Supply and Demand of the Arts

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Chairman Rocco Landesman is stirring up controversy based on remarks he made during a recent conference on developing new plays held at Arena Stage in Washington. In talking about struggling theatres, Landesman said, “You can either increase demand or decrease supply. Demand is not going to increase, so it is time to think about decreasing supply.”

You can bet that this caused quite a reaction, with opinions flying on both sides of the issue. And this isn’t the first time that this sentiment has surfaced (see “Does Nonprofit Mean Unaccountable?"). The New York Times “Arts Beat” blog followed up with Landesman on the issue, in which he responded to his prior comment:

“There is a disconnect that has to be taken seriously – our research shows that attendance has been decreasing while the number of the organizations have been proliferating. That’s a discussion nobody wants to have.”

I think there is some truth to his statements. If we want arts organizations to be efficient and run more like businesses, then there is also the possibly that they may fall prey to the effects of supply and demand. While I’m a big arts supporter, I think some people have the mentality that they should be showered with money just because they produce art – whether or not they even have an audience or the know-how to responsibly manage that money. Some of the commenters also don’t seem to know the current state of the arts, asking why we don’t just increase funding. Nice thought, but let’s be realistic. Right now, we have 165 of our nation’s leaders calling for the elimination of the NEA altogether to help cut down on the deficit.

On the other hand, I don’t agree that demand will not increase. Certainly right now it’s not and probably won’t in the near future. But as I am going into the arts field, I can’t help but think optimistically, that someday this will change. That we will see more demand because we will have strong arts education programs in our schools that help build future audiences (obviously a long way off from the path we’re on now). Or maybe we will see demand change because we discover different artistic products that speak to new audiences.

In the “Arts Beat” follow-up, Landesman also talked about the possibility that the NEA consider reallocating resources to make fewer, but larger grants to arts organizations. This concerns me, and others voiced their fear that this might lead to support mostly for larger institutions. Maybe the thought behind this is that the NEA will be able to show a greater impact of its dollars by supporting larger portions of arts projects. Or maybe there is worry that some of the organizations it funds aren’t sustainable or that they oversaturate the market. Or maybe it is in response to the current political climate. But I see the fear that smaller organizations could be left out if they don’t have the capacity – or the community need – for a larger-scale project. However, that doesn’t mean that their impact isn’t significant. This change in direction requires significant consideration and I expect we’ll hear more debate on these issues.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/landesman-comments-on-theater/

http://newplay.arenastage.org/2011/01/fighting-words-from-rocco-landesman.html#comments

Public Art in Empty Parking Lot in Utah

Salt Lake City initiated an exciting and innovative public art competition that will fill an empty parking lot in the heart of downtown. The project is considered a bargain for the city since it will use $36,000 that was already earmarked for landscaping the empty lot. An additional $10,000 in earmarked city arts funding will be supplemented for the design.

The winner of this competition, Daniel Lyman, will fill the parking lot with this arresting design: a temporary field of composite rods that will sway in the wind like tall grass or aspens. His design is inspired by watching wind blowing through a wheat field. A student at the University of Utah College of Architecture, Lyman won the competition through the American Institute of Architects Utah’s Young Architects Forum. Lyman said: “Part of my thinking was that if people are going to shows and to restaurants [downtown], it would be more fun for them to have an interactive experience with that space,” says Lyman, who will also act as the construction contractor on the project.”

Lyman will insert 1,200 flexible 10-foot nylon composite rods into concrete bases in the lot next to Capitol Theatre. The installation will be completed in May 2011, and the competition judges say that it will meld architecture with public art.

Director of Salt Lake Art Center and a judge in the competition, Adam Price said that Lyman’s design is “striking. It offered the possibility of a different kind of public art in Salt Lake City. Rather than being an object, it is an experience. There’s really nothing like this in Salt Lake City right now in terms of an interactive art.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/51036669-81/art-lake-salt-competition.html.csp

Minnesota: Legacy Funding Up For Review

In 2010, the arts in Minnesota have seen a tremendous inflow of revenue due to the availability of Legacy Amendment funding. Voters approved a sales tax for arts and environmental projects in 2008. Unfortunately, the Legacy Fund distribution process is up for review in the 2011 Legislature.

Twenty percent of the proceeds from the 3/8th of 1% sales tax goes to the Arts and Cultural Fund, amounting to a total of $43 million in 2010. $30.5 million is distributed by the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, while other regional arts councils distribute the rest. The amount might seem a lot, however it is spread in many different directions. Arts Board Executive Director Sue Gens said: "We received about 1,500 applications for grants last year, which is more than double what we would have normally received. And we were able to make about 650 grants."

In addition, some of the legacy funding went to promoting access to the arts. Rebecca Peterson, executive director of A Center for the Arts in Fergus Falls, said: "Through our regional arts council, we did a collaboration which allows us to bring artists and performers into our senior centers. We created a program that actually provides access for a lot of people who haven't had a lot of hands-on access to the arts." This program received a Legacy grant of $17,000.

