Table of Contents:
I. Succession Policies
II. Bits & Pieces
Hello everyone.
"And the beat goes on.................."
I. Succession Policies
"Talkin' bout my generation.............."
Wayne Lawson, Executive Director of the Ohio Arts Council and Shelley Cohn, Executive Director of the Arizona Arts Commission (the state agencies) are both retiring after long careers in their posts. Together they have over 50 years of experience at the helm of their respective state arts agencies. Both are as smart, savvy, intelligent and gifted leaders as I have ever met in the field. Both have probably forgotten more about arts administration than I will ever know. Both have served the field well and made innumerable contributions to the arts. We all stand on their shoulders in many ways. Our field has hundreds of such gifted leaders, many of whom are similarly weighing the decision to retire or otherwise exit the field in the near term.
Their decisions to leave their agencies after such long tenures made me think of two related issues -1) succession - how do we transition new leadership; and 2) wisdom - how do we protect the institutional memory and facilitate the maintenance of leadership experience and knowledge?
Wayne will teach at the University level, and Shelley will probably consult. Both will stay involved at some level in the arts. But these new posts won't necessarily take full advantage of their invaluable experience and knowledge, as the number of people who will directly benefit from that experience and storehouse of knowledge will be relatively small.
New blood is a good thing. Leadership transition brings new energy and new ways of looking at things. In any event, it is inevitable. And there are outstanding people in our field moving up. The issue attendant to succession that I am concerned with is how are we best preparing our new leaders and those that will, over time, move to the forefront in our field? What is going on out there that approaches that issue systemically and strategically. Doubtless some organizations have in place plans for succession, and plans for the transfer of knowledge and the mentoring by experienced leaders over time. Is there anything more we ought to be doing that will improve these approaches, and that might widen their application to the benefit of more organizations?
Perhaps even more critical is what might be done to make sure that the knowledge and experience of people like Wayne and Shelley is shared with the widest number of people as they exit the field. Is there some program that might be created to enhance our efforts to make sure that their wisdom is passed on and not lost? So much of one generation's wisdom is often lost in the American system, and in the nonprofit world that sometimes results in us wasting time by continually addressing issues in the same way that have already been addressed.
I remember when I first came to head the California Arts Council. I found, in my office, a box of reports on various conferences on a range of arts issues. I thumbed through one such conference agenda and report on Arts Education, and I noted that it was attended by an 'A' List of experts, and considered the primary issues. The report was replete with excellent analysis of the salient issues in arts education, and included truly outstanding strategies to approach those issues. I thought: "Wow, this was a great conference. How come I wasn't invited to this one?" Then I noted on the cover that this conference had been held thirteen years before. And here we were, discussing the same issues, making the same points, coming to the same conclusions thirteen years later. That is, to some extent, inevitable of course - progress often comes slowly. But, there must be some way that what came before can be part of the education of all of us here now so that we can save some time in re-inventing a wheel that already exists. Many reports from great conferences get lost and are never accessed again, and that seems a mistake.
Somehow we need to manage our knowledge base better and figure out how to transition that knowledge across the board, so we can make better use of our time in continual struggles to address basic priorities.
II. Bits & Pieces:
*Americans for the Arts Action Fund: Have you joined yet? It's only $20 and you get to be part of the arts first national political effort - the success of which will depend on the number of people who get involved. Go to their website: www.artsusa.org
Two different scenarios (From the Cultural Policy Center newsletter):
*Detroit to close Department of Arts: "The city is booming with talent and amazing cultural gems. Yet, just when communities throughout Michigan are building economic development strategies based on the strengths of vibrant cultural activities, we learn the City of Detroit has decided to close the Department of Arts, Culture and Tourism in an attempt to reduce the city's $300-million budget shortfall." The president of ArtServe Michigan argues for the department's reinstatement, citing the educational, community development, quality of life, economic, and other benefits of the arts and culture.
*Wichita saves the arts: "It took some maneuvering, but Wichita city leaders got all the money they wanted for the arts. The city manager's proposed 2006 budget left the arts about $400,000 short. Tuesday, council members made sure it added up to $2.6 million."
Have a great week.
Don't Quit.
Barry
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Thursday, July 7, 2005
July 07, 2005 Update # 8
Table of Contents:
I. Movies / Arts Attendance Correlation?
II. Allocation of Time for Executive Directors?
Hello everyone.
