Anti-Grant Fears Linger in Costa Mesa : Arts: City Council majority says it doesn’t object to funding, but some in the arts community worry about the future.

Not everyone in Costa Mesa’s arts community was taken by surprise when the City Council voted Monday to rescind $75,000 in previously approved arts grants.

Indeed, although the controversy over Costa Mesa arts grants that erupted last summer has subsided, fears about continuing municipal support for the arts have not.

The council’s 3-2 majority cited a tightening economy for taking back money that had been earmarked for arts education and outreach programs. And in recent interviews with The Times, four of the five council members (Ed Glasgow refused comment) indicate that although at least one would like to change the way the money is spent, none of the four want to eliminate city arts grants.

But Lori Houghton, chairwoman of the city’s Cultural Arts Committee, believes that forces other than strictly economic ones are still at work.

“The segment of the community that wouldn’t want to publicly fund the arts is quite vocal, and my fear is they are continuing to have impact on the council,” Houghton said.

Houghton, her fellow committee members and other arts advocates are worried, they say, because John and Ernie Feeney, Costa Mesa residents who sparked last year’s arts debate, continue to wage a relentless assault against city arts support.

“I don’t know what the Feeneys hope to gain by their constant annoyances,” said Costa Mesa artist Esther Shaw, a member of the Orange County Coalition for Freedom of Expression.

After last summer’s complaints from the Feeneys, the council established controversial arts-grant guidelines banning the use of city money to create or present “obscene” works or to promote religious or political activities. The language of the restrictions was modified Monday so that arts grants now cite state laws regarding those areas.

Since then, Houghton said, the Feeneys have been trying to “undermine” the city’s “whole arts-grant process as much as they can.”

Ernie Feeney has audiotaped the last four monthly arts committee meetings, Houghton said, as well as other informal “study sessions” with council and committee members.

Ernie Feeney also delivered a “scathing criticism” of the committee during a recent council meeting, arts committee members said. At the meeting, Feeney charged that the council-appointed committee had “become autonomous,” that it was functioning in “never-never land” and wanted to act as a “dictator” of arts policy.

In a recent interview, Ernie Feeney would not comment on whether she thinks the city should fund the arts but confirmed that she has been taping arts-committee meetings because she has “just taken an interest.” She said she has taped every study session, regardless of topic, since 1983. Ernie’s husband, John, did not return several calls from The Times.

“I just do it because then if I want to call up anything (from the session) to check something, I have my tape,” she said.

Despite any real or perceived pressures the Feeneys have exerted on council members, none said the council would do away with city arts grants, which total about $175,000 annually. (According to a study released last year by an Orange County official, 16 cities have some sort of arts support, though not necessarily in direct grants. Newport Beach has an arts budget of $120,000 this year, according to a city official.)

Mayor Mary Hornbuckle, one of three who voted Monday to rescind the $75,000, said budget constraints--not a change in attitude about arts funding--forced her hand.

She has warned before that budget problems could mean curtains for city arts grants but is fundamentally supportive.

“It is a luxury . . . but as long as we have adequate funds in our budget to cover other necessary activities, I have no built-in objection to funding for the arts,” she said.

Councilman Peter F. Buffa echoed her view, saying that unless it comes down to a choice between funding “emergency services and a chamber-music group . . . there’s definitely a place for the public sector to be supporting the arts.”

Even Vice Mayor Sandra L. Genis, who has compared arts funding to “rich folks’ welfare,” stopped short of saying she opposes all city arts funding. But Genis said she will pay close attention to a survey that the city plans to conduct to gauge community support for the expense.

“If the vast majority would just as soon have more sidewalks and less potholes or adult baseball leagues, we’ll have to seriously re-examine our arts funding,” she said.

Genis would also like to see grants fund only arts groups’ education and outreach programs to the underserved, such as children and senior citizens, she said. At present, grants may be used for various needs, including basic operations.

“City grants should be used to make arts available to those who might not otherwise have the opportunity to be exposed to the arts,” she said. “They should not (benefit people) who earn a lot more than the (majority) of taxpayers in town.”

Other council members disagreed that arts grants should fund outreach and education exclusively, though Buffa said that “should definitely be the emphasis.”

Houghton worried that the limitation could be detrimental.

“It’s too restrictive. It’s like saying to a family, ‘Here’s some money; you can only spend it on food,’ and instead they need medical care,” she said.

She also hopes that arts supporters will become more vocal.

“My goal would be to get more citizens to speak up,” she said.