Joe Patti

So, a little cautionary tale to relate here about agents, artists and presenters. I had the experience where an agent didn’t return an executed contract after having it for 4 months. I made a couple calls to prod them to send the contract which was for a performance 2 months hence telling them I couldn’t process a check request without it.

A few weeks go by and I start advancing the show with the performers and mention the same thing. Turns out the performer had recently left the agent because of poor service like this, but unfortunately, since we started the contract with them, we had to continue. (And by the way, when I first called to bug them about sending the contract, the agent directed me to the new agency who then took a while to realize I didn’t have a contract through them.)
I explain how my ability to pay them will be hampered by not having the contract.

Five- six weeks out the agent calls and tells me they don’t have a piece of the contract so I rush the material to them hoping to expedite the process of getting the contract back. (In the meantime, they are calling for ticket counts three times a week) A month out, I speak with the performers again extending my dire warning. They give me another number to call and bug about the contract which I do.

Two and half weeks out, the performer calls in frantically because the agent who has had the stupid contract for 6 months now apparently hasn’t read it in all this time and makes a mistake about the agreed upon fee. I call the agent to clarify matters and she encourages me to send the deposit in (I have started intoning my warning about not being able to pay them now because I have said it so frequently of late.) A week or so out, the performers finally get the contract rush through signing it and filling out the required materials and though they aren’t supposed to, send a copy of the contract to me and return a copy to the agent.

Unfortunately, it is really too late to send the paperwork through in the normal manner. However, the performers’ rep threatens that they won’t show up if I can’t guarantee I can have the check for them. I don’t blame the performers for not wanting to risk their cash flow by having to wait for a check to come a week or so after they perform, but all the same, we sent the contract in nearly 7 months before at this point.

To make matters worse, the agent has pretty much crossed out half the contract, including the Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity clauses which tend to be something that state governments are sensitive about. They didn’t technically apply to this situation, but still at the time, I didn’t know if it would go through the system swiftly or not. It would be tough enough to push it through without those potential stumbling blocks.

I spent a day chasing people around campus, calling secretaries and assistants asking to be alerted when people got out of meetings and requesting that the person in question not be allowed to leave their own office. (These folks are the ones that really run an institution as everyone knows!)

Somehow I managed to get all the approvals I needed and get the checks processed. However, it is a cautionary tale about the performing arts. Here was a situation that wasn’t my fault in the least and that I warned about in many instances, yet it was made my problem nonetheless.

There is little recourse for either me or the performer against the big agency. The performers can’t threaten to take their business elsewhere, they already have, and the agency is so big, they really don’t care if I never do business with them again.

We actually had a letter of warning that we sent back with the contracts 7 months prior warning about this as well. There doesn’t seem to really be a solution to this for the future other than to become the greasy wheel and call the agent everyday starting a month or so out if the contract hasn’t been received.

I know that I said nice things about agents that I met at the WAA conference. They were mostly folks who were in small to medium size agencies and were interested in keeping good relations with everyone involved. This wasn’t my first dealings with the behemoth agencies, but it was the worst indeed.

So yesterday I attended a grants workshop held by the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts. It was an interesting experience on many fronts. For one thing, they are on a biennium grant schedule which means you apply this year for money for the next two years. Now for a laid back place like Hawaii, it seems strange that you have to get so organized you know what you are going to do for the next two years!

I can’t but think that they are essentially encouraging people to lie their butts off. Arts organizations make things up for annual grant writing, but it pretty much goes without saying a two year cycle essentially encourages people to try to fund their wildest dreams.

Now all this could be moot because of the (big surprise) arts funding problems in the state. When the arts foundation submitted their proposed budget in April/May, all their funds were frozen and remain so. There was a big uproar and the governor allocated money from health and human services earmarked for drug prevention for the arts foundation. (One of the criteria now for getting money is serving at risk youth)

Back in June or so I read a report that said Hawaii had the most per capita spending on the arts. (Which isn’t a heck of a lot given that there are only 1.2 million people living here, but still, a good proportion.) Ah how quickly they fall.

In any case, the people leading the workshop essentially said to live this year as if it were the last we were being funded because it probably is.