Just a couple of questions this week.
"And the beat goes on..................."
I. Movie Attendance Correlation?
"My baby loves the western movies.............."
There has been a lot of media coverage of late suggesting that this has been a bad year for Hollywood and that attendance at the movies is down as are the box office grosses - which got me thinking" Is there any correlation to attendance at arts events?
It would be interesting to know whether there is any correlation between downturns (or upturns) in attendance in one entertainment / lesisure time sector and other sectors. Is sports attendance down too?
II. How Do We Spend Our Time - A Quiz:
"If I had time in a bottle...................."
As I am now running a mid-sized arts organization, I have been pondering how I spend most of my days and comparing that to how I spent most of my days when I was the head of a states arts agency. I have been wondering how the Executive Directors or heads of arts organizations spend their time. Is how they spend time different from what it was, say five years ago? Is it the way they would spend their time if they had a choice? Of course, as most arts organizations have very small staffs, everyone wears multiple hats).
So, here's a little quiz for you all to take. No right or wrong answers and I can't compile the results (but you can enter your thoughts as a comment if you'd like). I just thought it might be an interesting exercise to take a look at how you spend your time and what your reactions are to that reality.
How much time do you spend in each area? Rank #1 the most, #7 the least.
PART I:
1. Fundraising
2. Marketing
3. Dealing with your Board
4. Managing the staff
5. Dealing with artists / creative areas
6. Dealing with government - Advocacy
7. Managing your programs and services
8. Other
PART II:
1. In meetings
2. Writing reports, applications
3. Servicing clients or others
4. Reviewing staff work
5. On the phone
6. Online
7. In transit
8. Other
Now, ask yourself:
1. Is that too much, just right, or too little in each area?
2. Is this an optimum allocation of your time, or would you rather allocate your time differently? What area do you need the most help in?
3. Is this a different allocation of your time than the way your were spending your time one, two, five years ago?
PART III:
What would you gladly assign to staff if you had adequate staff -
1. Fundraising
2. Writing reports / applications
3. Marketing
4. Program oversight
5. Dealing with the media
6. Dealing with the community
7. Dealing with your Board
8. Other
Perhaps allocation of time might be a good topic for people in the arts to look at periodically, and as an issue it might suggest wider ramifications for us to all consider (e.g., if we are spending more and more time fundraising, should future Exeutive Directors' Development experience be the number one criteria in new hires? If allocation of time to fundraising today has increased, is that largely the result of the reality of declining available funding streams and the increased competition for those scarcer funds, and thus temporary, or is it permanent? If marketing is the number one or two area, should we provide more training and technical assistance to that area?)
I would like to hear your thoughts on time allocation. One thing is clear - time is a finite and precious resource to all of us, and to whatever extent we can better manage it, we stand to gain.
Have a great weekend.
Don't Quit.
Barry
I. Movies / Arts Attendance Correlation?
II. Allocation of Time for Executive Directors?
Hello everyone.
Just a couple of questions this week.
"And the beat goes on..................."
I. Movie Attendance Correlation?
"My baby loves the western movies.............."
There has been a lot of media coverage of late suggesting that this has been a bad year for Hollywood and that attendance at the movies is down as are the box office grosses - which got me thinking" Is there any correlation to attendance at arts events?
It would be interesting to know whether there is any correlation between downturns (or upturns) in attendance in one entertainment / lesisure time sector and other sectors. Is sports attendance down too?
II. How Do We Spend Our Time - A Quiz:
"If I had time in a bottle...................."
As I am now running a mid-sized arts organization, I have been pondering how I spend most of my days and comparing that to how I spent most of my days when I was the head of a states arts agency. I have been wondering how the Executive Directors or heads of arts organizations spend their time. Is how they spend time different from what it was, say five years ago? Is it the way they would spend their time if they had a choice? Of course, as most arts organizations have very small staffs, everyone wears multiple hats).
So, here's a little quiz for you all to take. No right or wrong answers and I can't compile the results (but you can enter your thoughts as a comment if you'd like). I just thought it might be an interesting exercise to take a look at how you spend your time and what your reactions are to that reality.
How much time do you spend in each area? Rank #1 the most, #7 the least.