Although many arts centers, museums, and theatres have benefited from the legacy funding, the distribution will still be up for re-examination, including whether the State Arts board and the regional arts councils will continue to distribute arts Legacy funds. This issue will be debated in the light of a looming $6.2 billion deficit. Although the arts act as an economic stimulus, I predict the legacy funding will undergo a hard and long battle.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/12/30/arts-legacy-amendment/

My own... or newly learned definition on Public Policy

It is difficult to write about Public Policy and about the Arts without a definition of both concepts. So I am going to start my journey through this blog by expressing my understanding on Public Policy.

Public Policy is defined as every government action towards solving or assisting a public concern. It is defined as the criteria, principles, strategies and/or line of actions a community, organized as State, choses to solve the problems and challenges it faces as a whole.

Public policies define actions and guidelines not just for the government but also for the private and social sector and can be expressed in the shape of institutions, programs, guidelines, and norms.

Apparently, Republicans Hate Making Money...

1700% Return on Investment?! Yes, Please!

If you lent a friend $1 today and one year later, they gave you $17.75, you'd take that arrangement, right? Of course you would! Unless you are a Republican. Yup, the GOP is at it again. The Spending Reduction Act that was released by the Republican Study Committee earlier this month proposes to slash funding for arts and culture. In these economic times, I can certainly respect lawmakers attempting to make cuts and balance a budget through the adoption of new or revised policy. However, in their most recently proposed bill, the GOP is way off base. You see, federal support of the arts through partial matches to state agencies, organizations such as the NEA and National Endowment for the Humanities, and other national arts programs totals 1.6 billion dollars a year. That may seem like a lot, but not in comparison to the amount of revenue that the arts provide to federal, state, and local governments and businesses, which equals upwards of $30 billion annually. Yeah. There is that 1700% return on investment I was talking about. And if any Republicans on the Republican Study Committee are reading this blog and want to argue with me about this, here is the math to figure that out:

(Return on Investment-Initial Cost of Investment)/(Initial Cost of Investment), multiply the answer by 100 to get percentage.

($30 billion - $ 1.6 billion)/($1.6 billion)=17.75*100=1775% return on your investment.

Sorry GOP. You can't argue with facts. (Although, you will probably try) The proposals to cut arts funding as part of this bill are absolutely ridiculous and are extremely dangerous. Not only will economies lose monies that the arts provide, but you'll certainly be hurting for the tax monies from those 5.7 million people whose jobs you want to cut. Then you'll have to start proposing crazy things like cutting your own salaries or stop initiating pointless wars. But that's another blog post altogether...

Here is the exact language from the bill:

TITLE V—PROGRAM ELIMI NATIONS AND RELATED PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—Provisions Relating to Program Eliminations

SEC. 501. PROGRAM ELIMINATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any Federal department or agency may be obligated or expended for any program or other purpose described in subsection (b).

Some of the programs listed in subsection (b) include: The Save America's Treasures Program, The National Heritage Areas Program, The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (!?!), The U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation.

Also included in the proposed cuts in later parts of the bill are: Arts in Education (as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), The Special Olympics Sports Empowerment Program, the Head Start Program, and many other cultural programs.

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JORDAN_004_xml.pdf (link to the full bill)

Thoughts from the head of the Republican Study Committee on the Spending Reduction Act:
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=220713


And the LA Times article in the subject....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/01/republican-study-group-proposes-cutting-arts-funds.html

NEA Grants to Support City Design

During the 79th winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Chairman Rocco Landesman announced the NEA Mayor’s Institute on City Design 25th Anniversary Initiative (MICD 25). This funding program would award 15 grants—from $25,000 to $250,000—to cities for projects and programs that maintain design standards to promote businesses and jobs. MICD, which was founded in 1986, is a partnership between the NEA, the USCM, and the American Architectural Foundation. It helps “transform communities through design by preparing mayors to be the chief urban designers of their cities,” primarily through sessions that engage mayors and prominent design experts in solving urban design challenges.

The grants can be used to support any phase of the project—planning, development, design, implementation, or any other related arts process. Only cities that have had mayors go through MICD are eligible for a grant. This totals about 600 cities. The NEA will be looking for cities that create partnerships between multiple sectors—projects that engage arts organizations, design professionals, business owners, community foundations, developers, and more. They will fund planning projects, design projects, and revitalization initiatives.

Here’s a policy example that unites federal agencies with local governments, the private sector, and the voluntary sector. The NEA infuses dollars into the chosen projects while the cities that receive these grants commit large amounts of city dollars that essentially will promote the arts through city design. Landesman said, “Our intention is ambitious, but simple. We will start in a few selected communities where we can make a real difference, and find ways that federal agencies, in conjunction with significant private sector commitment, can build complete communities using the arts as a fulcrum.”

