(00:00:00) I think that the that the general finding was that the procedures of the board that they use in reviewing applications are proper and that the hearing examiner in addition affirm. The fact that the quality of the work of an artist is the primary Criterion which all funding decisions are made and incur did indicate that mr. Lapham should probably have been encouraged to provide additional material. It's a it's a difficult question the the rules that we have set down for applications people applying for Arts board funding provide a great deal of latitude in terms of the types of material than an artist might provide and the decision as to whether or not the specific material provided is exactly what makes the best case for the artist is difficult and many times is left up to the discretion of the artist to decide (00:00:59) in other words it Terry's fault that he didn't provide that not the board's fault (00:01:06) in this particular instance the hearing examiner's indicating that that he felt that mr. Lapham should have been encouraged to provide additional material as far as placing fault goes I think you know, I don't think that that's that would be appropriate. I do think that it's up to the now the Minnesota state Arts board members of the board to sit down to take a look very carefully at what? Mr. Lapin has suggested is is the case and what the hearing examiner's recommendation is now that as you know is a recommendation of the hearing examiner makes to the state Arts board for their perusal and their (00:01:43) consideration. Why didn't the board or why didn't the staff of the state Arts board notified hearing that his script was missing. (00:01:51) Well, I believe that at the time that the staff person reviewed that application. He felt that the In his own conscience that the audio tape was sufficient documentation to provide that review panel with an overview of Terry's (00:02:05) work. And what's your response to (00:02:07) that? Well in the eight months that I've dealt with yards board, there's been a has been very little cooperation from the staff. It's been very deliberate that they refused to to document themselves. Either in letters to me. They would rather talk on the telephone. I misread the instructions and it's clear that the judges said that that my application was (00:02:30) incomplete. I think that I can't think personally of a group of people that are more concerned about the needs of individual artists. I know each of those of us on the state Arts board staff come from either an Arts discipline background or a background where we're Avid consumers of the Arts of really interested personally. Otherwise, I don't think we'd be involved in a business that has to do. With the support of artists that's what we want to do. And I really hope that in every case we can be responsive as best we can as people and as public servants to the (00:03:06) artist. I think that the position that the Arts board takes publicly as to the benefit that they're doing to individual artists is is using correct. I think if you review systematically the the individuals were funded in many cases, you'll see that Financial need isn't even a parent the thing that the basic problem is that the odds board as a bureaucracy fails to understand how an artist even lives (00:03:35) Terry why can't you know someone listening to this might say, oh, he just didn't get funding. It's he's just mad at the Arts board because I mean everyone, you know, their decisions had to be made somebody has to get funny. Somebody doesn't in many cases. It's probably a fine distinction. Why aren't you just not just mad because you didn't get money from them. Why do you think there's something systematically wrong? (00:03:56) Well to be to be very direct. I'm not the first I'm the first person to have reached this level of visibility against the Arts board, but I'm certainly not the person who has been who has been had an application treated in a matter which I feel was arbitrary and capricious two years ago. The state Arts board was investigated by the Legislative committee that investigates infractions of administrative rules. They were at that time told to to create a body of rules to govern the governor administrative staff. They were told also that there were two specific instances is which they they created extralegal a stipulations for for applicants and their situations where people have wanted to appeal in the past and we're told that they should approach the governor. There's currently Another artist to is is considering taking action against them in District Court. I would say that that that that perspective that that what I want is the money's which is only $2,500 and this is an activity that that is now that I've been part of now for over nine months that perspective isn't shared in the Arts Community. I've had people who who are in the Arts Community say thank you for forgiving us a recourse. Thank you for saying that that if we have second doubts about the Arts board that we can in fact initiate an appeal and I would remind you that the people that I initiated wasn't on the quality of my work that is not a basis of an appeal. My appeal is based on a procedural error in the handling of my application. And this was in fact upheld by by the office of hearing examiner's and it was conducted in the In a courtroom situation, my accusations have been have been affirmed and and I'm willing to I'm willing to say personally that I feel that the Arts board