Good morning. (Please click on the logo above to go to the site if you wish to enter a comment).
“And the beat goes on……………………………”
I hope you will take the time to read this one.
THE SIX MOST IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS FOR THE ARTS IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS:
After more than forty years of success, the nonprofit arts in the United States have entered a period of tremendous challenge and uncertainty. Cultural policy thought leaders are increasingly calling attention to seismic shifts and sea-changes in: a) how we create and deliver art; b) what the public desires in terms of their consumption of the arts and how they wish to be arts consumers; c) what the managers of nonprofit arts organizations are facing in terms of funding and operating challenges, and in their preparation to effectively meet those challenges; d) the emergence of the for-profit creative economy as a potential robust partner and / or frightening competitor to the nonprofit arts; and e) the continuing - even accelerating - demise of arts education in the schools K-12.
The models the sector has developed over the past four decades for its business and operational structure, its’ funding, governance, advocacy efforts, leadership development, and audience growth and marketing are all increasingly vulnerable, outmoded, and ineffective in dealing with the challenges of a changing environment and ecosystem. In many cases the default model is no model at all.
We are tooling around in the equivalent of a broken down old Edsel that wasn’t all that well designed in the first place. And yet we haven’t come up with alternatives. This isn’t to suggest that everything we are doing is a failure; many things we are doing are working – some quite well. But it is to suggest that, taken as a whole, the models we are using are not working – not as well as we need them to, not for enough of us, not within the circumstances in which we are now forced to operate.
Conversations on these critical topics have, in the past, been piecemeal, and have lacked a national focus and priority. Too often they have been confined to academic or philosophical discussions of broad policy and failed to zero in on arriving at practical solutions to the very specific and real problems we face. If we don’t make the time to confront our weaknesses now, things may only get worse – perhaps much worse. The time is long overdue to engage in focused and serious conversations about fixing the old models or envisioning new ones.
These conversations must involve the whole of our sector from top to bottom, but we must also involve thinkers from outside our sphere – both our stakeholders and from quarters of society with which we currently have little relationship or contact. We need to heed our own advice and think far outside the box. Our discussions must include familiar voices within our field, but also TED like luminaries and critical thinkers from outside our comfort zone.
SIX EXTRAORDINARY CONVERSATIONS:
I believe the six most important conversations for the arts sector in America over the next five years - demanding our revisiting, rethinking and reinventing the models we use in these areas - will be centered on:
1. ARTS EDUCATION – Despite the expenditure of considerable of our resources in the effort, we're losing ground and the current models to move us forward seem stalled in the face and wake of economic crisis and other barriers. For all our work, arts education remains marginalized, undervalued and not a priority; at best a frill and an elective. We face another generation that gets little to no arts in their K-12 experience.
2. FUNDING - The decades old percentage formula of earned income, individual philanthropic donations, government support, and foundation & corporation contributions isn't holding up and seems less sustainable than at any time in past 25 years. Surprising numbers of organizations are closing their doors; most of the rest are downsizing. We must now ask ourselves if this formula is even viable any longer. What new revenue stream model might work in the future?
3. ADVOCACY - At least as far as state and local government support go, the old messages and mechanisms aren't working and we are suffering ever deeper cuts. Can the nonprofit arts ecosystem survive without some meaningful government support? Continuing to simply concentrate on and refine the message as to our value has categorically failed to protect gains we have previously won. While the public seems sympathetic to the arts, we seem unable to translate that support into widespread grassroots action on our behalf. While our cause is just and our product unassailable, we have almost zero political clout, and we continue to fail to use the strength of our numbers. How can we finally compete in the political arena and be effective advocates & lobbyists for our interests?
4. LEADERSHIP –There is no working model for the provision of professional development for all our leaders, nor one for effective generational accommodation and succession planning. Are we any closer to figuring out how to better prepare and train our leaders (the Michael Kaiser issue)? Are we moving towards maximizing the benefits of multiple generations in the workplace or in danger of a future leadership drain and / or void?
5. MARKETING / AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT - Our audiences are shrinking and we flounder in our attempts to build a model to accurately identify and effectively reach key target potential audiences. Supply continues to exceed demand. Is our current audience research model helpful or a waste of time? Is time running out on our ability to master new technologies and apply those technologies to what we offer? How can we effectively compete for leisure time dollars and consumer time loyalty?