PART I:
1. Fundraising
2. Marketing
3. Dealing with your Board
4. Managing the staff
5. Dealing with artists / creative areas
6. Dealing with government - Advocacy
7. Managing your programs and services
8. Other
PART II:
1. In meetings
2. Writing reports, applications
3. Servicing clients or others
4. Reviewing staff work
5. On the phone
6. Online
7. In transit
8. Other
Now, ask yourself:
1. Is that too much, just right, or too little in each area?
2. Is this an optimum allocation of your time, or would you rather allocate your time differently? What area do you need the most help in?
3. Is this a different allocation of your time than the way your were spending your time one, two, five years ago?
PART III:
What would you gladly assign to staff if you had adequate staff -
1. Fundraising
2. Writing reports / applications
3. Marketing
4. Program oversight
5. Dealing with the media
6. Dealing with the community
7. Dealing with your Board
8. Other
Perhaps allocation of time might be a good topic for people in the arts to look at periodically, and as an issue it might suggest wider ramifications for us to all consider (e.g., if we are spending more and more time fundraising, should future Exeutive Directors' Development experience be the number one criteria in new hires? If allocation of time to fundraising today has increased, is that largely the result of the reality of declining available funding streams and the increased competition for those scarcer funds, and thus temporary, or is it permanent? If marketing is the number one or two area, should we provide more training and technical assistance to that area?)
I would like to hear your thoughts on time allocation. One thing is clear - time is a finite and precious resource to all of us, and to whatever extent we can better manage it, we stand to gain.
Have a great weekend.
Don't Quit.
Barry
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
June 23, 2005 Update #7
Table of Contents:
I. A few thoughts on whether the Arts are overbuilt
II. The PBS Crisis
III. Bits & Pieces
Hello everybody.
"And the beat goes on..............."
I. THOUGHTS ON THE ARTS AS OVERBUILT
"Changes in attitudes, changes in latitudes, nothing remains quite the same.............."
I am no longer a funder. I no longer have to make the hard choices as to who and what to fund, and as a consequence, who and what not to fund. When I was a funder, and the situation changed and we no longer had even the illusion of an adequate funding pool of available funds, my own hard choice was to try to make sure every sector of the arts had some voice (by funding discipline and multicultural and underserved community service groups); to keep alive, to the extent possible, at least some of the growing mid-sized organizations that might survive and maintain a place for various arts constituent groups (e.g., Latino, Gay, African American, Native arts dance, theater, music etc.); and to maintain some kind of arts education in the schools.
The question of whether or not the arts field is overbuilt, of whether there are too many arts organizations in competition with each other isn't an academic question given the current funding crisis - at least not in California. Three years ago the Arts Council had $30 million to use to support the arts - today it has $1 million. Three years ago the Packard Foundation had $15 million - today $3 million. Three years ago there was $6 million in the California Department of Education budget for arts education - today nothing. Municipal cuts, reductions in hotel tax funds that support the arts due to a decrease in tourism income, and tight school district budgets account for (conservatively) another drop of $15 million or so in the aggregate across the state. That's a total of $60+ million LESS in support to the arts today. That just can't be replaced so easily and has resulted in cancelled programs, struggling organizations, and more closures than people care to acknowledge. Hundreds of people have been laid off or forced to find employment elsewhere.
So at least in this state, the arts field is being thinned out despite what any of us may want to happen. My question regarding the issue of whether the arts is overbuilt (at least right now) is simply "what is going to happen to all those small and mid-sized arts organizations that were making great progress, growing responsibly, serving their communities and the public well, but are now moving backwards trying simply to stay alive?" These organizations run the spectrum of all disciplines - dance, theater, music, film, education, visual arts - and across all sectors - multicultural, gay, seniors, people with disabilities etc. All of us wish they could all survive, but can they? And what is our collective responsibility, if any, to work to insure that at least some of them do survive? And can we, and if so, how do we do that?
The current funding crisis - more acute in some areas of the country than others, but certainly felt virtually everywhere and by everybody - threatens the very existence of arts provision in our country. Oh, the arts will survive. People will always make art, and others will always be there as its audience, but that is like saying Indonesia will survive the tsunami. Of course it will, but at what cost? How long will it take just to get back to where it was, let alone beyond that point? In 2000 we were making real progress in getting the arts back in the schools. We were making real progress in recognizing, nurturing and supporting the growth of the arts of all of our diverse populations. We were making real progress in expanding our audience base. We were making real progress in educating the public about the importance art plays in every aspect of our lives, our communities. Does anybody doubt that progress has at the very least been brought to a virtual stand still?