is not doing the job that it should. (00:06:16) Got any response to that do you follow your own rules? (00:06:20) Oh, I think we do. I think that the very obviously I do I think that the very fact that the Arts board has procedure before the hearing examiner, which provides recourse to someone who feels that they have been unjustly or inappropriately treated is one aspect of that sensitivity, I think and I think that mr. Lapidus certainly explored that option which the Arts board is made available. I think that out of the twelve hundred or so applicants over the past two years to this program as mr. Lapham has already indicated. He is the only one that's taken it through the hearing examiner procedure thus far and I think that you know a large program like this again, I believe it's the largest program offered in the whole country for individual artists support. I think that that's that's pretty fair track record. (00:07:14) You don't think are you don't agree? Terry's assessment that when he says artists across the Twin Cities across Minnesota are telling me thank you because they felt they'd been unfairly treated. How do you respond to an indictment like that? (00:07:28) Well, I think that you know from my own as far as personal perspective goes as nothing to do with the Arts board particularly is although I am recently from Indiana. I used to live in Minnesota some seven or eight years ago and have a number of my own friends that are artists and who are very excited about the Arts and Minnesota and what's the artboards doing? So, you know, that's something that depends on who your friends and who you talk to I clearly have got signals from my my friends and the people that I know in the Arts community that the Arts board is indeed responsive, but I think I think that's you know for talk about what our friends say. I'm sure that if I were an individual artist that had applied and not been funded. I might friends might respond differently. But I I believe that we're being (00:08:18) responsive. Well, I'm not I'm not speaking in terms of my friends. I'm speaking in terms of seven letters that I that I introduced along with my appeal that come not from first animal friends, but become from the members of the Arts Community the Guthrie Theater the cricket theater the literary managers at both of those theaters sent letters that supported my appeal the editor entertainment editor from the st. Paul Dispatch recipient of a grant this year faculty member the College of st. Thomas I display a cross-section of support and again in an attempt to ask the Arts board to deal with me as an individual to say that yes, there's obviously a problem here. Let's resolve it together and I was not brought into the decision making process on my appeal until in fact the governing board had already voted not to to a pole the procedural error through a telephone pole to my understanding from mr. Honda. I had a very fruitless Communications with the Arts board for five months before we finally went to the office of hearing examiner. (00:09:24) Why didn't the Arts board may be just say, okay. The script is missing provide us with the script. Everything will be (00:09:30) fine the early phases when he first applied and I think we've talked about this and prior to going to the panel for their review the screening committee for their review the staff person as I'd indicated before I think felt confident that the materials provided were adequate. So I don't think at that point there would be any reason to do that. I and I think that in from the perspective of the staff and taking a look because Terry did Express concern as what as to what happened in taking a look at it. We we as a staff tried to be thorough and objective as we as human beings can and taking a look at what had provided so the recourse available to Terry after the decision was made not to On the application. The recourse available to Terry is exactly the recourse that he's (00:10:20) taken Terry. What are you saying? Aren't you saying that you weren't included even in that initial decision making process with the board. (00:10:28) I'm stating that that that the that from the beginning my experience with the Arts board wasn't was one of of an adversary proceeding and and let me point out that that not only the hearing examiner did in fact cost monies and the taxpayers paid for. Mr. Marshalls time. There's been a cost to the taxpayer because of failure of the Arts board 222. Look at the evidence that supported my appeal and then State say maybe there was a problem here but instead the Arts board attempted to push it further and further and further in the future in hopes that that the matter would not be pressed by myself and I've demonstrated again through the affirmative ruling by the hearing examiner that I have. That I have a credible Point here and for them not to put me in the context of of of of being present during deliberations to me is just a means of obfuscation of the issue. I should be there when my when my case is being discussed. (00:11:36) How the Arts board will take action on the recommendation of the hearing examiner's as I've indicated before has not yet been established. So I don't think at this point (00:11:48) we kind of told me on Friday that he expected a telephone pole to be taken before the December 17th (00:11:54) meeting in it is the Arts board does have the liberty of doing that there are a couple of matters that which in which the Arts board can take such action those