6. INCLUSION OF ALL ARTISTS AND ARTISTIC ENTERPRISES – The nonprofit arts field has as its ultimate constituency the entire creative sector, including all those practicing artists of every stripe (professional and amateur) that do not get NEA or other grants and support, nor whom are directly served by most of the nation’s nonprofit arts organizations. Most of that grouping remains distant and detached from what we do and how we do it. The disconnect between the nonprofit arts field and both younger artists and younger consumers is particularly acute. Somehow we must figure out how to include all of them within our thinking, planning, advocacy, support and other areas so that we can serve them, even if only indirectly, and by so doing marshal their resources and energy on our behalf. The alternative may be that we lose relevancy and represent an ever smaller circle of the artistic and creative forces within America.
Implicit in, and central to, these discussions is whether or not our business, structure and operational models need rethinking, reinvention or replacement. And while philosophical cultural policy considerations are also implicit in these topics, the problems and challenges inherent in each area are specific, practical and real, and we need to focus on concrete solutions to what can be done to make the models the sector uses efficient, effective and relevant, and emphasize less consideration of the issues from a conceptual or academic perspective.
The SEVENTH CONVERSATION is one that may be beyond the control of the sector - and that is: will the arts even be at the tables where decisions as to its future are discussed and determined? For example, who will actually set a national cultural policy for America? Will anyone, or will it be set by default? Will a Ticket Master / Live Nation type entity take over nonprofit arts performances by promoting popular national tours, buying up venues from cash starved municipalities, and controlling ticket prices and distribution? Will that be good or bad for all segments of the nonprofit arts sector? Will those who champion more math & science in the schools ever see that more arts complement what they want, or will they continue to exclude the arts as a frill and a luxury? Will the high tech and entertainment and other industries ever want real partnerships with the arts? There are more decisions to be made out there that we may have no part of at all than you might imagine. A lot of our future is in other people’s hands – at least if we let it be. Where is the model that leverages our numbers and strengths to demand our seat at these tables?
This is the macro picture. On smaller levels the same question is being asked all across our sector: Is the model obsolete? So, for example, bloggers at the League of American Orchestras Conference ask that question about their future - see Orchestra R/Evolution. And at the Association of Arts Administration Educators gathering, they ask that question about future business models for the arts - see Andrew Taylor’s blog. On the smaller level, clearly no one model works for all situations. So in some cases perhaps the answer is ‘No’ – the model might need repair and revision, but at its’ heart it works. On many other levels though, including the larger models referred to above, our models are arguably beyond salvage.
The consequences of our failure to seriously consider how to revamp, re-invent, rethink, reform or replace the models on which we have for so long relied, but which are now failing us, will unquestionably impact how well we fare in the next decade. To think we can continue on as we have done for so long seems to now be a fool’s paradise.
This may sound alarmist or a gross overstatement of the challenges and barriers we face, and I suspect many of you may simply dismiss this, but I caution each of you to look around. Ask yourself: Is what we (you) are doing working? Are we headed in the right direction for the protection, expansion, nurturing and health of the arts in America, or are we, at best, stalled? Are things getting better or worse? Are the models we depend on above working for you? Is your revenue stream getting bigger? Are your fund raising efforts yielding significant increases in your revenue stream? If not, is that just because of a down economy, or are the tools and methods you are still using perhaps outdated? Have circumstances now changed so drastically and dramatically that the old assumptions are no longer valid? Is your audience growing? Are the marketing tools you are using to grow your audience working? Is your organization competitive? Have advocacy efforts protected state and local funding in your area? Is Arts Education expanding in the schools in your area? Are you and those in your organization getting more professional development training? Are you getting any skills building opportunities?
In short, are you and your organization measuring your success in real growth and progress or is the benchmark now mere “survival”, maintaining the status quo and only falling back so much?
Maybe you and your organization can continue to skate for awhile. Maybe as the economy improves (assuming arguendo that it does improve), your circumstances will change for the better, and you may even recover somewhat. But ask yourself this: Will anything have really changed to move you forward towards real growth and sustainability? Will you be better prepared, using the same old models of doing things, for the next crisis and for all the change the next decade portends? Are you equipped to thrive, or merely survive?