Okay, I retrieved the last of the notes I made while at the WAA conference. They are short, but sour I am afraid. The conference was doing a session on trends in government funding and had the NEA representative for presenters and a woman from the Western Arts Federation (WESTAF) there as well. Because the conference was in Spokane, they invited the head of the Spokane Arts Council to sit on the panel.

Unfortunately, between the time she was invited and the time the conference occured, the arts council was pretty much reduced to one person. Apparently in deciding where funds should be allocated, the city asked each division to talk about their accomplishments. The divisions with lots of people who could make concrete claims like paving hundreds of miles of road or fixing so many miles of water mains faired well. The arts council got dissolved.

Now this isn’t any surprising news if you have been watching the trends around the country this last few years. What was really interesting was the assumptions the head of the arts council had made.

She thought based on the small portion the arts council received in the budget, it would be more trouble than it was worth to dissolve it. Wrong.

She thought the loss of political capital the mayor and city council would face would dissuade them. Nope.

She thought the outcry from businesses and individuals whose partnerships with the arts council intertwined their fates with it would provide an impediment. Didn’t really emerge.

Now someone at the conference said that she said the irony of dissolving it as a major arts conference was bringing lots of money to town kept them from destroying it completely. I didn’t hear her say that when I was around. Given that the other situations she had mentioned didn’t give them pause, I doubt the disappointment of a group that was only in town for a week was a real consideration.

Now the head of the arts council is trying to keep many of the initiatives she started going by farming them out to other organizations. For instance, she hopes another company will take on the responsibility of maintaining the arts calendar which is a major source of arts information for the entire region and not just the city.

I know that that according to the rules of writing I learned in school, this is the place I should insert a summation statement for my entry. But I gotta say, I can’t think of anything that doesn’t sound trite and stupid.

Okay as promised, I took notes at the international tax session at the WAA conference. It was actually a hot topic. The session was scheduled for about 1.5 hours but at the end of the time it ended up moving to another room and continuing. (I moved on to a grants session because I had notes on 90% of what I wanted to know.) Then the discussion apparently infiltrated an Arts Presenter’s session as well.

The speaker at the session was Stanley E. Majors: Attorney, Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, P.C.. (CPA and Tax Attorney licensed to practice in DC, MD and VA)

Among the things I learned was:

-Tax treaty is determined by place of residence. A French national residing in Switzerland falls under Swiss treaty.

-Everyone in the payment chain-presenter, agent, manager, etc can act as the collection agent of the 30%. The IRS typically starts at the end of the chain with the last person to handle the money before the artist gets it when researching if the money was collected. Mr. Major’s suggestion was to put something in the contract that stipulates who will be the party responsible for withholding. Obviously, many of the presenters’ preference would be for the agent or manager to be the responsible one.

Though empowering everyone in the chain to collect the tax looks like the IRS is just increasing the number of people they can blame, Mr. Major assured us that it wasn’t the case. Nor is it so they can collect the tax multiple times.

-The Alien has to fill out a certificate 8233 to claim exemption if they feel they are entitled to keeping their 30% The IRS has 10 days to agree with the exemption or not. A presenter can not make a decision to withhold or not unless they file. (For example, if you have someone coming in for 1 day and they are making $1000 to speak and then leaving the country and you know they fall below the exemption threshold, you still can’t exempt them unless they file.)

-If you know that a person has falsely filed an exemption, you have to withhold. You don’t necessarily have to research their entire tour schedule, but if you know that they are performing in a city south of you one night and a city to the north of you the night after for the same rate they are charging you and it exceeds the exemption amount and they file an exemption, you can’t accept it.

-Article 16 or 17 of the tax treaty is where the pertinent info is usually found. (For tax treaties, a good place to start is this IRS webpage. It contains links to more specific information, including the treaties, as you find you need it.

-This restrictive clause in the treaties only applies to performers and athletes. Their managers, lighting people, make up people, etc fall under a more liberal portion of the treaties. Apparently, the US actually wants people to come to the country and do business and the more liberal portions reflect that. The restrictive portions are to prevent people like the Rolling Stones from coming in, making millions of dollars and leaving. Unfortunately, since the Rolling Stones are making millions of dollars, they aren’t hurt too much by it, but the smaller folks are.

