Public Meeting
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 7pm - 9:15pm
9th Street Independent Film Center screening room
Moderator: Jack Walsh, Executive Director, NAMAC
Approximately sixty people in attendance, including Cinematheque Board and staff

Jack Walsh opened the meeting, laying out guidelines and asking if there were objections to the meeting being recorded. The Board members, writers of the protest letter, and Executive Director of the Cinematheque introduced themselves briefly, giving some professional background:

Board: Rick Prelinger (President), Sam Green (Secretary), Dominic Wilson, Larry Daressa, Dina Ciraulo, Carrie Lozano, Alfonso Alvarez. Jonathan Marlow could not attend.

Executive Director: Caroline Savage.

Letter writers: Konrad Steiner, Jeffrey Skoller, Jeanne Finley. John Muse could not attend.

Sam Green read a statement prepared by the Board. It acknowledged Irina's talent and dedication, and confirmed that the Board had no issue with her programming. It described the transitional period after Steve Jenkins departure when there was no ED, the hiring of Caroline Savage, and the Board's desire that she establish an organizational structure and work towards economic stability. The Board and ED worked together to develop a staffing plan and de-centralize the curatorial process. When Caroline and Irina couldn't agree on a role for Irina, she was let go. It was clarified that while personnel issues can't be discussed in public, they regret that communication was handled poorly and apologize for their poor communication. The reorganization broadens Cinematheque's activities and the curatorial process to allow more people to participate. A curatorial committee will work with the ED to make decisions. The organization is experiencing economic stability; they are in the black. Since Caroline has assumed leadership, Cinematheque has received $118,000 in funding. They seek suggestions regarding how to work with more transparency. The Board has openings and they invite people to apply. [The full document is attached at the end of the minutes.]

Jeffrey Skoller described how he as a member of the community learned of Irina's last show. Given her interesting, expansive, and pluralistic programming he did not understand why she was terminated. His letter asking about this and the process received a huge response and generated email debate. It was agreed not to interrupt the Cinematheque program that night but rather a letter was drafted to the Board. Filmmakers, scholars, and others both locally and nationally responded to the letter, adding their names as signaturees. People saw Irina as the face of the organization. The letter was written to both impress on the Board and ED that a talented programmer was being cast aside, to ask for more exchange between the Board, ED and Cinematheque's public, and to find ways to maintain the excellent quality of programming that Irina had brought to the organization.

Jeanne Finley asked for clarification whether Irina was dismissed or resigned. That this remains unclear is a problem of communication. Tonight's meeting was called so that more people than attended Irina's last program could participate in the discussion. With a key person who held the programming together gone people are distressed. Are there ways for the organization to be more transparent?

Rick Prelinger clarified that the Board does not want to hide behind ambiguous language: Irina was dismissed. One reason for the lack of clarity is that it was originally treated as an internal personnel matter as was appropriate and respectful. He again apologized on behalf of the Board for communicating ambiguously and unclearly.

Jack opened the discussion. Jeffrey Miller asked if Irina's termination was a financial decision. The organization is in the black; what was the situation when there was no ED? Rick answered that there was no linkage. Irina was an independent contractor being paid for twelve hours/week. The Board wanted the ED to develop new sources of funding and to maintain established ones.

Jeffrey suggested that the amount of work entailed in running the organization is beyond one person's capabilties. Steve Anker created two positions in the early '80s to divide the duties. Does it make sense to eliminate the position? What are the advantages?

Caroline clarified that the new delegation of curatorial responsibilities is not a new model. The details have not all been worked out but she would like to have an advisory curatorial committee that may include people from outside the area, and is comprised of people who want to curate as well as people who are nominated. There will be terms. They will propose and develop proposals; proposals will also be solicited. The committee will bring in pluralism and it fits with the tradition of being an artist made and artist run organization. She would like to help facilitate the community's talents so that Cinematheque can grow and strengthen, and meet its mission of education, advocacy, and exhibition.

Caroline outlined some of Cinematheque's history in terms of how positions were delineated and named, drawing from written materials.

Jack summarized that the history is sketchy and that there are many ways that the programs have been created.

Konrad expressed interest in the structure of the institution historically rather than the names of the positions. Both he and Jeffrey clarified that while there have been periods with curatorial committees and guest programmers, there has always been one or two people responsible for shaping the program and for providing leadership and creative vision. Steve Anker might be seen as meta-curator who drew on his accumulation of connections to artists, community, organization, consulates, etc. Who will be guiding the committee and giving the program coherence? Can a committee be sustainable? Jeanne added that Steve and Irina had worked very closely together, with Steve delegating a lot of work to Irina. She was very involved with the recent curatorial committee. There was a lot of burnout on the committee; will the new committee be paid or volunteer?