There is something fundamentally wrong with the model we use to adapt to change if all it allows is for us to “react” to those forces at play which mold our existence. Where is the model that will enable us to act in anticipation of change, to proactively prepare for varying scenarios, to weather storms with minimal damage or interruption to our sector – to prepare for the dramatically changing future? Where is the model for the whole of the sector that will enable a matrix for it to be a player and not a victim?
We can change the models to make them work for us again, but that won’t happen unless we focus on the job of doing it. We need to organize these conversations on a national level and approach asking these fundamental questions about our models in a systemic and cohesive way. Otherwise it will take us forever to have isolated conversations and let the ideas somehow filter up and out. And we don’t have forever. How long are we going to continue to tool around in these beat up, and in some cases, broken down old cars? Which ones are worth fixing? Which ones should be junked? In some cases, perhaps the time has come to re-think the very means of our transportation.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit
Barry
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
A Change in How the CAC Director is Chosen
Good morning.
“And the beat goes on………………………”
Tuesday is Primary Election Day in California. Please vote.
MOVING SELECTION OF THE CAC DIRECTOR FROM THE GOVERNOR TO THE COUNCIL:
California AB (Assembly Bill) 2610 introduced by Assemblyman Niello (scroll to the end for the exact wording of the Bill) would change the way the Director of the California Arts Council is chosen. Currently, this is a position appointed by the Governor. This bill would take away the Governor’s power to make this appointment and assign that responsibility to the Council itself (which would continue to be appointed by the Governor – except for two members appointed one each by the Senate and Assembly.) Most of the states have this system.
On its face this makes sense. It makes the hiring and firing of the Director a process similar to virtually every nonprofit arts organization in existence wherein the Board (in this case the Council) - when faced with a vacancy in the (Executive) Director chair - does its due diligence, conducts a search for the best candidates and makes a selection based on professional criteria including experience, training, skills, vision and the like.
Theoretically it removes the “political” aspect of the job being filled by a Governor who may often not have as his or her highest priority the professional qualifications of candidates. To be perfectly candid, this appointment, like other political patronage, has been frequently made on the basis of favors and debts for political support. It has been part of the spoils of victory. The change would arguably go a long ways to insure that the position was filled with a well qualified candidate; someone with experience as an arts administrator and familiarity with the issues of the sector – a professional. Moreover, so the argument goes, this would allow (as it clearly has in other states) a qualified and successful Director the ability to stay in office across different Governors and not automatically be “termed out” as it were every time a different political party came into power in the Governor’s office, and that stability in the office would allow for continuity. (Though it might be argued that some kind of outside "term" limits on the Director's tenure is not a bad thing).
The Director has been responsible for running the day to day operations of the agency including program and grant oversight, with the Council ultimately given the power to approve or not approve the recommendations for awarding grants made by the agency based on the peer review panels. There has been a separation between the Director as the Governor’s appointee and the Council (also largely Gubernatorial appointees), and while this distinction seems blurry, the Director has ultimately reported to the Governor and not to the Council. Only the Governor has had the authority to fire the Director – who like all political appointees serves at the Governor’s pleasure. This has given the Director a measure of independence and made the position firmly part of the Executive Branch. It has been a sort of “separation of powers” model.
AB 2610 would change that relationship. The Council would hire and fire the Director and the Director would report to the Council in all matters.
The question is: Is this a good idea?
As acknowledged above, on its face it promises to de-politicize the appointment, resulting in finding the most qualified candidate for the job and ostensibly giving the person in the position more of an opportunity to stay on the job for a longer period of time. This professionalizes the position.
But there are arguments on the other side of this question. First, if you take away the Governor’s right to appoint the Director, some have argued that this is likely to make the Governor less interested in the agency and will result in the Director having diminished ties to, and influence in, the horseshoe (that’s what the Governor’s inner office staff is called due to the shape of the office configuration). That may in turn weaken the agency within the state government apparatus and make it harder to effectively lobby for increased or sustained funding support. This line of thinking holds that the Director will have less of a relationship with the Governor or Administration and thus virtually no platform on which to argue for the agency as part of the budget process. No longer a member of the Governor's Cabinet, the agency becomes an orphan without portfolio. It will make it axiomatically harder to maintain a voice within the Administration.
