the statement that "It wouldn't make sense to partner with an organization that already has its own financial problems (as deficits reveal)." It's importnat to note that PPS is a valuable institution regardless of its financial problems and shouldnt be discounted as a partner and most especially as an entitiy that the partnership serves to benefit.
Furthermore, there was a process, albeit in formal, that the former Volunteer Directors and Board went through upon the City's request to identify community vision and partnering entities. The result was the Education, Arts and Community partnership and the EAC model.
To be clear: the idea of the Education, Arts and Community partnership was to be inclusive of local arts organizations (plural) as well as Businssess that were dedicated to the IFCC mission of 25 years -- maintaining diversity in the arts and culture programming as well as the additional purpose of the partnership that of meeting educational needs. The partnering organizations (NOT limited to one) would serve to address PPS Arts education TOGETHER as well as provide programming and additional revenue for the IFCC space.
Again, I reiterate that the majority of the work has already begun and merely needs follow-through and a commitment to direction.
Posted by: allehseya | Aug 4, 2005 8:02:38 AM
disclaimer: as a side-note, I do appreciate and agree with the process Charles suggested to identify and select the additional EAC partners and business.
Posted by: allehseya | Aug 4, 2005 8:09:56 AM
Alleseyha,
Thanks for your posts. They are great.
I don't think Sam or I disagree about the role of partnerships being key to the success of IFCC's sustainability-- or the success of the other community centers around Portland. Operating a builing (IFCC) and operating art programming (IFCC without partnerships) are two distinct roles, and it is incredibly difficult to do and fund both within one small organization.
The issue, and this is a big one in my mind, is that Sam nor I should be making the decision about which partnerships, when, how and why. These are the type of long-term decisions that should be made by a Board of Directors that represents a variety of community expertise in conjunction with an Excecutive Director.
From what I know of the EAC, it seems a great fit for IFCC as its mission was and perhaps still will be.
I'm sure you know that our office has also heard from other passionate people in the community about the programming they know of, manage, or support that would compliment IFCC's mission.
This, as you can imagine, puts our office in a difficult situation. We do not want to make decisions for a non-profit. We want to guide a process for getting a non-profit back on its feet and getting a community building back in full use.
I admit, it's a hard thing to say "pause" to so many people with so many great ideas. This process, though, is important work I think. In the meantime, we are working hard to get a dedicated person able to make interim decisions on programming.
Posted by: Jesse Beason | Aug 4, 2005 4:58:28 PM
Jesse,
I sincerely appreciate your response and the careful dedication of Sam’s office to a fair and communal process regarding the future of IFCC.
I am aware of the many stakeholders and interested parties that would like to be a part of IFCC’s future. I have no doubt that more people than I can imagine have contacted you in regards to IFCC. I truly do sympathize with your office and the difficult position IFCC stakeholders place you and Sam in during this time of transition. And, for whatever it’s worth, I believe there is some merit in the “better to err on the side of caution” approach. Please know that both you and Sam have my utmost respect and appreciation for your involvement and commitment to IFCC.
I agree with your stance when you state: “Sam nor I should be making the decision about which partnerships, when, how and why. These are the type of long-term decisions that should be made by a Board of Directors that represents a variety of community expertise in conjunction with an Excecutive Director.”
While the EAC partnership does, in fact, represent a long-term decision made by the former IFCC Board of Directors - in conjunction with an Executive Director – and while it was written into the Business Plan provided to Sam’s office as well as to the Regional Arts and Culture Council - and - had contractual agreements for youth programming beginning this summer…..I will acquiesce to the new board’s wisdom regarding it’s future direction. This does, however, assume that the formation of a new IFCC Board of Directors is the decided direction?
Rather than assume, I shall merely pose the questions:
1. Has the City / Interim Board committed to a search to reinstate the IFCC Board?
2. If so, what is the process for soliciting new IFCC board members?
3. What is the projected date for having a new IFCC Board of Directors in place?
4. Once the new IFCC Board is in place, will RACC be providing oversight as opposed to Sam’s office?
In addition, Jesse, you should know that we secured over $100,000.00 in funding for the IFCC facility by meeting IFCCs contractual obligations through the EAC partnership. In addition, the partnership provided an additional $15,000.00+ of matching funds towards the summer youth program at IFCC (thereby allowing IFCC to meet another contractual arrangement that they didn’t have the resources, without this partnership to fulfill). This should, in and of itself, prove the validity of the partnership.
The tragedy is that I’ve already watched close to $50,000.00 in potential funding for IFCC become lost due to the patience you ask of me in this transition -- and if there’s no agreement in IFCC youth programming within the next week, another potential $30,000.00 will be lost. This is money that could go toward staff salaries that would serve to additionally address other areas of IFCC needs while creating IFCC programming of community arts that meet community needs - and -- at no cost to the City!