Take arts education. The loss of what the CAC was supporting ($10 million in arts education programs), the $6 million arts education support in the state Department of Education budget, and the money local government, foundations and other CAC grants (the funds of which were indirectly used by arts organizations for arts education programs,) and the net result has been that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of students who entered high school in 2002, are now in their third year of having less arts, or more likely, no arts at all (for some) as part of their high school experience. When they graduate next year, it will be too late for them. What cost will that have for the arts and for everyone in the future?
Is it not the responsbile thing for us to do to consider what we might try to salvage during this crisis, so that, as we work to re-establish funding streams at meaningful levels, we take steps to protect the fragile ecosystem that is now being undone? And an ecosystem is, is it not, composed of varying, disparate parts that, interdependent on each of its composition members, exist in a synergistic dynamic?
In many ways I am selfishly glad that I no longer have to make the hard choices of how to allocate scarce funds when the result will be extreme harm to some group, some organization, some sector. But still the decisions need to be made, and everyone needs to weigh in with what is the best thing we can and should do given the realities. And in that process, questions like whether or not the field is overbuilt will come up, and should be considered.
If the growth we sustained over the past two decades wasn't in danger then the overbuilt issue would be less relevant. 'But for' marketplace considerations, arguably there can't be too much arts. To paraphrase an observation made by Linus Pauling who said: "The best way to have a good idea, is to have lots of ideas" - the best way to have truly thrilling art may be to have lots of art. But the marketplace is a factor and we are in danger - and so, like it or not, all funders are making a decision about whether we are overbuilt or not by allocating their scarce resources based on whatever criteria they have developed.
The twin facts that there isn't enough money to go around, and that we need to do whatever we can to come out of the funding crisis as whole as we can, demand that we think about how and what we fund so as to maximize the chance for renewal and rebirth when that time comes. There are doubtless many more layers of issues involved in the question of whether the arts are overbuilt and what, if anything, to do about it - complex layers rich with nuances, controversy, implications and consequences - that demand careful thought and cautious approaches, but in the short term, the dismantling of the house we had built is underway, and if we want to save any of it, we need to deal with it. If your house is on fire, and you only have one hose, you ought to point it where it will do the most good to save at least something of your house. You can't fill a bunch of small cups and run around tossing them at all parts of the burning building and expect that to do any good.
II. PBS FUNDING
"All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..............."
Once again the internet has been abuzz with action and outrage about the latest Congressional attempt to eliminate crucial funding for Public Broadcasting. Hopefully, our collective voice will be heard and current amendments restoring funding will pass the floor today or tomorrow.
If we succeed in once again maintaining public funding for PBS, I hope, in that aftermath, we don't again complacently cry victory too loudly, because repeatedly having to defend ourselves is no victory. Victory would be growth in public spending support. We need to move from defense to offense - from being reactive to being proactive - from political impotency to political power. We simply can't continue ad infinitum to expend so much time and energy running in place - and we should understand what being really victorious means.
Maybe this is a good time for more of us to join the Americans for the Arts Action Fund - a small $20 investment in mounting the machinery that might, someday, move us closer to political power.
III. BITS & PIECES
Click here for a related? article on what is going on at PBS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701712.html
Have a great week.
Don't Quit!
Barry
I. A few thoughts on whether the Arts are overbuilt
II. The PBS Crisis
III. Bits & Pieces
Hello everybody.
"And the beat goes on..............."
I. THOUGHTS ON THE ARTS AS OVERBUILT
"Changes in attitudes, changes in latitudes, nothing remains quite the same.............."
I am no longer a funder. I no longer have to make the hard choices as to who and what to fund, and as a consequence, who and what not to fund. When I was a funder, and the situation changed and we no longer had even the illusion of an adequate funding pool of available funds, my own hard choice was to try to make sure every sector of the arts had some voice (by funding discipline and multicultural and underserved community service groups); to keep alive, to the extent possible, at least some of the growing mid-sized organizations that might survive and maintain a place for various arts constituent groups (e.g., Latino, Gay, African American, Native arts dance, theater, music etc.); and to maintain some kind of arts education in the schools.