Those in favor of the bill can, I think, justifiably argue that the Governor would still have nine appointments to the Council itself and those ties could be stronger and closer than whomever s/he might appoint as the Director and would be more than enough to maintain a strong link to the Governor’s office and thus within the Administration. It might also make the agency more of a nonpartisan entity as it would no longer be tied to the sitting Governor.
Doubters would counter-argue that as most of the Council appointments have been patronage too, and as those appointments are more trophy or window dressing than substantive, and not enough to off set a Governor having his or her person in the post and part of the Administration. Anything, so the thinking goes, that lessens the Governor’s direct tie to the agency might compromise its power. It isn't who a Governor appoints as much as that s/he gets to make the appointment of someone that matters here.
I suspect that if the agency Director is not a gubernatorial appointment, that the person who holds that office will be regarded differently - perhaps much differently - by the rest of the Administration and probably even the Legislature and its staff. S/he will be somewhat of an "outsider". I don't know if ultimately that would be a good or bad thing, but I suspect it will make it, if not more difficult, certainly more challenging for the Director to be effective - especially in the budgetary process (which is 80% of what business in Sacramento is all about).
It’s hard to decide what might happen along this line of thinking and no doubt it might be different with different Governors.
Another concern is that if the Council holds the power to fire the Director, this may give rise to micromanagement of the agency by the Council. Council members exert considerable influence on the conduct of a Director as it is; more power in the Council might make the Director less independent. By and large the Board and Executive Director relationship of most arts organizations works fairly well. Yet, a state agency is arguably not the same as a 501 c 3 nonprofit and shouldn’t necessarily try to emulate its processes. State government is about politics, nothing more so than the budgetary process. Some might argue that a Director with no ability to be ‘protected’ as a Gubernatorial appointment, and no direct connection to that Governor’s Administration may be handicapped, and may lose the ability to act independently from a Council bent on having things their own way. Not a problem unless someday you get a Council that wants to run the show itself. Council members themselves do not operate in the day to day ecosystem of the state’s political apparatus, and, for the most part, their ties to the Governor don’t afford them knowledge of how things really work or how power is really used within the system.
I know of at least two instances where the state arts agency Directors in a system such as that being proposed, left because they felt their Councils wanted them to be puppets and the Council wanted to run the agency themselves. Good leaders lost to a different kind of politics. That makes it harder for those states to attract strong leaders.
But far and away the biggest argument against this bill in my mind is that such a change might just give a Governor who was looking for an excuse, more cover for ignoring the agency’s needs and having little to do with it, and that might negatively impact Gubernatorial support for the arts. And the simple fact is that if the Governor is not supportive, it really matters very little that the Legislature is. I worry then about the timing of this bill and that it might make it easier for forces so inclined to beg off any kind of state public support for the arts. As states continue to face draconian economic choices, we are likely to continue to see more attempts to gut (and eliminate) state funding to the arts across the country. I worry this bill might inadvertently aid and abet that kind of effort here in California by making the CAC ever more isolated and vulnerable.
Now are those arguments against this Bill enough to oppose it? For most observers, I think probably not. And so I think on balance this probably is a good idea. I just don't know about the timing.
While it would be nice to figure out a way so that the appointments to the Council were also somehow based on merit and experience and skills, and there was some process to find the very best people to sit on the Council -- people who would find the best Director and not micromanage or otherwise usurp that person’s power or authority so that the best candidates would be attracted to the post -- there is really no way to guarantee those kinds of appointments. These will remain (largely) Gubernatorial appointments and political patronage at their heart. While it is not unheard of to get at least a couple of people who want to think of the agency as their own personal fiefdom, my own experience - having sat in that chair - is that the vast majority of those appointed to the Council are smart, caring and dedicated people who bring a variety of skill sets to their service. Not all are as dedicated in terms of time and energy as are others of course, but virtually all of them take seriously their charge and are committed to protecting the agency and its integrity. Few really want to micromanage a Director, and most are vigilant against any of their group exceeding their own authority. But it has been a problem in other states. I don’t think those arguments are probably enough to oppose the Bill. On balance I think political influences of who a Governor appoints to the Council have actually served the agency well. Many appointees are high-profile, personal friends of the appointing Governor and take the post precisely because they care about the arts in our state. Council appointees generally “get it” and to the extent they are willing to be spokespeople and active lobbyists for the arts, they are effective. How this bill might impact their willingness to really push a Governor who sought distance from supporting the agency remains unknown.