He used an example of how a city with an affordable artists housing project might get to consult with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Perhaps, the city of Cincinnati should consider my proposal for affordable live/work housing for artists and pursue a MICD 25 grant to support the initiative. Affordable artist housing or other projects could serve the purpose of the Revitalization of Over-the-Rhine or other government initiatives. Mayor Mark Mallory attended the 2006 MICD session in Charleston, SC thus making Cincinnati eligible for an MICD 25 grant.

It’s unfortunate that members of the Republican Study Committee do not value the importance of the arts and have proposed to eliminate the NEA. Initiatives like MICD 25 are clearly valuable. The economic, physical, and social effects this initiative will have on cities across the country will be vast. It promotes “diverse, sustainable, and livable communities,” which I think most people can value.

Sources:

The NEA Mayors' Institute on City Design 25^th Anniversary Initiative

Chairman Rocco Landesman remarks before the United States Conference of Mayors

Who would follow the US model of funding the arts? The U.K.

UK arts funding to undergo radical overhaul is a depressing article about the cuts happening to the arts in the U.K. The cuts will be made to the Arts Council England total giving, which will reduce total funding by £100m--nearly 25% of its budget, which could equate into 100 organizations loosing their funding. The ACE will attempt to make the recipients more accountable for public support, and larger recipients will be urged to help smaller organizations with plant and labor. 

The alleged theory behind these cuts and modifications are said to be "dynamic and ambitious, so the arts aren't going to die in this period, they are going to thrive" Which is an interesting theory, who knew less money meant you were going to thrive? 

 The goal is to make the decrease as least painful as possible. The necessary cuts will be made in a transparent manner, over the course of the next 10 years. The goal being that larger organizations will help support the smaller ones. 

This idea is ridiculous to me. It appears that they are trying to put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig. Cuts to the arts are never good, and no UK, the arts do not somehow thrive with less money. This news should come to as a shock to those stalwart arts advocates who believe that the UK model is efficient and sustainable. Turns out they have finally run out of money. 

IRS threatens to revoke NFP status for up to 300,000 orgs.

I found this article in a mass email that I received from a colleague. I clicked on the link and read through the Top Ten Arts Policy Stories of 2010. Number 7 on their list is a little article about the IRS revoking up to 300,000 arts organizations. The interesting part of the story is where it proclaims that "This story went virtually unreported this year, but those who continually bemoan the rise in the number of nonprofits in this country had a bone thrown their way this year."

This article states that the NFPs that are at risk are those with a budget less than >$25,000. The IRS requires that the approximately 714,000 organization with the >$25,000 budget complete the 990-N "postcard" form requesting basic information. Apparently, nearly half of the 714,000 organization completed the postcard for the past 3 years in a row. After many delays and extensions, the IRS has already begun to throw out some organizations, are expected to publish the entire list soon.

Some of these delinquent organizations have been dissolved or never created, others are thriving.


This news story puts an ugly spot light on NFP's in America. Numerous politicians have expressed their disdain of the NFP sector, and are beginning to corner the NEA as necessary budget cut. This should be a wake up call to the small NFP of America, file your tax forms!


Createquity
IRS news room

Justin

Threats to National Arts & Cultural Programs

During last night’s State of the Union Address, President Obama challenged Americans to make the country stronger and more competitive in the global economy. In his speech he made the remark: “What we can do – what America does better than anyone else – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people”

This challenge couldn’t be more clearly connected to the benefits of the arts in helping people spark creativity and imagination. Many studies have shown that the arts can help enhance critical thinking skills and improve problem-solving abilities – getting people to think outside of the box, which is exactly what is needed for innovation.

So it is concerning that many of our country’s leaders don’t see the value in the arts – or don’t see the connection between innovation and the arts – and have made some drastic proposals to eliminate support for the arts. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 165 Republican House members, has proposed to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as some arts education programs through the U.S. Department of Education. The committee’s proposal includes a number of other program cuts and eliminations in an effort to reduce the national deficit.

Yes, the nation’s deficit is a major concern. And I’m on board with creating a more efficient government that is more responsible in its spending. But there comes a point when we will just be hurting ourselves rather than helping.

Eliminating the NEA and other programs that support our country’s arts and culture won’t help us in the long run. The small amount of funding these programs receive in the grand scheme of things is not worth the costs of eliminating these programs.

Without the arts in our schools, we run the risk of future generations not having the ingenuity needed to advance our industries. Without arts and culture in our communities, they become less dynamic and less connected. Our country loses part of its national identity when we erode the already small amount we put towards arts and cultural spending.

I think our leaders can use a little more creative problem solving to find a better way to reduce the deficit while still keeping the programs that help support our nation’s arts and culture.


Sources:
Americans for the Arts
Republican Study Committee
State of the Union Address

Restoring a Cultural Gem

Recently, I was sent an article titled: "Energizing the Emery Theatre", which discussed the historic Emery Theatre and attempts to revitalize it. The theatre sits at the corner of Walnut and Central Parkway in Over the Rhine, where the Coffee Emporium is also located. This article piqued my interest because I have eaten lunch at Coffee Emporium many times and had absolutely no idea that such an amazing space was literally feet away from me.