-Just like US citizens, the alien can get a refund by itemizing their operational expenses on a 1040NR at the end of the year.

-I spoke to Mr. Major specifically about a South African group with incorporation
and Fed. tax number in the US and his opinion was that the taxes didn’t need to be withheld since they are 1) obligated to file corporate tax returns every year 2) the IRS can exert enforcement powers if they lie, especially since so much of their income is derived in the US. (Which is probably why they incorporated in the US in the first place–to avoid the bite) Of course, to get him to issue an opinion the IRS would care about, I assume we would have to pay lots of money.

-If a foreign group claims to be a non-profit organization similiar to 501 (c) (3) in the US, you can request that the IRS make a determination if the organization meets the same criteria as a US non-profit.

That is about everything I learned. The one thing I didn’t note was whether you treat a group as 1 entity earning 10,000 or 10 people earning 1,000. I am told he covered that in a later session on the same topic so I am inquiring if a colleague took notes specifically on that since that was an area of concern for her.

Well I have returned from Spokane, WA a bit older and wiser for the experience. There was plenty that happened so I will have ample fodder for posting. Unfortunately, the amount of work left undone while I was away may keep me from my posting. We shall see.

Let me first start by saying Spokane is a lovely city is walk around, especially near the convention center which is right on the edge of a park where Expo 1974 occurred. The conference itself was well organized and there were some procedures that had been adopted that went over very well with the membership–but more about that in a later entry.

I ended up learning quite a bit, but I was concerned that wouldn’t be so when the conference first started (and not just because of my articles on useless meetings, part 2 here). The keynote speaker was Gunther Schuller who has had a long career as a musician and has certainly shown his love and stamina for his craft (he apparently would play in an orchestra for an opera and then walk into a jazz club to continue playing into the night.) However, in my estimation, he really has no concept about what it takes to run an arts organization.

I was really rather angry at the conference coordinators for picking him and had to resist an outburst at various times during the week when I came in contact with them. (I will avail myself of the feedback forms they provided, however, and probably won’t be any more diplomatic than I will be here.)
It was probably the worst example of many of the things I have railed against the arts community over in prior posts.

His whole speech was about how great the good old days were. He didn’t say anything I didn’t know 20 years ago. He cited the miniscule proportion the NEA budget has to the entire federal budget. He spoke of low listenership and programming of classic music on radio stations and lauded NPR for having the courage to play the music. Pop music and network television are the enemies leading to illiteracy and the destruction of culture. It is a terrible thing, he says that Hootie and the Blowfish get to be on the talk shows and Beethoven is no where to be seen. It was all doom and gloom and really just very old news.

It all may be absolutely true, but nothing he said acknowledged the fact that this was the environment in which arts organizations operate today and then try to offer practical solutions that reflect this fact. His suggested solution was sandwich booking where you put a lesser known show between two popular shows. Again, this is a really old strategy that doesn’t reflect how people currently make decisions to buy tickets.

I momentarily thought I might be wrong about this being an old strategy when he started lauding the great success the Boston and Philadelphia symphonies had with this strategy–until he got around to mentioning that he was talking about men who were running the organizations in 1939! His criteria for what constituted good popular music with which to sandwich the new stuff was even more telling when he discounted the value of most of Vivaldi in an aside. In my mind, if someone isn’t comfortable or familiar with classical music, that composer’s “Four Seasons” is probably a good introduction.

The only suggestion he made that I felt had merit was that the creators of a work (composers/playwrights), the purchasers and presenters, and the performers of works communicate with each other more effectively about how to combat the apathy about the arts. He didn’t give any examples other than those I mentioned, but as a general concept it seems to have merit.

On the whole though, I was really annoyed by the talk. I am going to suggest some alternative speakers for next year (Douglas McLennan would have been perfect this year given that he is about a 45 minute flight away from Spokane). In my mind, a keynote speaker should set the stage for discussion throughout the conference–even if it is arguments. The only discussion that came out of this session was akin to churchgoers musing about why sinners didn’t see the light and come to church and congratulating one another for taking their children to Sunday school. As much as I may dislike most organized religions, to properly employ this metaphor I have to say–there wasn’t any discussion about effectively witnessing and converting the great unwashed. (The problem being that the speaker essentially derided the great unwashed for their entertainment habits.)