The ultimate issue isn’t who appointments the Director, nor even of the existence of the agency itself – the real issue is the principle of state support for the arts. I would hate to do anything that threatened that support as a principle. So I worry not about the essence of this bill, but more about its timing. I’m just not sure it’s the right thing to do right now. I worry about making it any easier for any movement away from state support for the arts in California – irrespective of what the level of that support may be at any given time. Because once we cross that line, if we ever do, it will be much harder to re-establish the principle. And there are people in Sacramento who would applaud the state crossing that line and letting the arts fund (and fend for) themselves. And that pressure may very likely increase in the near term. I wonder then if in the future, the primary job of Council members became fundraising, would as many people be willing to serve? Would the Council be expected, like large cultural institutions are frequently driven to expect of their Boards, to make hefty donations, and would that discourage people with less than deep pockets from serving on the Council? Would success by a Council in raising private funds merely fuel the argument that the arts ought to be entirely privately funded? I don't know what might happen. I am only asking questions.
On balance, I don’t think it will matter because I think most people will favor this bill and I think it will likely pass. In preparation for this blog I asked a number of people in and out of California what they thought. There was a little opposition (as stated herein), but not much. Most of the people I talked to (and people whose opinions I respect very much) were supportive of the concept. Some were unsure, but most were in favor. The current agency Council and Director favor the bill and I am informed the (current) Governor does too. I have no idea what the candidates might think about this move. Long time Sacramento arts lobbyist, Kathy Lynch, has expressed similar reservations as set forth above, but the California Arts Advocates Board met, and after discussing the pros & cons, decided to endorse the bill and support its passage. The bill is also supported by Arts For L.A. The CAAE Board met and decided not to take any position for or against at this time. I am not aware of whether any other umbrella organizations representing various sections of the arts field in California have taken any position. I know of no formal opposition to this bill at this time.
I think it is worth the field discussing and everyone should consider the pros and cons and the implications and come to their own conclusions. The relationship of the agency Director to the Council and to the Governor is an issue that crops up, from time to time, in various forms all across the country. Whenever we make changes to a structure, we should make sure we think it through, because we end up living with the change for a long time to come. It’s important to make sure we get it right.
I would hope, if it does pass, that the Council develops, with public input, protocols (including criteria) for the process of hiring and firing future Council Directors and suggestions to the Governor as to criteria for Council appointments, puts those in writing as official ‘policy’, and seriously considers maintaining some kind of line between itself and the Director (including such things as possible outside term limits and a prohibition on the Council hiring one of its own for the post).
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to this bill. I myself am torn.
Here is the NEW Bill language in its entirety:
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2610
Introduced by Assembly Member Niello
February 19, 2010
An act to amend Section 8754 of the Government Code, relating to state government.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2610, as introduced, Niello. Arts Council: officers and employees.
Existing law, the Dixon-Zenovich-Maddy California Arts Act of
1975, establishes an Arts Council that has specified duties related to
the arts. Existing law requires the Governor to appoint a director and 2
deputy directors.
This bill would require that the council select the director. This bill
would make the director responsible for, among other things, hiring
council staff.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: (old language to be deleted in parenthesis; new language in italics)
SECTION 1. Section 8754 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
The (Governor) council shall (appoint) select a director (and
two deputies) for the Arts Council (who shall serve at the pleasure
of the Governor). The council may delegate to the director the
responsibilities for carrying out council policy.
The director shall assist the council in the carrying out of its
work, be responsible for the hiring of council staff, including, but
not limited to, deputy directors, be responsible for the management
and administration of the council staff, and perform other duties
as directed by the council.
I believe it has already passed the Assembly Committee and has moved to the Senate and awaits a Committee hearing date.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit.
Barry
“And the beat goes on………………………”
Tuesday is Primary Election Day in California. Please vote.