Emery Theatre was built in 1911 for the purpose of housing the Cincinnati Orchestra. As you can guess by the name, it was funded by Mary Emery, who also funded many buildings at CCM and in the village of Mariemont (which she actually developed and built as one of the first "planned" villages). The theater once hosted big names like John Phillip Sousa and George Gershwin, but it has now fallen silent, having not been fully operational in over a decade. This is a terrible waste, as the theater is both beautiful and acoustically terrific, once taughted as having acoustics that were only bested by Carnegie Hall.

The current attempt to revive this cultural gem is being taken on by the Emery Center Corporation (ECC) and the Requiem Project. Stage 1 of the renovations are estimated to cost at least $3.5 million, with work including fixing up the seating, stage, and electricity. Final plans for the building envision a gallery, a sculpture garden, classrooms, artist studios, and perhaps rooftop rehearsal space for the Cincinnati Ballet, who once rehearsed in part of the building. One of their methods of generating revenue for the renovations is quite unique - they manage the apartments in the building and plan to use those profits to fund part of the renovations of the theater. The ECC plans to raise money through "diverse income streams", not relying solely on individual donations.

Another source of income that ECC is hoping to develop is the City of Cincinnati. They have already engaged Laure Quinlivan, chair of the City Council's Quality of Life Commitee. Councilwoman Quinlivan hopes to see the theater restored, but is warning that the city no longer has money set aside for capital arts grants as they once did.

I think that it is imperative for the City of Cincinnati to get involved in the project and support the restoration of such a wonderful landmark. Hopefully, organizations like 3CDC and ArtsWave will also be able to provide both funding and guidance through the capital campaign for this project. This theater would be a great community space for Over the Rhine, like a multidisciplinary community art center for the City. Opening a space like the Emery Theatre would continue the revitalization of Over the Rhine as a mecca for arts experiences in Cincinnati.

Chicago Mergers in the Arts

On Wednesday, January 19th, Lois Weisberg--Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) in Chicago--announced her retirement from the position that she has held since 1989. Mayor Richard M. Daley appointed her to the position after she had served for six years as the Executive Director of then Mayor Harold Washington's Office of Special Events (MOSE). Weisberg has been a champion for the arts playing a major role in such initiatives as the "Cows on Parade" citywide public art display, the World Music Festival, the Chicago Cultural Center, Millenium Park, and countless other projects. At the age of 85, she has decided to end her tenure with the DCA because of this month's merger between her department and MOSE. Weisberg said, "My intimate knowledge of the inner workings of (the Mayor's Office of Special Events) from the time I served as its Executive Director during the Harold Washington administration coupled with my years as Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs makes it impossible for me to assume the leadership of this merged entity."

First, what's the difference between these two entities? According to the City of Chicago's website, the DCA's mission is to "promote ongoing celebration of the arts, serve the individuals and institutions who create and sustain them, and market the city’s abundant cultural resources to a worldwide audience." It offers more than 2,000 free arts events--exhibitions, performances, and programs--each year at venues throughout the city. On the other hand, MOSE "provides Chicagoans and visitors with year-round family style entertainment, by producing and promoting free festivals and city-wide holiday celebrations," such as the Taste of Chicago, the Air & Water Show, and more. While the missions of the two departments are similar, they are quite different. The DCA is more focused on initiatives that offer the public access to free public art and that preserve the city's culture. MOSE focuses on providing entertainment and tourist attractions.

So, why the merger? The merger is part of Daley's plan to eliminate costs and close a supposed $655 million budget gap. The merger has been under scrutiny, and it is apparent that Weisberg is not in favor of the change. She has also vocalized her opposition to the proposed privatization of the Taste of Chicago and other summer festivals like the Blues Festival and the Jazz Festival. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that, over the past three years, the city had lost about $7 million on these admission fee-free music festivals. In response, MOSE released a Request for Proposal for private companies to bid and make plans to privatize the festivals. Only one company submitted a bid.

Celebrate Chicago LLC is comprised of the Illinois Restaurant Association, JAM Productions, and AEG Live. Their plan proposes to charge a $20 admission fee to the Taste of Chicago as well as up to a $65 concert fee for the “big name” music acts. The festival began in 1980 and while attendees must pay for food and drinks as they wish to consume, admission to the musical acts has always been free of charge. One may assume that the biggest draw for millions of people each year, other than the food, is the free concerts. Mayor Daley is opposed to charging for the event. He thinks that the festival, which was originally focused on food, should return to that focus and move away from its most recent concentration on music. He thinks that in order to cut costs, the big name acts should be eliminated and live music should be provided by local acts.

The selection committee is reviewing Celebrate Chicago’s proposal and has not made a decision about whether or not they will accept the bid. MOSE’s Executive Director said that if the private sector could not deliver an adequate bid, the summer festivals would face huge cuts in order to save as many events as possible. So the city has a choice to make. To privatize the city’s most heavily attended events of the summer or not? How will this decision affect attendance, city support, and tourism? Will it change the quality and nature of the music we typically hear at these festivals? How will it impact the Mayor’s budget and that of the DCA/MOSE?