So I am learning about something I have never come in contact with before in my career–international tax treaties. Apparently the IRS is joining the INS and making it difficult for international acts to decide to perform in the US. I am told since 9/11 occurred, the IRS has really been cracking down on enforcing taxes on international performers. I guess they feel since they caught Al Capone on taxes, maybe they will get lucky and uncover some plots.

On the other hand this seems like a great topic for the blog so I have to grudgingly give an iota of appreciation for coming in contact with it.

In any case, what this means is that if a performer exceeds a certain level of income in the US in a year, as a presenter you are obligated to deduct 30% from the fees you are paying them. They can file to get it back but that can get annoying as you might easily imagine.

The federal government has apparently gone after a number of universities who haven’t done this for back taxes so my school is taking it very seriously and so are a lot of other places. One of the first things the guy who advised me told me is not to believe folks when they complained we were the only ones doing it. He forwarded me some emails from a Listserv group (definition of Listserv here if you aren’t familiar with the term) that had members from all over the country asking questions related to the tax situation.

Here is what I know so far–Any international performer who makes over a certain amount (the amount differs accord to the treaty the US has with the country of origin) has to have 30% deducted from their fees. Apparently under certain circumstances, this can apply to the value of accomodations and transportation the host organization provides as well. So if you are paying them $10,000 and then provide $10,000 worth of services in airfare, hotels, rental cars, etc you could potentially end up having to deduct $6,000 for taxes. The bit about how much of airfare and accomodations qualifies is a bit more convoluted and apparently doesn’t apply to our situation. Perhaps because they are paying their airfare out of their own fee.

It doesn’t matter if you are paying an agent, it is to be handled as if you are paying the artist directly. (So the performer hates you cause they get paid less, the agent hates you because their cut is smaller.)

The thing that really surprised me is that a we have a group from a foreign country that has incorporated in the US and has its own federal ID number. I assumed that since they would have to file corporate income tax, we would be off the hook with the percentage since the onus would be on them to tell the truth or lie about how much they made. Nope, my guy says. They will be exceeding the $7500/yr threshold set by treaty with their country so unless they show rules to the contrary, they get a bit taken out too.

So the question I have before my people right now–When do we make the performers and their agents aware of the fact they won’t be getting all of their fee, at least not up front.

I am going to a booking conference next week is this going to essentially end my ability to present really good international acts? Are people going to refuse to perform or bump their fees to make up the difference (which is a range I can’t afford). Yeah, there are plenty of great domestic acts and I am looking forward to seeing some at the conference next week.

But I am also living at a crossroads of the world where no racial background is dominant. People are interested in seeing things from their own cultural backgrounds and that of the next person. I don’t think the hyphenated American version of culture is going to cut it here where many people are hardly 1 generation removed from the real thing, if that. And there is far less pressure to move toward a homogenized culture than there is on the mainland so even after a couple generations, an awareness of the real McCoy may not fade.

I will keep folks apprised of what develops and how many people throw things at me out of frustration. I mean I get taxed by my own government all the time, I am used to it. It is just not a part of the American experience I would choose to share with visitors.

USA Today featured an article about a performing arts center being constructed on the site of Woodstock in Bethel, NY.

I have been following the story for awhile now since I grew up near the site and my mother currently lives within 10 miles of the location. (In fact, I mentioned the arts center in an earlier entry) Artists rendition of the site may be found here.

As you might imagine, there are quite a few people who are not happy that the historic land is being torn up for an arts center. One such group is the Woodstock Preservation Alliance. Although they tend to paint Allan Geery as an evil developer, he and his foundation have been somewhat responsive to the desires of the group and eliminated 90% of the planned construction. (Noted in coverage of the hearings here and here) For their own part, the Alliance isn’t opposed to the performing arts center. They realize its economic value to the area. They just don’t want it on the historic portion of the fields.

If you read the articles and look at the website, it is clear that Woodstock really touched a great number of people. Many of those opposed to the development are from Canada and many parts of the US. In fact, some of those opposed didn’t even attend Woodstock which goes to show how the power of the event has captured people’s hearts and imaginations.