MOVING SELECTION OF THE CAC DIRECTOR FROM THE GOVERNOR TO THE COUNCIL:
California AB (Assembly Bill) 2610 introduced by Assemblyman Niello (scroll to the end for the exact wording of the Bill) would change the way the Director of the California Arts Council is chosen. Currently, this is a position appointed by the Governor. This bill would take away the Governor’s power to make this appointment and assign that responsibility to the Council itself (which would continue to be appointed by the Governor – except for two members appointed one each by the Senate and Assembly.) Most of the states have this system.
On its face this makes sense. It makes the hiring and firing of the Director a process similar to virtually every nonprofit arts organization in existence wherein the Board (in this case the Council) - when faced with a vacancy in the (Executive) Director chair - does its due diligence, conducts a search for the best candidates and makes a selection based on professional criteria including experience, training, skills, vision and the like.
Theoretically it removes the “political” aspect of the job being filled by a Governor who may often not have as his or her highest priority the professional qualifications of candidates. To be perfectly candid, this appointment, like other political patronage, has been frequently made on the basis of favors and debts for political support. It has been part of the spoils of victory. The change would arguably go a long ways to insure that the position was filled with a well qualified candidate; someone with experience as an arts administrator and familiarity with the issues of the sector – a professional. Moreover, so the argument goes, this would allow (as it clearly has in other states) a qualified and successful Director the ability to stay in office across different Governors and not automatically be “termed out” as it were every time a different political party came into power in the Governor’s office, and that stability in the office would allow for continuity. (Though it might be argued that some kind of outside "term" limits on the Director's tenure is not a bad thing).
The Director has been responsible for running the day to day operations of the agency including program and grant oversight, with the Council ultimately given the power to approve or not approve the recommendations for awarding grants made by the agency based on the peer review panels. There has been a separation between the Director as the Governor’s appointee and the Council (also largely Gubernatorial appointees), and while this distinction seems blurry, the Director has ultimately reported to the Governor and not to the Council. Only the Governor has had the authority to fire the Director – who like all political appointees serves at the Governor’s pleasure. This has given the Director a measure of independence and made the position firmly part of the Executive Branch. It has been a sort of “separation of powers” model.
AB 2610 would change that relationship. The Council would hire and fire the Director and the Director would report to the Council in all matters.
The question is: Is this a good idea?
As acknowledged above, on its face it promises to de-politicize the appointment, resulting in finding the most qualified candidate for the job and ostensibly giving the person in the position more of an opportunity to stay on the job for a longer period of time. This professionalizes the position.
But there are arguments on the other side of this question. First, if you take away the Governor’s right to appoint the Director, some have argued that this is likely to make the Governor less interested in the agency and will result in the Director having diminished ties to, and influence in, the horseshoe (that’s what the Governor’s inner office staff is called due to the shape of the office configuration). That may in turn weaken the agency within the state government apparatus and make it harder to effectively lobby for increased or sustained funding support. This line of thinking holds that the Director will have less of a relationship with the Governor or Administration and thus virtually no platform on which to argue for the agency as part of the budget process. No longer a member of the Governor's Cabinet, the agency becomes an orphan without portfolio. It will make it axiomatically harder to maintain a voice within the Administration.
Those in favor of the bill can, I think, justifiably argue that the Governor would still have nine appointments to the Council itself and those ties could be stronger and closer than whomever s/he might appoint as the Director and would be more than enough to maintain a strong link to the Governor’s office and thus within the Administration. It might also make the agency more of a nonpartisan entity as it would no longer be tied to the sitting Governor.
Doubters would counter-argue that as most of the Council appointments have been patronage too, and as those appointments are more trophy or window dressing than substantive, and not enough to off set a Governor having his or her person in the post and part of the Administration. Anything, so the thinking goes, that lessens the Governor’s direct tie to the agency might compromise its power. It isn't who a Governor appoints as much as that s/he gets to make the appointment of someone that matters here.
I suspect that if the agency Director is not a gubernatorial appointment, that the person who holds that office will be regarded differently - perhaps much differently - by the rest of the Administration and probably even the Legislature and its staff. S/he will be somewhat of an "outsider". I don't know if ultimately that would be a good or bad thing, but I suspect it will make it, if not more difficult, certainly more challenging for the Director to be effective - especially in the budgetary process (which is 80% of what business in Sacramento is all about).