This policy discussion will continue under the city's new leadership come May. Mayor Daley has certainly influenced the Chicago arts and culture scene since assuming his post, but will the next Mayor prioritize the arts in the same way? Will he or she support the privatization of the Taste of Chicago and other summer festivals? Will the DCA/MSOE get the financial and human resources support it needs to continue its impact on the city? That remains to be seen.

Sources:

City's Culture Guru Leaving Amid Rift with Daley

More on the Chicago arts department Merger

Lone bid for Taste of Chicago charges admission

City of Chicago

Keep your hands off my tax dollars

The Detroit Symphony Orchestra has been on strike since October 4, 2010. The strike was originated from the renewal/negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement between the Musicians Union and the DSO management. Since the strike, the negotiation tensions have spread to the press, especially the Detroit Free Press. Every part of this strike has been well (if not overly) publicized across the entire country.

Without going into much detail re the strike, I will say the most fascinating part has been reading the Freep.com comment section of the DSO articles. What makes it interesting is not the people's support (or lack or support) for their orchestra, but how they view the financial situation. They are viewing the Musicians as elists, Management as inept, views on labor unions, and (most importantly) the effect on their tax dollars.




Did I just mention tax dollars? Yes, a surprising amount of comments are surrounding the idea of musicians pay=their tax dollars. Below are some quotes of commentators on the article.


"And if they never play again, on my dime.....its ok.....I will be alright!!! Let those that attend pay to show their appriciation. Just don't ask any money from taxpayers that are struggling"

"Unless the proposed contract puts the DSO 'in the black', and the public is NOT expected to contribute tax dollars......NO DEAL !!!"

"Carl Levin 100% supported the Chicago air traffic controllers when they were doing their slowdowns prior to being fired by President Reagan. I still have the letter from Levin to prove it. I'm certain that Levin, who is totally owned by the Unions, and Jenny, who was mostly owned by the Unions, brokered a really FAIR compromise -- ya right. All I can say to DSO management is, GOOD LUCK! Don't expect that very many of the musician's "union brothers and sisters" will buy concert tickets or otherwise support the DSO -- it ain't gonna happen."


"Some say there is no tax dollars spent on the DSO. HOWEVER, if, as stated, after the contributions they are still $19,000,000 in the hole.....Where does it come from ???"


This entire situation is a HOT MESS. Not only has this strained strike wreaked havoc upon the musicians, staff, and patrons, but has also incited the anger of the "Average Joe" People in general, in my honest opinion, are generally under-educated on how the world works. Because of this, we see a large majority, such as those on the Freep's comment section, spouting this about public policy (such as taxes), which in no way have any truth to them.


Is it the DSO's fault for not confronting the 1,000's of "concerned citizens" over their tax worries? One commentator believes that since the orchestra will be in the hole that the government will provide the DSO a bailout! Apparently people's realities of what the government will bail out--the arts--is vastly different from what the government will actually bail out--their friend's corporations. Should the DSO's management confront such hideous lies? Yes.


The people of Detroit are ignorant of the revenues an Orchestra receives. By looking at the balance sheet of the DSO, we can see that the smallest percentage of revenue is from "The Government", especially the local government. The DSO should educate and reframe the public's perception of how a Not-For-Profit is actually funded. Until then, the People of Detroit will still believe that the survival of the DSO is a tax dollar issue.


My hunch is that the plethora of commentators on the Freep.com website are not supporters of the arts (obviously), or the DSO (even more obvious), but over zealous extremists. The issue is the extremist have been the most vocal about the strike, which is changing the way the news is reported. Therefore, I wish that the comment sections on Freep.com either be screened or blocked, as to prevent the evolution of imaginary public policy issues.


Justin

Does Nonprofit Mean Unaccountable?

I recently read a blog post by Diane Ragsdale in which she discusses the amount of nonprofit arts organizations and the funding pool in which they exist.  She accurately used the metaphor of "too many fish in the pond."  In a simple economic look at our sub-sector, we have a surplus and not enough demand. While the arts help make a community vibrant, is there a point at which we have too much?  Is our market so saturated with arts organizations that our audiences, current and potential, are so overwhelmed to the point of indifference?  This begs the time old question:  quality versus quantity?  If our revenue streams vis a vis individual and corporate contributions were more focused on a smaller number of organizations, would the quality improve?  Would more people be willing to donate if there were fewer organizations asking for money?

Is there something we as citizens can do to deal with this potential problem?  I've been thinking about the possibility of a policy that could help cut down on the number of arts organizations.  Before you get your panties of righteousness in a bunch, hear me out.  There is a definite problem with arts organizations being poorly managed and having to close their doors as a result.  The worse the economy gets the more organizations are forced to file for bankruptcy or dramatically scale back their seasons or cease to exist altogether.  The strongest factor in this problem is the reliance upon public funding.  Ragsdale suggests that "the lack of ‘ownership’ in the nonprofit system too often seems to result in a lack of ‘accountability.’"  Meaning that because nonprofits are for public benefit with boards of directors seeing over the administrative staff there isn't always a clear communication stream nor a clear sense of ownership.