On the other hand, a lot of locals support the site. This may not be unexpected. They live in a section of the Catskill mountains that has been economically depressed since people from NYC stopped flocking to the local resorts in the summer. People are heading back to the mountains again, but it is to attend newly built casinos which is a mixed blessing at best.

The one glimmer of hope has come from Allan Gerry and his Sullivan Renaissance program. He has taken the money he got from selling his cable company to Time Warner and has the local communities competing with each other to get improvement grants. Stories about how communities have mobilized to meet this challenge can be found here, here, here.

So when the man who has helped bring some pride back to the county says he is going to use his money build a performing arts center that will feature the NY Philharmonic, it is hard not to be grateful. Even his opponents admit it will be beneficial to the community.

It is tough to identify the bad guy in this case. There are too many elements to address in this small space, but briefly– Yes, Woodstock is a potent and pivotal part of our history and should be preserved and treasured. On the other hand the developer has eliminated a huge part of his plans for the site. His plans will bring thousands of visitors to the historical site which he intends to preserve a large portion of and do homage to in a museum. The Gerry Foundation has shown itself to be reverent of the local communities so the project probably won’t be cheesy or Disneyfy the locale or Woodstock ’69.

Personally, I think I would prefer the amibiance his project will bring to the local community rather than the one the casinos are going to.

If you are like me, you often wondered how the Public Theatre could afford to do Shakespeare in Central Park for free for so many years. Well, it turns out it hasn’t been easy, nor has it been entirely free. An article appeared yesterday in the New York Times on this exact subject.

It turns out you can purchase tickets for reserved seating to the shows and this is not a new development. Founder Joe Papp started an audience sponsor program in 1960. The program was essentially a subscription plan where $7.50 got you reserved seats to 3 of the summer shows. According to the article, Papp felt this pricing scheme was essential for the theatre to survive.

Until recently, the theatre has downplayed the availability of the ticket program for fear of appearing too commerical. Executive Director Mara Manus has really made a push to promote the program this year. $100 gets you a reserved seat. Since the seating is free to all, the money is actually a tax deductible donation according to the website. The benefit you get is not having to stand on line and a preferred seating location.

The Public is capping the number of seats that can be reserved in this manner each night and the rest will be available for free. According to the article, “up to 19,950 of the total 79,800 seats to be occupied this summer will not be available.” The ticket program only covers 19% of the $1.9 million budget for the production this summer. “The remainder derives from foundations (24 percent), corporate donations (21 percent, which includes cash or in-kind giving by companies like J. P. Morgan and The New York Times) and the blocks of Delacorte tickets sold to businesses (16 percent). There is still a 20 percent shortfall.”

So obviously, it hasn’t been the easiest thing to do free Shakespeare all these years. Even the lofty goal of making theatre free to all has entailed selling tickets to those who will pay. I thought perhaps the Public’s other activities generated enough revenue to cover the loss of doing free Shakespeare. But it turns out it hasn’t been entirely free. Publicizing the availability of reserved tickets is a financial necessity. Ms. Mara projects that the Public will be in the black for the first time since 1998. (The Public has a $12 million budget so presumably other measures are being taken in addition to the sale of tickets at the Central Park event.)

This situation holds some interesting lessons for other theatres who try to financially support their free events. Not only will people pay for the privilege of a reserved seat at a free event, they will pay $100 for it. Essentially, people are paying as much as they would for some Broadway shows and they are doing so for a seat exposed to the elements.

I assume all the closest seating locations are taken by those who pay for their tickets no matter how long the first non-donating person has been standing on line. The theatre has 1,900 seats and up to 475 may be sold on any one night. Even though the first non-donating person will have a good seat, there could be some anger on their part if they can’t sit closer after standing on line for hours. The logic that they are getting it for free so they don’t have cause to complain about a donor getting better treatment is usually lost on people–and you have to remember, you are dealing with New Yorkers who can be a little less laid back than other folks. (Edit: Please read comment below where a reader corrects this impression.)

