It seems that there is some confusion about the Concept Consultancy document and it’s place in the commissioning process.  The document referred to was not anticipated to be used as a competitive tool in selecting an artist or artist team.  Rather, as stated on the introductory page, this document was produced with the idea that it be used in a situation "in which an agency, program or private developer is interested in exploring the potential of an art project for a specific location.”  Meaning, that an artist or group of artists could be invited to help the commissioning entity in brainstorming the parameters of a project prior to developing an RFP or RFQ and the concept consultancy would be part of the process to further develop specific commission opportunities  

Once you get to the point of issuing RFPs/RFQs and selecting artists for a project and asking for formal proposals and submissions, then the policy articulately explained by Susan Pontius is exactly what best practices dictate.  Certainly under no circumstances should an (unselected) artist’s proposal or submissions in response to a call be used to influence, inspire or guide other artists selected for a commission.  

I hope that provides some additional clarity.  Happy to discuss further if this is an area about which people would like to learn more.

Best,
Sarah

The Law Office of Sarah Conley Odenkirk
3940 Laurel Canyon Blvd., #1355
Studio City, CA 91604
Office/Fax: 818.789.3738
Cell: 310.990.9581 
sarah@artlawlawyer.com
www.artlawlawyer.com

This E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this E-mail in error, please immediately notify me at the number above and destroy the original and any printout thereof.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE.  Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.

On March 13, 2018 at 11:20:22 AM, Pax (pax@augustaarts.com) wrote:

Thank you. I was reviewing the legal document at https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/legislation-policy/naappd/letter-of-agreement-for-concept-consultancy-template that was mentioned below, which is posted on the AFTA site, and states that the work done during the competitive conceptualization stage of the RFP (out of those selected from the RFQ) would remain the property of the commissioning entity. I see that you do not follow that model, in San Francisco. The concept of hiring “someone else” is stated in the above document. It seems an unethical practice, thus my question about teaming up.  Please watch your tone in these emails.

 

I am still trying to clarify the legal precedent for this, as our city is finalizing its own legal procedures.  I admire the decades of experience that San Francisco has in this, and would love some helpful guidance as we begin our own program.

 

Pax Bobrow

Project Manager

Greater Augusta Arts Council

706.826.4702

 

From: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com [mailto:public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Larry Millard
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 1:58 PM
To: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com
Subject: Re: Honorarium Artist Agreement

 

Dear all,

 

Although somewhat basic and it does not address the template notion, this may be a good read for some: https://atp.orangenius.com/public-art-commissions/

 

Sincerely,

Larry

Larry W. Millard
706-254-2591
www.larrymillard.com



On Mar 13, 2018, at 1:35 PM, Pontious, Susan (ART) <susan.pontious@sfgov.org> wrote:

 

Dear Pax,

In answer to your questions below:

In San Francisco, we request the proposal both as an electronic file and printed on display board.  We retain the right to display, publicize, etc. the proposal. We do not, as part of the proposal fee, own original artwork.  Sometimes artists do produce original artwork as part of their proposal, in which case we may request the first right of refusal to purchase the proposal at market value (separate from the proposal fee.)  However, if, in your RFQ/RFP you make it clear that the proposal fee includes purchase of the some physical manifestation of the proposal, then I think that would be acceptable, but there are reasons why you might not want to do that.  For one thing, you should expect to pay more, and the product (which you wouldn’t know in advance), may not be anything for which you have any use, and you really might end up over paying for what you get.

 

We are a program that prides itself in selecting artists with great work but no public art experience.  Our staff assists artists in finding the technical support they  need to be successful, i.e. other design professionals, fabricators, etc.  I am not sure what you mean exactly about hiring “someone else” to develop the art idea further. We certainly would not entertain hiring another artist to further develop the selected artists concept, but routinely pair artists with architects, landscape architects, etc. who can assist the artist in turning their ideas into buildable projects.

 

Some programs have experimented with teaming inexperience artists with experienced artists as part of a mentor arrangement. I don’t really know how successful this has been but the parameters of the program are part of the RFQ so that both the mentors and the less experienced artists know what the arrangement is prior to applying. 

 

Hope this is helpful.

 

Susan Pontious

Program Director

Civic Art Collection and Public Art Program

San Francisco Arts Commission

401 Van Ness, Suite 325

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone:  415-252-2241

 

PLEASE NOTE:  We moved our offices Oct. 9, 2015 to

401 Van Ness, Suite 325

San Francisco, CA 94102

 

NEW PHONE Number:  As of Oct. 9th, my new phone number is:

(415) 252-2241

NOTICE: Please be mindful that all correspondence and documents submitted to the San Francisco Arts Commission are public records and as such, are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and can be requested by the public. If this happens, all sensitive personal information, such as social security numbers and phone numbers will be redacted.

 

From: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com [mailto:public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Pax
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:16 AM
To: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com
Subject: RE: Honorarium Artist Agreement 

 

We are also working through the legal fine points of the RFQ into RFP process. Our City Procurement Department would like to understand the ownership of the proposals.  I have read the sample agreement posted on the AFTA website.  That is for a charrette. It isn’t significantly different, but if a physical maquette is created for the RFP by an artist, do we also own that.  Also, is it unethical to take the concept from an artist and then hire someone else to develop it further and execute the creation?  Can we force a less experienced artist with great ideas to team up with a more experienced entity for the actual creation of the piece instead?

 

Thank you for your help with this.

 

Pax Bobrow

Project Manager

Greater Augusta Arts Council

706.826.4702

 

From: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com [mailto:public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Renee Piechocki
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 1:43 PM
To: public_art_network@americansforthearts.simplelists.com
Subject: Re: Honorarium Artist Agreement 

 

Hello Olivia,

 

Sarah Odenkirk's great book A Surprisingly Interesting Book About Contracts includes a sample agreement for a conceptual proposal.  

 

There is a link to a similar document on the PAN site, also written by Sarah along with artist Larry Kirkland.

 

 

 

Renee

 

 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Olivia Lemen wrote:

Hello All,

I am looking for sample templates for an agreement between agency and artist finalist for a competitive RFQ process .We are paying a honorarium to 5 finalist to develop a concept for our specific project. I am wondering if any agencies would be willing to share what they use to pay an honorarium to finalists. Thank you in advance,

 

Olivia Lemen 

Management Analyst

Town of Windsor

9291 Old Redwood Hwy Bldg 300 D

Windsor, CA 95492

707-838-5383 (Direct)

707-838-1264 (Fax)

Regular office hours: Mon – Thur 7:00 am – 6:00 pm (closed on Fridays)

<image001.png>     <image002.jpg>  

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com

 

To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://archives.simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PmPdfvr01ZEpdi9VacsOImeRMlnSCH6y