I am suggesting that we, the public, demand accountability of our nonprofit organizations.  They are here for us, why not insist upon not only quality products and services, but quality management?  With the installation of some sort of policy that requires nonprofits to be more accountable, we would stipulate that companies do what they can to mitigate the possibility of running a deficit.  I know we already have some regulations in place such as tax filings, etc.  However, so many companies continually end their fiscal year in the red and don't do anything to change their practices.  Perhaps what I'm suggesting is the establishment of implications, consequences for poor management.  I am not completely sure how this will happen in our capitalistic free market.  Maybe Adam Smith's invisible hand needs speed up and use the proverbial fly swatter to help eliminate these mismanaged nonprofits from the market place for good.  I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but it's definitely something to think about.

--Carolyne Hall

Who is Responsible for the Irresponsible?

The Asian Art Museum of San Fransisco (AAM) is clearly an institution that is valued by the people of San Fransisco. After the great earthquake of 1989 ripped through the city and AAM's former home in Golden Gate Park, it became clear that the institution had outgrown it's current home and it moved to the city library. It is important here to note that the city of San Fransisco owns not only the library, but the entire collection featured at the Asian Art Museum of San Fransicso. It also pays for one-third of it's $17 million annual operating budget and directly employs one-third of it's staff. The city voted to pay for seismic upgrading for the library (via a voter approved bond) and the museum staff undertook the capital campaign to raise funds for the renovation of the building. In fact, a $100 million capital campaign, which was successful. Needless to say, San Fransiscans love their Asian Art Museum!

However, in 2000, the museum foundation borrowed $107 million AGAINST the very money they had just spent the better part of a decade raising, to purchase a 30 year, fixed-rate bond issue underwritten by J.P. Morgan Chase and insured by MBIA at an interest rate of 5%. In 2005, the foundation was able to refinance, this time securing $120.4 million at a 3.4% interest rate. Fast forward to 2008. (We can all guess where this is going, right?) MBIA gets into financial trouble and crumbles, the AAM loses it's insurance and the interest rate on the bond soars to 10%. A whole bunch of other crazy and complicated financial "stuff" happens (read the article if you want to know it all), and the museum is left with junk bonds (worth nothing, but still owing $120.4 million) from their investment, a complicated new deal with Chase that involves variable rate bonds, fixed rate interest, deferred payments, and giant headaches. And the city of San Fransisco is left with 2 options. Let the AAM completely fail OR sign a deal guaranteeing the $99 million owed to Chase in the new deal.

At this point, what was the city of San Fransisco supposed to do? If they let the AAM fail, the city not only loses an important cultural mecca, they lose a huge investment in the form of the entire AAM collection, salaries and monies paid for operating costs over the years, funds paid by the city (aka, the taxpayers) to upgrade the current building, and the list goes on and on. Really, what were they supposed to do?! So, the city jumps in to save the AAM. A very noble and worthy thing to do. But, was it really?

I personally believe that a city should stand behind it's cultural institutions. They provide economic stability and growth to cities, raise the level of cultural awareness and learning within communities, provide a necessary outlet of creativity for a city's constituents, foster job growth, etc. I could go on for days about the benefits of cultural institutions and why cities should support them. Indeed, San Fransisco should be commended for the amount of love and loyalty it has shown to the AAM. And indeed, no one could have truly predicted the economic collapse and effect that it would have on our entire country, so the AAM has some space to argue that they cannot be at fault for this situation. Except that they ARE. And so is the city of San Fransisco.

As future leaders of cultural institutions, it is our job to recognize that we are a business and our organizations must be run as such. If a for profit company had made the same investments as the AAM, they would no longer exist. They would have experienced financial hardship, bankruptcy, and eventually had to close altogether. No individual in their right mind would have stepped forward to save the company from financial ruin and you would be hard pressed to find a city council that would vote to do the same. However, we as a culture look at non-profits differently, because most of us understand that the benefits we receive from these non-profits are not measured in paychecks, dividends, and stock options. The benefits, particularly in the arts non-profit world, are sometimes intangible and immeasurable. In our current public policy as a nation, we do not hold arts organizations to the same business standards that we currently expect from for profit companies, but maybe we should on some level. The for-profit and non-profit business models are fundamentally different-and should be-because they are attempting to achieve different goals in society. However, when non-profits make irresponsible decisions, and waste donor time and money, where should our current policy of "bailing them out" end? Shouldn't fiscal responsibility be an expectation (a public policy...) not only among our arts organizations but from the public as well? Please share your thoughts...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576078214094548054.html

http://www.artsjournal.com/realcleararts/2011/01/asian-art-museum-high-finance.html

Cincinnati Policy Proposal: Riverfront Entertainment District

To date, the City of Cincinnati has one officially recognized Entertainment District. Pleasant Ridge, home to the local favorite, Molly Malone’s, has recently been designated a Community Entertainment District by City Council, thus allowing for expedited and discounted liquor licenses that are non-transferable out of the district.