Even though they have been running the program for over 40 years, the fact they are heavily promoting it now means that the first non-donor in line will end up much further back than in the past. (Perhaps 400 people back vs. 100 people back in recent years.) As confounding as it may seem, the theatre could end up with a negative image for more strongly promoting a long time program so they can continue offering a show for free.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

While poking around the web today, I came across the Americans for the Arts’ Animating Democracy Initiative. It appears the project ended in March 2003, but the website still serves as a resource for research on “exemplary arts-based civic dialogue projects”

The initiative was a joint project of the Amercians for the Arts supported by the Ford Foundation based, in part, on the premise that:

“In the workings of democracy, civic dialogue plays an essential role, giving voice to multiple perspectives and enabling people to develop more multifaceted, humane, and realistic views of issues and each other. Yet there is growing concern that opportunities for civic dialogue in this country have diminished in recent years. In the renewal of civic dialogue, the arts can play a pivotal role in many ways.”

They worked with 32 organizations in their Animating Democracy Initiative Lab, giving them support to develop a number of projects. Those projects can be found listed here.

The website also provides links to case studies and profiles that Americans for the Arts weren’t necessarily involved in and reference materials in the resource section.

Andrew Taylor has a great entry today on The Artful Manager. He lists generalizations about non-profits vs. for profits that have annoyed me for ages. I am not as concerned about the negative light with which for profits are cast as I am with the pure motives and results attributed to non-profits.

From my own experience with organizations I have had contact (and a handful for which I have worked) I can easily attest that many non-profits have forgotten what their mission is, produce their share of the crass and pandering and have hardly cornered the market on community building. Non profits’ existence hinges so much on casting themselves as benevolent and beneficial in order to receive grant money that the positive image pervades.

To be clear, I am not just talking about arts and cultural non-profits, but health and human service sector organizations like Big Brother’s/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, the United Way and a host of less recognizable social service agencies as well. Though certainly there are plenty of instances where arts and cultural organizations act poorly as well. (Witness Drew McManus’ frequently entries on how orchestra management bullox up the works here and here among others.)

The part of Mr. Taylor’s argument that really interested me was his thoughts about why one would seek non-profit status:

“The cause would be my choice of creative expression and the context of a consumer market’s willingness to buy it. When there wasn’t adequate volume or density of consumers to cover the cost of my work, the effect would be a drift toward nonprofit status. When there was a sufficient group of individuals that wanted to buy the work at a price that covered its costs, the effect would be a drift toward for-profit status.”

and a little later…

“Tax status is not a cause. It is not a source of nobility or honor or excellence or any other foundation-friendly word you care to utter. Tax status is a tool, a step, a way, an option. To boldly paraphrase a favorite quote of the gun lobby: ‘nonprofits don’t make art, people do.’ They just happen to choose that tax status sometimes along the way. But they can also choose another if it serves their vision, their purpose, or their art.”

In the course of all the interviewing I have done for jobs, I have spoken to boards of directors who are just starting an arts organization and are looking for a person to run it for them. Because they sincerely want to create an organization that benefits the community, and because they have found government and private entities that will give them the money to do it, they inevitably have formed a non-profit to reach this end.

Even as a person in the profession, I haven’t really questioned this because I don’t really know of any alternatives. If I was starting a for profit business I could go to a bank for loans or find investors but I can’t really think of any place outside of a city like NY or LA that a person could do either and be taken seriously. Unless you are all already wealthy, how can a group of people get together to build a performing arts center without going the non-profit route?

But I agree with Mr. Taylor’s idea–if you think there is enough interest in what you are doing that you could pack the house, why not try to make a profit first and then move to non-profit status if you discover that plenty of people have the interest to pack the house, but not the means to support the organization by themselves.

This is something I will be contemplating. I will be keeping my eyes open for articles that might show that such an idea is viable. If anyone sees one, please direct me to it!

Though I have a couple research papers I can discuss, I hate to have this blog get bogged down with me summarizing stats and figures. While it can certainly can provide interesting information and allow arts folks to make a decision about whether they want to read the original document, it can get boring.

That being said, I did spend yesterday trying to find out if anyone has done research on university-arts organization relationships like those I discussed yesterday to see how each fared in promoting their individual agendas and preserving their identities. If anyone knows of any, please let me know.

In an attempt to provide some interesting material, I found an interview with Douglas McLennan, the gentleman who writes/edits Artsjournal.com. He has been writing Artsjournal since 1999 and discusses some of the trends he sees in arts worldwide.