two matters are matters which involve legal Affairs are matters which involve personnel and that is just that is a prerogative the Arts board to do that because those two issues naturally are such of such sensitivity and such that that that is the that is an option for the Arts board to do (00:12:25) and in no way excludes Terry from that that decision making process as he (00:12:29) implies. As far as I mean, I don't know what Terry's been included certain. (00:12:36) This is this is this this approach bodyguards board. First of all, let me state that mr. And of stated initially that that my appeal was was was not an appeal of substance but was an appeal that was made because I was angry about being rejected that clearly doesn't want mr. And of now says that a telephone pole should be conducted to determine if in fact the substance of the hearing examiner's report is is and I'm sure that his language is going to be whether it's relevant. My point is that is that the Arts board defines certain certain strategy and then if they win they affirm that strategy if they lose then they discount that strategy. I'm stating that that that for me to be before a governing board that's appointed by the governor of this state that is supposed to be Agency that not only sees that the Arts board follows its own its own statutory obligations, but also that the staff functions in a straightforward manner for the for the executive director of the Arts board to recommend that a telephone pole be taken which denies all accountability of the public which which makes the judging process process of secrecy to me is consistent with the with the behavior of the Arts board since I began this appeal (00:14:00) gym, and you say that the the Arts word rules allow for such a telephone (00:14:04) pole in the case of legal matters of personnel matters, it does. Yes, it does one of the things that are comment that's been sort of pervading the conversation that I just like to really clarify the role the staff at the Arts board as as I'm sure you realize is not one of decision making the staffs role is Expediting the possibility for the artist to apply and to be getting given a good hearing, but it Not a decision making role and I just want to make sure that people understand that at the the decision making is not been done by staff. Okay? (00:14:39) Yes. However, I would point out that that's exactly why the state Arts board was called before legislative commission. The staff of the artboard was clearly making decisions concerning how applicants were to submit applications. They were making they were in some cases returning applications and stating that there is a staff felt that for this applicant to be considered he would have to conform to these further stipulations. It may be in fact be as mr. Olson says that they are not doing it now, but that is exactly why they were investigated two years ago. (00:15:11) Any response to (00:15:11) that? Well, I have working in two different state Arts agencies. It has never been known to me that a staff member has ever taken upon themselves to make that kind of any kind of decision about whether or not an applicant should be funded the whole idea of having experts citizen advisory panels take a look at these things. The whole nature of the process is the review of quality by those people capable making those quality of decisions, and I would personally I'd be personally offended by any any decision on a part of a staff member to do that. Now there are decisions that in Terry sort of alluded a little bit to one here where the staff member may take a role in that is if the application in the mind of that staff member is not eligible. (00:16:01) Then where is incomplete or isn't completed Terry's (00:16:04) case then then the then it is the role of the staff member when Staff member recognizes that that is indeed incomplete and feels firmly that that's incomplete to to do what he can to make he or she can to make that up Apple give that applicant a fair chance a fair shot at it. (00:16:23) Well, what I said is a matter of public record the Arts board was in fact investigated two years ago for expressly what I said making making stipulations that didn't appear in the criteria. (00:16:36) How important is this recommendation how much consideration and weight is given to it? (00:16:44) This the whole procedure of going through the hearing examiner's procedure that is in the rules of the state Arts board and as such I'm sure the Arts board takes the whole process very seriously indeed and we'll view the hearing examiner's report as being that kind of report that it the whole reason the process is there and so that I'm sure that the members of the state Arts board will take seriously the recommendations that have been provided by the hearing examiner. (00:17:13) It's possible though that they may not comply with those recommendations. (00:17:19) They are recommendations. That's correct. (00:17:20) Okay, and I agree with mr. Olson. I think this is the matter that is facing the governing board right now whether or not as a body they're willing to endorse the the recommendation of the hearing examiner. And at this I think is what is what they'll be deciding at the next board (00:17:36) meeting Tara you're prepared to go to District Court with this if the board fails to comply with the recommendation. (00:17:42) Well, yes, I am as I said, I made I brought forth an appeal in June. I was stood five months of back and forth talking and then I