But this is a big city-- One entertainment district in the northeast corner of the city shouldn’t impede the potential for other districts. The City of Cincinnati should strongly consider adopting a Community Entertainment District (CED) designation for the Cincinnati Riverfront; an area which is roughly three quarters of the way through a 20-year, $2 billion redevelopment process. With factors including the terminus of the planned Cincinnati Streetcar, both of the regions two largest sporting venues, a new park and a mass of new restaurants, apartments, retail, offices and several blocks of planned, but yet to be developed land, this designation can shape the future of the Riverfront and the face of Cincinnati.

With the crown jewel of Cincinnati’s nationally acclaimed park system just beginning to open, the entertainment and destination factors of the riverfront are brimming with opportunity. Going beyond the expedited liquor license process, we challenge the city to implement unique and specific performance ordinances. Council can work with the Park Board to ensure that the Jacob G. Schmidlapp Stage & Event Lawn is open and accessible to the many arts organizations and local performers in a manageable and easy to understand way. By ensuring that the scheduling of events at the Event Lawn is clear and practical, smaller organizations can showcase their talent without the worry of mismanaging bureaucratic hoops.

Additionally, current laws prohibit street performers after 10PM. We recommend that an additional hour (11PM) be allowed only on the nights of major evening sporting events in either Paul Brown Stadium or Great American Ball Park and only when these events fall on Friday or Saturday nights. The high potential for nighttime activity on typical Friday and Saturday evenings is compounded by the nightlife following a major sporting event. Allowing a 1-hour expansion of the city ordinance: Sec. 910-7. Loud Noises. in the Riverfront Entertainment District will be beneficial to the high energy and entertainment value of the neighborhood, while still maintaining reasonable amount of noise for local residents.

This spring, a large portion of Phase 1 of The Banks and the first portion of the Riverfront Park will open. With these openings come the riverfronts first residents, bars, restaurants and other retail establishments. In the coming years more of the Park and 4 additional blocks of The Banks will be developed. Creating this designation now, allows the entertainment theme to truly be built into the riverfront. Informally, The Banks plans do call for a high-energy entertainment development to be created, but the Community Entertainment District designation ensures this is done thoroughly, and that the official slogan, “It’s happening on The River” truly comes to bear.

Policy Proposal: Arts Education; Fighting for a Balanced Role in Public School Curriculum

I find myself wanting to ask, or scream (depending on my mood), local school board Superintendents and Principals questions like:

“Why are the art programs first to be cut when the budget gets tight?”

“Why aren’t you emphasizing arts education as a core part of your curriculum?”

"Do you know what the benefits are of having a balanced focus on arts education for your students?"

Since the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, Arts education in the United States has taken a drastic turn in the wrong direction.

The No Child Left Behind Act's main focus is on skills in reading, writing and mathematics, which are areas related to economic success. And even though the Act clearly defines art as a part of the core curriculum, schools continually cut the arts funding and staff, and fail to provide any support outside of it being an elective choice.

Defintion of core academic subjects as stated in Title IX, Part A, Section 9101(1)(D)(11), of the No Child Left Behind Act:

The term `core academic subjects' means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.

A few (frustrating) facts from the 2005 survey on the state of arts education in Ohio conducted by the Ohio Alliance for Arts Education:

• 60 percent of respondents reported no school improvement initiatives that included the arts or the integration of arts with other academic subjects in their districts.

• 56 percent of respondents reported that their arts education programs are not aligned with their school’s continuous improvement plan.

• 12 percent reported that the arts were included in district strategies and activitiesto improve student performance.
  

• 16 percent reported that their district included performance indicators for the arts in their district’s improvement plan.

• 78 percent of respondents reported that no supplemental information regarding the arts was included on the Local Report Card.

Why is this happening? Well, because the arts are viewed as a subjective and exploratory area. And that's the main reason why officials fail to see it as an essential part of the school curriculum. More importantly, it’s the reason why arts program budget's are the first to be cut – because it’s just not that important when schools have to raise test scores.

Given the extreme pressure schools are under to raise test scores, and the greater autonomy principals have over school budgets, it is not surprising that we are witnessing a shift away from the arts. Meredith Kolodner

Some districts are reducing the amount of time spent on the arts in favor of remediation. Ken Rohrer

This is disheartening when we know the paramount role arts education has in a student’s development and achievement. Time and time again, it has been proven that students who actively participate in arts education programs achieve higher marks and scores on national and local tests (such as the SAT's, ACT's, and GRE's) and have a higher graduation rate and acceptance rate into College and University programs.

For more information on the benefits of Arts Education check out:

• Ohio Alliance for Arts Education

• New Horizons for Learning, by Dee Dickinson

• Fact Sheet About the Benefits of Arts Education for Children, from Arts USA

If we have the research and the facts, why aren’t the changes being made?