Among the trends he has seen have been: concern about arts funding and the digital age blurring the lines of who owns what and what constitutes ownership. He also notes that since Sept. 11, people have become much more conservative in their artistic tastes. There isn’t as much an interest for in your face art. Rather people are looking for offerings that make them feel comfortable or lift them up.

When asked why he started Artsjournal.com, he mentioned that as a writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer he came across some articles on the web that were very interesting and he wondered why he had never heard about these stories in the months since they came out. He decided to create a website that collected a broad range of arts stories in one place so people could quickly get a sense of what was happening internationally in the arts.

His decision to add bloggers to his website came out of a recognition that arts coverage was declining in the newspapers and journals across the country. He wanted to provide a place where intelligent discourse on arts topics could be presented without the concern for space and time that other media face. He also feels that the presence of conflicting views allows the web to present a product of higher quality than a newspaper.

A newspaper arts writer may feel compelled to be nice because they are the only voice about the arts in town. When there are many voices expressing their views on the same work, it allows the individual more freedom to present their true views because responsibility for a show’s success or failure doesn’t rest solely on their shoulders. They are important opinion leaders, but not the only opinion leader. The competition pressures the writer to keep his/her skills sharp and to consider a wide range of perspectives.

Give it a listen if only to hear the voice behind the website.

Over the course of the last few years I have noticed a number of arts organizations which have allied themselves with state universities in order to alleviate some financial difficulties. Many of these relationships have been more or less alliances and partnerships. However, in a couple cases it has been more akin to selling off one’s soul piecemeal.

As I have written about before, the Asolo Theatre in Sarasota, FL started out as a partner of Florida State University. At one time the Asolo and FSU built a facility together which ended up housing the theatre and the university acting and motion picture, broadcast and radio conservatories. As financial difficulties mounted, the theatre company turned to the university for help and the school ended up owning pretty much everything the theatre owned. In time they were actually paying the salaries of seven of the theatre company’s top staff.

The last time I was down in Sarasota I found that Florida State University had also taken over the administration of Ringling Museums (not to be confused with the Ringling School of Art and Design) which shared a parking lot with the Asolo. (At one time the Asolo Theatre Company performed on the Ringling grounds in an Italian Baroque theatre brought over from Italy.) The museum had been struggling financially for years and turned to the state for help.

Given that the Sarasota Ballet moved in to the vacant Film Conservatory space when that educational unit moved back to the main campus in Tallahassee, Florida State University actually exerts some control over three formerly independent arts organizations. Of the three, the ballet still retains the most autonomy because they are more or less a resident of a state owned building rather than subject to its governance.

A similiar thing happened in Orlando when I was working at the University of Central Florida. The Civic Theatre of Central Florida was in financial trouble. They turned to the university, merged with the university theatre and now after a couple of gradual steps the space is now a venue of the university theatre program. The old Civic Theatre operates in some of the spaces as Orlando Rep (though you wouldn’t know it since the Theatre Dept website doesn’t mention them). However, the board of directors is heavily compromised of people from UCF’s development, university president and arts and sciences dean’s offices.

While this state of affairs does show that the State of Florida does actively support the arts, one wonders if it is worth it in the long run. When you are beholden to the state, many of your decisions are open to scrutiny and questioning not only by your own board of directors, but by myriad people in state government.

A case in point, the Asolo’s agreement with Florida State Univ. was that the producing artistic would retire in 2003. He decided he wasn’t going to retire so the university decided it wasn’t going to continue to pay the salaries of the top 7 administrators if he wasn’t going to leave. The theatre board resolved to pay the $400,000 in salaries in order to keep him at the helm. The university also decided to pull the acting conservatory back to the main campus in response to the weakening relationship it was having with the professional company. This news pretty much horrified the community.

Since then, things have been resolved and the conservatory is slated to stay. (Though people are wondering about that in light of some recent events.) It just illustrates the dangers of looking to a state institution to save you.

There is also the question whether weak organizations should be propped up by the state and given the security to perpetuate poor practices on the tax payer’s dime or not. I personally would be heartbroken to see the Asolo close or the Ringling end up selling off all its art works because it couldn’t keep afloat.