Jack summarized the questions as: How will the structure of the committee work? Who will lead the committee? Will there be remuneration?

Caroline clarified that she will lead it. She said that tonight people were expressing belief in Steve Anker, but not giving her a chance. She has hired two part time people; together with Steve Polta, who only works ten hours a week, they all put out the new calendar and are working on the next. She thinks they can pay guest curators as they have stronger finances. She has developed some new relationships with Ann Arbor Film Festival and TIE, as well as with guest curators. There will be more guest curators in the next calendar, as well as a series on Bay Area roots for which they received funding.

Jeanne clarified that people were here to ask for clarity, to understand what happened, and to look at the history of the organization to see what has worked in the past. The meeting is not about not wanting to give her a chance; it does not help to be defensive. Understands how hard it is to run an organization such as this; wants to move forward.

Gail Silva spoke about her involvement in the transitional period. She was engaged by the Board to look at the management. She helped set up systems to better understand the financial situation, and put in place a process to select an ED. She communicated with funders; Irina assisted with this and did a fantastic job. The situation with nonprofits is dire and getting worse. The new structure is more workable. Can't afford to have all these directors in an organization this small. The salaries are terrible. The ED has always had a second job. Support the organization by paying your dues and making donations.

Dina expressed the hope the guest programmers would be paid as this is more sustainable, and that the new structure will give people more formal ways to interact with the organization.

Chuck Mobley expressed his fury at the way a colleague who has done no wrong was treated. He has no confidence in the ED or the Board. While he doesn't feel comfortable relating things he and Irina have discussed since she isn't present, he believes the process could have been handled more reasonably.

Rick said the Board is not trying to make people feel better about the decision; they feel terrible it had to be made. The Board hoped Irina would continue to work with the organization; she did not feel she could. He reported that Irina has asked that the Board not to try and represent her point of view or speak about personnel issues.

Carrie acknowledged that people will not come away from the meeting satisfied but hopes this is the beginning of engaging the community in better ways. Regrets bad communication. Rick also asked for input on how to improve the Cinematheque's systems and means of collaboration. He urged people to consider being on the Board; half the members' terms are up. Want to recruit people who will work hard and ensure Cinematheque's survival in this difficult period.

Amy Trachtenberg asked how we can move forward and embrace the future when not understand how the decision was made. Jeanne asked why the Board says this "had to happen".

Dominic clarified that it didn't have to happen; they wanted Irina to stay in a key position. Their failure was that they handled it in such a way that from Irina's pov, this was unthinkable. Things went sour before the role could be defined.

Konrad stressed that he feels the Board doesn't understand the degree to which people are upset and dismayed about the loss the organization is sustaining. Sam excused the woodenness of the opening statement but emphasized the Board did want to acknowledge what has been lost and its awareness of Irina's accomplishments, and regret that communication was poorly handled. It is not good to have the fifty people in this room alienated from the organization. It has been a hard year-and-a-half with tensions and growing pains that cannot be discussed.

Jeanne added that it is not just a sense of loss that is being experienced, but also a rupture. There has been a rupture in the kind of relationship that Cinemathque has had with the community and they are trying to address this tonight. It needs to go on record that the community is tremendously upset.

Jack suggested we speak about community building, and that the sense of rupture and transparency be addressed; how does the organization move forward?

Ivan Jaigirdar said that we can't move forward without addressing Irina's dismissal. Is the Board accountable? Accountability is how trust is built.

Jack asked what the Board's by-laws are in terms of accountability.

Sam: the organization is small and exists only because of community. Meetings are open; anyone can come. Anyone can get involved.

Jim Flannery expressed that there was continuity between Irina and Steve Anker. She grew into the position and carried it forward. A sense of rupture is accurate; this is a total change, magnified by half the Board leaving. What will the organization be in a year?

Dominic, who is new to Board and the community, thinks it is healthy for an organization to have people cycle through it. It gives people the opportunity to be involved.

Dominic Angerame: the Board has accountability for its decisions.

Gail outlined differences between Canyon, which is a membership driven organization, and the Cinematheque which is a forum for presenting work. Things can be more internal at Cinematheque than at Canyon.

Konrad tied together various threads: the accountability of the Board has the nature of a conscience of the organization. When many people see its actions leading to a rupture and a loss, the board has failed to maintain continuity with the history of the organization. Rick agreed that Cinematheque wants to move on but not erase legacy.