went to the hearing examiner and it was affirmed. My my my position is clear. It's been clear from the beginning. It's been upheld from the beginning and I'm it will be upheld again and district court. If in fact that's that's the Forum that the Arts board wishes it to be argued at (00:18:13) is Terry's and isolated case. Are we making a mountain out of a molehill by even airing a discussion like this is this a case of someone who maybe there was an error made maybe there wasn't at any rate has been taken to a hearing examiner. We blowing this all out of proportion. (00:18:31) I think that the public and in this case the the Arts the Artist as a public of the Arts board and certainly the most important public of the art sport have a right at all times to take a close. Look at what the Arts board doing and to you know, not to just accept that everything is fine too many times in the history of every country have people assume that everything's fine to find out when we find out that it's there's a disaster going on but I really believe that that this is that the situation is one that is that is it is a unique situation, you know, one out of twelve hundred in that period of time is really pretty unique. But as far as the right of this person to appeal absolutely if that if they feel very strongly that there has been some sort of procedural malfunction anywhere. I think that they have that right I've you know My own personal opinion about whether or not that was the case is not relevant. I think the artist does have a right to take a look at and (00:19:38) question but your personal opinion about that or the opinion of the staff of the Arts board is that his application was complete that staff member who looked at that application felt that it was complete. There was no knowledge in that person that it wasn't and they decided not to contact Harry. (00:19:56) As far as there is no staff opinion about any of this. The only thing that's important of course is the Arts board's final determination and opinion. However, I am again. I would say this is just my own personal opinion, but I feel that the Arts board staff member that reviewed the application felt sure that that was a complete application. (00:20:16) However from the working notes of the of the advisory panel when they reviewed my application, it's clear that my application was met with confusion. It was met with with with bewilderment and it was it was definitely considered to be incomplete and the fact that that the hearing examiner has upheld is indicates that that the the that the screening given this application while being a judgmental call was certainly deficient. (00:20:49) What about the uniqueness Jim says that your applicator your this particular situation is a unique One however, certainly within your rights to take it to the hearing (00:20:59) board. Well, let's consider the word unique from all the perspectives. It's Unique in that it's the first appeal. It's Unique in that an artist had the self-confidence and tenacity 222 continue this appeal for over nine months. It's Unique in that I was one of the few artists who are even aware of the appeals process and it's finally unique in that. It appears that it will be resolved in a matter which which will test the good faith of the of the Arts board as an agency. I will if the odds board acts in a responsible manner concerning my appeal I will be very pleased. (00:21:43) Yeah one thing that the whole process brings to my mind in all of this as far as it concern of a government agency and reviewing applications and that is At the Arts are not something that are easily categorized. They aren't something that because they fit into a night nice neat pattern or Niche that then they're acceptable and because they don't fit into a pattern or Niche they are acceptable I and I'm not even suggesting that necessarily this situation is one that that applies to that at all, but it's always it's always a real challenge in being involved in arts funding to say. Hey, look we're in a real unique field. We're in the Avant, you know a field that has to do with development of art forms. And I would hate to have any time in history in this country is supporting the Arts to because somebody meets specific regular rules and regulations rather than because they're really good that they're funded and that is not an implication at altering that your work is not really good. It's no implication at (00:22:47) all. Well, I mean basically I'll State again. I'm a working artist. I've been in this in the theater Community here for 10 years. I've received support outside of his community. I've come up against Time After Time an animal call the Arts bureaucrat. And while I think that there should be efficient and dedicated support on administrative level for artists. I've found that that it's virtually impossible on a personal level to deal with people who are in the Arts bureaucracy. They are not there in my estimation to to serve artists who may be be of a more who take their work very personally. I think they're there because they have responsibilities other than to the artist. They have responsibilities to a board of directors in I had funding situations in public situations. They have a responsibility just to keeping their own positions and arts bureaucracies. Do not work very well, and I'm I think I think that I would be very hard-pressed to want to make application (00:24:11) again. I'm sorry, the turf fields that way that we are being unresponsive.