But, I will be patient, Jesse. However, when the Interim Board is looking at the ‘resources’ of the IFCC organization – please make sure they look at the resources that have been lost as well?
Posted by: allehseya | Aug 6, 2005 12:10:59 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Jesse,
I very much look forward to your return this Thursday as there are many questions from those of us at the IFCC facility that are literally rendered immobile during the Interim Board’s process of facing the questions and deciding on the fate of our much valued culture center.
I can attest to the frustration experienced by those of us caught in the transition between former Volunteer Executive Directors, IFCC Board restructuring and the cities current intervention.
Partnerships that were being developed to address revenue, programming and sustainability such as “The Education, Arts and Community” partnership between IFCC and Portland Public Schools cannot move forward in youth programming for the 2005-2006 school year.
This is a shame, because the EAC partnership’s value was in the way that “community arts can meet community needs” – particularly in education. As the coordinator for that partnership's summer youth program, I can clarify for you, the Interim Board, the City Commissioners, etc. that one of the goals and vision of the EAC has always been to supplement exisiting school plans buy providing programs that meet benchmark standards in K-12 Arts and Technology education. Must I lobby and wear my activist hat in order to provide that clarity? This was an approved direction for the EAC partnership to develop that I fear is now being lost in a bureacratic process of 'catching up'.
While our first EAC program, the summer youth program, was a huge success, our PPS partners now await word from the city on whether or not they can rely on the assistance that our partnership provides in meeting Jefferson district school plans beginning in September. Will the community arts and artists, such as myself, be allowed to continue our work through and at IFCC with this vital partnership? We have lost valuable development time and funding being merely "patient" already. How much more of a loss will we have to endure?
The irony of it, Jesse, is that the EAC was formed upon the cities recommendation! The partnership was to strengthen local community involvement from other local arts non-profits towards the development of ongoing revenue events and programming of and within IFCC. This is and continues to be a direction I believe in.
Through a well executed Strategic Alliance Agreement -- such as the one envisioned for the “Education, Arts and Community” (EAC) partnership – IFCC stakeholders and community organizations could work together towards IFCC future sustainability – WHILE --ensuring the integrity of IFCC’s mission for over 25 years – that is of it being a truly diverse, multi-disciplinary cultural arts center.
No matter what happens, Jesse – in the talk of mergers and acquisition (Etho's comes to mind) -- this one objective of maintaining diversity in Culture and multidisciplinary Arts (Theatre, Dance Music, Visual Arts and New Media Arts) should not be lost. Too many people want to turn IFCC into their specialized interest with the arts, forgetting that it is meant to encompass, to embrace, to be inclusive of the diversity of ALL the arts.
As a historic cultural arts center in Portland under the Bureau of Parks and Recreation – losing this vision of the IFCC mission and purpose would signal the wrong direction on the City’s part. I want very much to contribute to Sam Adam’s success in addressing Arts and Culture and generalCultural Development Plans in Portland – and I want to assist by starting with IFCC.
As you know, Jesse -- I am of the firm belief that the Partnership model is the best route to take -- and while the beginning of that partnership model has begun -- the necessary next steps are up in the air: the formation of a legal Strategic Alliance Agreement and moreover – the programming direction and revenue plans require approval to be developed any further!
I suggest that the city provide that approval. I propose that the City:
Allow the EAC partnership to be developed towards the formation of a Public Private Partnership with a two-year Interim Director in place -- ON THE MANDATE that IFCC become 100% privately funded by the end of year Two.
While I understand that you will tell me that there is a "process" – and the Interim Board must decide on whether a new board is formed, the building is closed or handed over to a different non-profit – etc. In reality, Jesse, all it takes is for ONE person at the city level to say: “Yes. We want to explore the option of unifying the stake holders in a partnership model towards a two-year 100% sustainability plan in program and revenue.”
That’s it. You have much of the ground-work completed already – as well as the staff and resources to continue this important work that has already begun and wants desperately to manifest at this critical stage.
I do look forward to talking with you and your leadership team as well as my Administrator, Michelle Harper, and the only remaining IFCC Board member, Barbara Anderson. I look forward to those discussions that lead us towards exploring how we can develop a unified plan to save not just the IFCC building or generate sustainability – but to honor it’s broader mission.
Imagine it Jesse – how a 2-year Public-Private Partnership at IFCC acts as a pilot-model in how “community arts DO meet community needs” by addressing public issues such as those in education. Allow this to be the example for others to follow on how to do it. An example of how a partnership generates self-sustaining revenue over time while addressing public issues – AND – serves to contribute towards the success of the Economic and Cultural plans of Portland as well.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
Allehseya Hawk
(PDXArts@aol.com)
Posted by: allehseya | Aug 2, 2005 6:04:53 PM