Jeffrey, with some added comments from Konrad, outlined concrete suggestions to help move things forward:
1) Look carefully at the position of Artistic Director. Can the Cinematheque's high standards be maintained without the oversight of this position? The Board should make this a priority and a goal. If it is feasible to reinstate this position, get community input.
2) Create an advisory committee, including people from outside of the area, which can be turned to for input and advice. This may be where institutional memory comes from.
3) Find a way for the Board to make public statements several times a year about what is going on. This would give people a better sense of the difficulties of running the organization.
4) What about the strategic plan? Can we see this document?

Larry: Seems like reasonable things we should consider.

The question of a strategic plan was raised. Steve Jenkins finished one in '03; it needs to be revisited and Rick suggested it would be wonderful to do with community involvement. Caroline described a grant received from the Hewlett Foundation that will enable Cinematheque to work with the Non-Profit Finance Fund to assess the organization's financial situation in relation to its vision. She complimented the suggestions that were outlined and hopes that people can get over the situation.

Dean Smith asked where the perception that the Cinematheque's curatorial process isn't open comes from. He has attended programs for years and sees the program as reflecting international, national, and local influence. He knew no one at the organization when he approached it, and was received warmly, and his film was selected by be shown. Dina has heard from people who felt they had no point of entry. She would like to have an answer for people who ask how they can interact with the organization. Konrad asked if there was a time when this wasn't possible? He felt the curatorial committee didn't turn people away but sought people out. However he cautioned that the proposed curatorial process seems like it will require skilled staff time to review a flood of admissions. Who will do that work? Still there would be work that wouldn't get shown.

Jeanne talked about how the question of openness is at the heart of nonprofits, and is an interesting question for the Cinematheque. How open or closed is the organization? What communities does it serve? The degree that the Cinematheque's programming was international and politically diverse is unusual for such a small organization and was possible due to Irina's rigor. She looked at every thing; she was broad. What does it mean to be open? Openness is served by a way of thinking. Real vision comes from rigor. This is what an organization should have, and did have.

Amy remarked that Cinematheque had lost Konrad's vision as well as Irina's. He wasn't paid and did excellent programs (benshi, poetry); Irina was paid for 12 hours while working many more. An intricate web of connections was cut without considering how they will be maintained.

A filmmaker, Douglas Katellus, said that he came to the meeting less out of concern with the firing than from the request for community involvement. He doesn't see how an individual can be stronger than the community. While a flood can be dangerous, so can having one person in charge of that flow. He is excited to see what will happen.

Jack suggested the Board talk about what they are looking for in new Board members since four are rotating off, and whether they would like names for an advisory committee.

Rick said the term is three years; he has served a one-year extension by request. They look for people who have skills that can help the Cinematheque in terms of finances, public relations. Need strong representation of artists. Need people who are willing to do a lot of work. The Board wants Cinematheque to be able to do more: special events, events in other areas such as the Mission, outreach. Dina added that they need people with financial and fundraising experience, who can help with the budgets.

The Board had been seven members but has been expanded to eight. A check of the by-laws revealed that it can go up to eleven. But if the Board is too big, the meetings can be unwieldy. Rick, Sam, and Dina's terms are ending; Lynn Kirby resigned. Contact anyone on the Board if you are interested. There will be a subcommittee.

Jack asked for other concrete suggestions.

Maia Cybelle Carpenter spoke about the importance of addressing communication issues. Communication between the Board, staff, volunteers, and curatorial committee has been problematic. She felt that her colleagues weren't treated respectfully through changing messages, and as a result resigned from the curatorial committee.

Janis Crystal Lipzin would like to hear more about new initiatives; an organization of this size can't survive with one purpose. This meeting has focused only on curatorial vision. She is interested in the three-pronged mission (exhibition, education, and advocacy), and would like to see a return of Cinematograph. She congratulated the Board on their selection of ED and thinks the new structure allows for renewal and more transparency. A small group is dissatisfied; it is counterproductive to focus on personnel issues rather than new initiatives. Caroline added that she is interested in building the Cinematheque not destroying it. She suggested that maybe another meeting can be called to discuss how people can get involved. She does not want divisiveness but to work as a team. Her staff is now working as a team. People who would like to hear from the Cinematheque can use the listserv; they send out weekly announcements about the programming; a section of the website lists upcoming events.

Chuck suggested ways of working with other organizations around coordinating with guest artists: to go to the organization who is coordinating the artist's visit rather than directly to the artist.

Ivan suggested the Cinematheque look at its identity again. Other organizations are already doing what the Cinematheque is proposing as new initiatives. There are questions of territory. These are conversations Dina looks forward to, that need to happen. It is hard to look at the big picture, because the Board has had to be involved in the day-to-day, but it needs to be done.