It’s hard to decide what might happen along this line of thinking and no doubt it might be different with different Governors.
Another concern is that if the Council holds the power to fire the Director, this may give rise to micromanagement of the agency by the Council. Council members exert considerable influence on the conduct of a Director as it is; more power in the Council might make the Director less independent. By and large the Board and Executive Director relationship of most arts organizations works fairly well. Yet, a state agency is arguably not the same as a 501 c 3 nonprofit and shouldn’t necessarily try to emulate its processes. State government is about politics, nothing more so than the budgetary process. Some might argue that a Director with no ability to be ‘protected’ as a Gubernatorial appointment, and no direct connection to that Governor’s Administration may be handicapped, and may lose the ability to act independently from a Council bent on having things their own way. Not a problem unless someday you get a Council that wants to run the show itself. Council members themselves do not operate in the day to day ecosystem of the state’s political apparatus, and, for the most part, their ties to the Governor don’t afford them knowledge of how things really work or how power is really used within the system.
I know of at least two instances where the state arts agency Directors in a system such as that being proposed, left because they felt their Councils wanted them to be puppets and the Council wanted to run the agency themselves. Good leaders lost to a different kind of politics. That makes it harder for those states to attract strong leaders.
But far and away the biggest argument against this bill in my mind is that such a change might just give a Governor who was looking for an excuse, more cover for ignoring the agency’s needs and having little to do with it, and that might negatively impact Gubernatorial support for the arts. And the simple fact is that if the Governor is not supportive, it really matters very little that the Legislature is. I worry then about the timing of this bill and that it might make it easier for forces so inclined to beg off any kind of state public support for the arts. As states continue to face draconian economic choices, we are likely to continue to see more attempts to gut (and eliminate) state funding to the arts across the country. I worry this bill might inadvertently aid and abet that kind of effort here in California by making the CAC ever more isolated and vulnerable.
Now are those arguments against this Bill enough to oppose it? For most observers, I think probably not. And so I think on balance this probably is a good idea. I just don't know about the timing.
While it would be nice to figure out a way so that the appointments to the Council were also somehow based on merit and experience and skills, and there was some process to find the very best people to sit on the Council -- people who would find the best Director and not micromanage or otherwise usurp that person’s power or authority so that the best candidates would be attracted to the post -- there is really no way to guarantee those kinds of appointments. These will remain (largely) Gubernatorial appointments and political patronage at their heart. While it is not unheard of to get at least a couple of people who want to think of the agency as their own personal fiefdom, my own experience - having sat in that chair - is that the vast majority of those appointed to the Council are smart, caring and dedicated people who bring a variety of skill sets to their service. Not all are as dedicated in terms of time and energy as are others of course, but virtually all of them take seriously their charge and are committed to protecting the agency and its integrity. Few really want to micromanage a Director, and most are vigilant against any of their group exceeding their own authority. But it has been a problem in other states. I don’t think those arguments are probably enough to oppose the Bill. On balance I think political influences of who a Governor appoints to the Council have actually served the agency well. Many appointees are high-profile, personal friends of the appointing Governor and take the post precisely because they care about the arts in our state. Council appointees generally “get it” and to the extent they are willing to be spokespeople and active lobbyists for the arts, they are effective. How this bill might impact their willingness to really push a Governor who sought distance from supporting the agency remains unknown.
The ultimate issue isn’t who appointments the Director, nor even of the existence of the agency itself – the real issue is the principle of state support for the arts. I would hate to do anything that threatened that support as a principle. So I worry not about the essence of this bill, but more about its timing. I’m just not sure it’s the right thing to do right now. I worry about making it any easier for any movement away from state support for the arts in California – irrespective of what the level of that support may be at any given time. Because once we cross that line, if we ever do, it will be much harder to re-establish the principle. And there are people in Sacramento who would applaud the state crossing that line and letting the arts fund (and fend for) themselves. And that pressure may very likely increase in the near term. I wonder then if in the future, the primary job of Council members became fundraising, would as many people be willing to serve? Would the Council be expected, like large cultural institutions are frequently driven to expect of their Boards, to make hefty donations, and would that discourage people with less than deep pockets from serving on the Council? Would success by a Council in raising private funds merely fuel the argument that the arts ought to be entirely privately funded? I don't know what might happen. I am only asking questions.