But the truth is, the state doesn’t really know how to run theatres and art galleries. The conservatory faculty that has taken up residence as partners are focussed on education and not administration of the other organization. The state isn’t in the best position to come in and provide expertise and guidance as to what was done wrong and what steps can be taken to improve the situation. The best they can do is hire consultants to provide guidance in their stead. To the best of my knowledge this did not happen in any of these instances.

With cuts to both arts and education in many states, these organizations may find that they have just delayed the inevitable and that they may soon have to fend for themselves.

Yesterday I addressed a monograph on the value of conferences in the pursuit of developing cultural policy. The authors noted that generally, with the exception of really disorganized groups, meetings of this sort were not terribly valueable. My last entry looked at the barriers to success, today I want to review the solutions the authors suggest.

I should amend my former statement a little–the authors believe that conferences don’t contribute to the formation of policy currently. They do suggest ways to remove the aforementioned barriers so that constructive work might result. Among them are:

-“Build and foster policy communities within art and culture. Consider the creation of a convening authority an independent body, or honest broker, that can support special forums (what we are calling “policy thrusts”) to bring together different parts of the cultural sector to engage in focused and deliberate dialogue and to move from strategy and problem identification to consensus building, action plans, common research needs, and coalitions around pressing policy problems.”

-“Define problems, set agendas, develop policy alternatives and reform government services and programs. Arts leaders should encourage foundations and governments to create taskforces, working groups, and special commissions to advise and interject in policy conversations at the local, state and federal levels.”

In this regard they suggest keeping the focus of the taskforces limited “not simply “the arts in San Diego,” for example, but a topic that can yield practical policy recommendations: for example, youth and creativity; quality of life; spaces for creativity; cultural districts; creative industries; and support for working artists,etc etc..”

-“Improve methods to document policy discussions at annual meetings.” This seems to be exactly what Andrew Taylor’s band of graduate students have been doing at the National Performing Arts Convention. In fact, the report explicitly suggests using graduate students to act as recorders of “all policy-relevant comments. By identifying these statements, tracking policy concerns and more systematically documenting what is discussed, association staff and the broader membership can better gauge the policy dimensions of a conference session.”

-“Offer professional training and development: policy education through workshops.” Since many cultural administrators aren’t practiced in the process of policy making, the authors suggest workshops that empower people with the tools to do so.

-“Organize policy roundtables” As I mentioned yesterday, one of the research findings of this study was that conference participants felt more was accomplished in informal discussions after a meeting than at the meeting itself. The authors suggest that such post-event gatherings should be organized to encourage discussion by those who can attend.

-“Diversify participants and panelists and publicize and promote cultural policy expert.” As mentioned yesterday, the roster of speakers at conferences has become increasingly insular of late. The authors encourage not only inviting government officials, but people from other industries who can provide insight about policy development.

-“Call attention to the policy dimension of meetings…In order to highlight the policy dimension of meetings and to help attendees identify policy-relevant conversations, associations might consider identifying a “policy track” at their annual meetings…A track is simply a set of conference sessions that fit within a general approach or topic area. Many sessions can be cross-listed under more than one track.”

-“Conduct formal, in depth evaluations: National service associations should consider employing more ambitious evaluations – similar in scope to the recent pARTicipate2001 assessment in order to trace over a period of time the learning and action that results from a meeting. These evaluations can reveal how participants (from junior- to senior level arts professionals) approach meetings differently and how they take away from these gatherings.

-“Cross-sector initiative. Foundations interested in advancing cultural policy might consider supporting a special initiative to connect cultural policy to more established policy fields and help cultural leaders participate in broader policy discussions in their communities, states or regions.”

-“Integrate cultural policy concerns onto the agenda of other policy professionals. There is a wide gap between the professional planning community and the cultural policy community. Planners need to think more integrally about arts and culture, and they need to understand more fully how the arts can serve the goals of community/urban/regional planning.”

Some interesting things to ponder. I would certainly be more interested in attending conferences/meetings for policy education if people began to adopt this approach. (This is not to say I don’t enjoy attending conferences for the other educational and networking opportunities they offer. I have just been frustrated by a lack of what I perceived to be constructive, practical solutions.)

For all the material I directly quoted from the report, there is still plenty I omitted (specific examples of what the authors were referring to in many cases) so it would probably behoove anyone interested in policy formation to read the whole of the monograph.