It’s the million dollar question.

It is HOW we COMMUNICATE the importance of arts education to our local officials that needs to change. Even with a sea of research material, data, and resources – it's still not getting across. We can’t address school policy and budgetary allocation issues if they (the all-important decision makers) don’t understand the benefits in terms they can relate to and identify with. The 2008 research report by ArtsWave, The Arts Ripple Effect: A Research-Based Strategy to Build Shared Responsibility for the Arts, does just that. It is a systematic and thorough analysis of how the surrounding community perceives and understands the role of arts. The report shows us that there is a clear misinterpretation of the arts and its essential role in building sustainable communities and neighborhoods. Furthermore, it shows how influential our words and rhetoric are in describing the arts role in our community.

This ground-breaking report is the model that pro-arts education policy makers need to follow and adopt.

It’s a change that would benefit everyone and something that needs to be addressed in balancing the focus of arts education in public school curriculum.

Policy Proposal: Casino Revenue and Support for Arts Research

Reading about the recent decision to allocate 1% of the upcoming casino's tax revenue to host an outdoor sculpture competition in the city of Cincinnati got me thinking about public arts projects in other cities, and the cultural and economic impact it's had on those societies. Not only is it an effort to beautify the city for its immediate inhabitants, but it can also draw in people from outside the city, which has a positive impact on local business due to the influx of people.

There seems to be a plentitude of excellent ideas to promote and grow Cincinnati's already-flourishing artistic community, but the constant frustration is funding these projects. Public art projects which are unique to particular cities can be found all across the country (http://www.publicartprojectsofamerica.com/links1a.html).

The question that is always looming is “How do we get money?” Certainly it's a good start that there might be $200-thousand going into an artistic competition, which is proudly touted by city council member Laure Quinlivan as an opportunity for Cincinnatians to show support for the arts by voting on their favorite sculpture(s). These projects are certainly helpful, not only because of their immediate aesthetic appeal, but also because the show art as an integral part of the society in which it exists. It is important to build positive societal and economic associations by creating art that is accessible and visible to the entire community. Jen Cole, executive director of the Metro Arts Commission in Nashville, which recently published a 282-page report (titled Nashville/Davidson County Public Art: Location Study & Typology Recommendations) outlining strategies to implement public art projects, writes, “As part of our overall strategic plan, we wanted to 1) consider ways to scale public art throughout the county responsive to demographic and growth patterns and that would promote maximum access to public art; and 2) provide a framework for local artists.”

I think supporting funding for the proposed sculpture competition is a necessary first step. Similar competitions have been held in other communities, with positive results. They have popped up from San Diego (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/08/city-hosts-outdoor-sculpture-contest/) all the way to Florida (http://polkmuseumofart.org/exhibitions/florida-outdoor-sculpture-competition/). And with at least partial funding from their respective cities. If Cincinnati's competition was guaranteed at least a certain amount each year for this project from the casino, it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

But beyond that I think it's important to maybe tap into the private sector to draw support for more research. As I'm sure most people are aware, there still needs to be more PROOF if we want to take public support of the arts to the next level. Research like that which was put in the Arts Ripple Effect can provide a compelling argument to support not only public artworks, but also the need for better arts education in our schools. I think if we can highlight the need for funding for more of this kind of research, especially from PRIVATE donors, it could actually have a exponentially bigger payout in the long run, because there will be more hard facts to support arts initiatives. Information such as that found in the Nashville/Davidson County Public Art: Location Study & Typology Recommendations, according to Cole, “also can help the general citizenry understand sources of public art funding . . . the private sector in various cities is contributing to art placed within the public realm.” As it stands right now, some city council members have even mocked the miniscule 1% guaranteed for a sculpture competition. Leslie Ghiz recently wrote that of the money guaranteed to the city, they would allocate “25 percent to operate the streetcar, 10 percent for hoods over Fort Washington Way, 14 percent to implement the City Facilities Master Plan, and my personal favorite: 1 percent for public sculptures.” Language like “my personal favorite” indicate a dangerous skepticism. Minds like hers are the ones that need to be changed if we want to acquire significant public funding for the arts and arts education.

Culturally significant landmarks such as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., started off as calls to the public for an original design to celebrate our culture. Why should Cincinnati's call for gifted sculptors to celebrate the city be any different?

Sources:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/08/city-hosts-outdoor-sculpture-contest/

http://carolinaarts.com/wordpress/tag/4th-annual-national-outdoor-sculpture-competition-and-e/

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/commission-unveils-report-help-guide-citys-public-art-efforts

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2010/10/08/i-stand-by-outdoor-sculpture-contest/

http://www.publicartprojectsofamerica.com/links1a.html

http://polkmuseumofart.org/exhibitions/florida-outdoor-sculpture-competition/

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101005/EDIT02/101005002/Two-views-on-Cincinnati-s-plan-to-spend-casino-revenue