On balance, I don’t think it will matter because I think most people will favor this bill and I think it will likely pass. In preparation for this blog I asked a number of people in and out of California what they thought. There was a little opposition (as stated herein), but not much. Most of the people I talked to (and people whose opinions I respect very much) were supportive of the concept. Some were unsure, but most were in favor. The current agency Council and Director favor the bill and I am informed the (current) Governor does too. I have no idea what the candidates might think about this move. Long time Sacramento arts lobbyist, Kathy Lynch, has expressed similar reservations as set forth above, but the California Arts Advocates Board met, and after discussing the pros & cons, decided to endorse the bill and support its passage. The bill is also supported by Arts For L.A. The CAAE Board met and decided not to take any position for or against at this time. I am not aware of whether any other umbrella organizations representing various sections of the arts field in California have taken any position. I know of no formal opposition to this bill at this time.
I think it is worth the field discussing and everyone should consider the pros and cons and the implications and come to their own conclusions. The relationship of the agency Director to the Council and to the Governor is an issue that crops up, from time to time, in various forms all across the country. Whenever we make changes to a structure, we should make sure we think it through, because we end up living with the change for a long time to come. It’s important to make sure we get it right.
I would hope, if it does pass, that the Council develops, with public input, protocols (including criteria) for the process of hiring and firing future Council Directors and suggestions to the Governor as to criteria for Council appointments, puts those in writing as official ‘policy’, and seriously considers maintaining some kind of line between itself and the Director (including such things as possible outside term limits and a prohibition on the Council hiring one of its own for the post).
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as to this bill. I myself am torn.
Here is the NEW Bill language in its entirety:
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2610
Introduced by Assembly Member Niello
February 19, 2010
An act to amend Section 8754 of the Government Code, relating to state government.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2610, as introduced, Niello. Arts Council: officers and employees.
Existing law, the Dixon-Zenovich-Maddy California Arts Act of
1975, establishes an Arts Council that has specified duties related to
the arts. Existing law requires the Governor to appoint a director and 2
deputy directors.
This bill would require that the council select the director. This bill
would make the director responsible for, among other things, hiring
council staff.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: (old language to be deleted in parenthesis; new language in italics)
SECTION 1. Section 8754 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
The (Governor) council shall (appoint) select a director (and
two deputies) for the Arts Council (who shall serve at the pleasure
of the Governor). The council may delegate to the director the
responsibilities for carrying out council policy.
The director shall assist the council in the carrying out of its
work, be responsible for the hiring of council staff, including, but
not limited to, deputy directors, be responsible for the management
and administration of the council staff, and perform other duties
as directed by the council.
I believe it has already passed the Assembly Committee and has moved to the Senate and awaits a Committee hearing date.
Have a great week.
Don’t Quit.
Barry
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Two Announcements from the Feds:
Good morning. (Note: click on the logo to go to the site and to leave comments)
“And the beat goes on………………………”
From the NEA: San Diego, CA – “NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman and Blue Star Families Chairman Kathy Roth-Douquet announced the launch of Blue Star Museums, a partnership with more than 700 museums across America to offer free admission to all active duty military personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day 2010. The complete list of participating museums is available at http://www.arts.gov/
Wonderful Memorial Day gift.
From Kalpenn Modi’s Office – the White House: “Here’s a short video of Secretary of Education Arne on the importance of Arts Education. Feel free to share with your networks and friends.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT3yh9Aae1E
Here's some mind candy from Brain Pickings: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/05/24/the-creators-project/
Don’t Quit.
Barry
“And the beat goes on………………………”
From the NEA: San Diego, CA – “NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman and Blue Star Families Chairman Kathy Roth-Douquet announced the launch of Blue Star Museums, a partnership with more than 700 museums across America to offer free admission to all active duty military personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day 2010. The complete list of participating museums is available at http://www.arts.gov/
Wonderful Memorial Day gift.
From Kalpenn Modi’s Office – the White House: “Here’s a short video of Secretary of Education Arne on the importance of Arts Education. Feel free to share with your networks and friends.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT3yh9Aae1E
Here's some mind candy from Brain Pickings: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/05/24/the-creators-project/
Don’t Quit.
Barry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