Kathy Geritz asked whether Board terms include the option for renewal. With three-year terms, it is difficult for the Board to hold the legacy of the organization and to plan for its vision. Although these are Board responsibilities, they end up being held by the staff who have worked at the organization much longer. Continuity of vision is particularly difficult when half the Board goes off at once. No one on the Board dates back to the time of Steve Anker which represents recent history. Rick responded that the Board often consulted with Irina, Steve Polta, and Steve Anker about how things had been done in the past. This concern is something to talk about soon; it is urgent.

Jack closed the meeting.

Notes taken by Kathy Geritz

APPENDIX: STATEMENT BY SAN FRANCISCO CINEMATHEQUE BOARD
read at the start of the meeting

Thank you for coming tonight and for showing your interest in the SF Cinematheque. We take your presence as evidence of your engagement with Cinematheque and of Cinematheque's importance and we sincerely hope we will emerge from this evening in a strengthened partnership with you.

Many of you are here because you care about the departure of Artistic Director Irina Leimbacher. We hope to address this as best we can. Foremost, we want acknowledge her longstanding contributions to the organization, and state categorically that we think Irina is a gifted, passionate curator. We have never taken issue with her programming.

In this light, we would like to take this opportunity to familiarize you with how we propose to move forward in her absence with strong new leadership and a more coherent organizational structure.

In fall 2004, our Executive Director Steve Jenkins was hired away by another organization in this building. The Cinematheque lacked an executive director for 1-1/2 years while the board recruited a replacement. During this uncertain period, Irina Leimbacher and Steve Polta generously stepped up to run Cinematheque's day-to-day operations, including many tasks previously associated with management. This was understandably a difficult time, with unclear and shifting job descriptions, staff disputes, missed grants and fiscal uncertainty for an organization that has always operated without a financial safety net.

In the absence of an Executive Director, Irina and Steve adopted the titles of Artistic Director and Administrative Director, respectively; the board approved of these job descriptions as an interim solution. In late 2005, at Irina's recommendation, the Board interviewed and subsequently hired Caroline Savage as Executive Director. While Irina and Steve had performed beyond the call of duty, the board felt strongly that one of Caroline's first tasks should be to establish an organizational structure which would put the Cinematheque back on a stable financial and administrative footing. As Executive Director, Caroline is, of course, responsible for the organizational tree, all hiring and firing decisions, and most importantly implementing the board's strategic plan, part of which necessarily involves programming.

Over the past months Caroline has acted decisively, with the Board's approval, to create a better coordinated, more effective administrative and artistic staffing plan. Much of this work has gone smoothly. Steve Polta's hours have been reduced to sixteen per week, and he is primarily in charge of the archive. A part-time program associate and an administrative associate provide clerical and staff support. And we intend to make our curating practices more decentralized and open to the community, a process we will discuss shortly.

When, as a result of these changes, Caroline and Irina were unable to agree on a new role for Irina within this reorganization, the only way out of this untenable situation was to let Irina go. The Board carefully watched this situation unfold and supported Caroline's action. A letter was sent to Irina asking very respectfully and sincerely that she continue to participate in the programming of the Cinematheque but she declined. While we wish our decision had been communicated to the community more clearly and in a more timely fashion, we cannot address confidential matters regarding personnel issues in greater detail in a public forum. Nevertheless, we apologize for our poor communication with what has appeared to many as a lack of transparency.

We are grateful for Irina's immense contributions to the Cinematheque over the 12 years of her involvement and regret the loss of her exceptional curatorial abilities.

In moving forward, Cinematheque plans to implement a new programming strategy that will allow us to fulfill our mission by tapping the talents and collaboration of the entire community. We are broadening our curatorial process so that there is a mechanism for more of you to contribute. To that end, the Executive Director will be soliciting and developing the Cinematheque's schedule with the help of a curatorial committee whose job will be to draw together the best programming ideas from around the Bay and beyond.

Cinematheque is financially stable for the first time in three years. We ended 2006 in the black. Since Caroline Savage assumed a leadership role in February 2006, our funding has reached a record high of $118,800, which includes $6300 from our recent Miranda July benefit. Since each ticket to a Cinematheque show covers only 60% of the cost of putting on that program, it is necessary for us to maintain a strong and diverse financial base.

We seek your thoughts, suggestions, ideas and involvement in developing other ways the community and Cinematheque can interact more transparently and constructively. For example, four Board slots will be opening up this year, beginning in the next month or two, potentially bringing new ideas and perspectives to the Cinematheque. We invite all of you to join us in continuing the Cinematheque's tradition of innovation and renovation.