The question of whether or not the arts field is overbuilt, of whether there are too many arts organizations in competition with each other isn't an academic question given the current funding crisis - at least not in California. Three years ago the Arts Council had $30 million to use to support the arts - today it has $1 million. Three years ago the Packard Foundation had $15 million - today $3 million. Three years ago there was $6 million in the California Department of Education budget for arts education - today nothing. Municipal cuts, reductions in hotel tax funds that support the arts due to a decrease in tourism income, and tight school district budgets account for (conservatively) another drop of $15 million or so in the aggregate across the state. That's a total of $60+ million LESS in support to the arts today. That just can't be replaced so easily and has resulted in cancelled programs, struggling organizations, and more closures than people care to acknowledge. Hundreds of people have been laid off or forced to find employment elsewhere.
So at least in this state, the arts field is being thinned out despite what any of us may want to happen. My question regarding the issue of whether the arts is overbuilt (at least right now) is simply "what is going to happen to all those small and mid-sized arts organizations that were making great progress, growing responsibly, serving their communities and the public well, but are now moving backwards trying simply to stay alive?" These organizations run the spectrum of all disciplines - dance, theater, music, film, education, visual arts - and across all sectors - multicultural, gay, seniors, people with disabilities etc. All of us wish they could all survive, but can they? And what is our collective responsibility, if any, to work to insure that at least some of them do survive? And can we, and if so, how do we do that?
The current funding crisis - more acute in some areas of the country than others, but certainly felt virtually everywhere and by everybody - threatens the very existence of arts provision in our country. Oh, the arts will survive. People will always make art, and others will always be there as its audience, but that is like saying Indonesia will survive the tsunami. Of course it will, but at what cost? How long will it take just to get back to where it was, let alone beyond that point? In 2000 we were making real progress in getting the arts back in the schools. We were making real progress in recognizing, nurturing and supporting the growth of the arts of all of our diverse populations. We were making real progress in expanding our audience base. We were making real progress in educating the public about the importance art plays in every aspect of our lives, our communities. Does anybody doubt that progress has at the very least been brought to a virtual stand still?
Take arts education. The loss of what the CAC was supporting ($10 million in arts education programs), the $6 million arts education support in the state Department of Education budget, and the money local government, foundations and other CAC grants (the funds of which were indirectly used by arts organizations for arts education programs,) and the net result has been that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of students who entered high school in 2002, are now in their third year of having less arts, or more likely, no arts at all (for some) as part of their high school experience. When they graduate next year, it will be too late for them. What cost will that have for the arts and for everyone in the future?
Is it not the responsbile thing for us to do to consider what we might try to salvage during this crisis, so that, as we work to re-establish funding streams at meaningful levels, we take steps to protect the fragile ecosystem that is now being undone? And an ecosystem is, is it not, composed of varying, disparate parts that, interdependent on each of its composition members, exist in a synergistic dynamic?
In many ways I am selfishly glad that I no longer have to make the hard choices of how to allocate scarce funds when the result will be extreme harm to some group, some organization, some sector. But still the decisions need to be made, and everyone needs to weigh in with what is the best thing we can and should do given the realities. And in that process, questions like whether or not the field is overbuilt will come up, and should be considered.
If the growth we sustained over the past two decades wasn't in danger then the overbuilt issue would be less relevant. 'But for' marketplace considerations, arguably there can't be too much arts. To paraphrase an observation made by Linus Pauling who said: "The best way to have a good idea, is to have lots of ideas" - the best way to have truly thrilling art may be to have lots of art. But the marketplace is a factor and we are in danger - and so, like it or not, all funders are making a decision about whether we are overbuilt or not by allocating their scarce resources based on whatever criteria they have developed.
The twin facts that there isn't enough money to go around, and that we need to do whatever we can to come out of the funding crisis as whole as we can, demand that we think about how and what we fund so as to maximize the chance for renewal and rebirth when that time comes. There are doubtless many more layers of issues involved in the question of whether the arts are overbuilt and what, if anything, to do about it - complex layers rich with nuances, controversy, implications and consequences - that demand careful thought and cautious approaches, but in the short term, the dismantling of the house we had built is underway, and if we want to save any of it, we need to deal with it. If your house is on fire, and you only have one hose, you ought to point it where it will do the most good to save at least something of your house. You can't fill a bunch of small cups and run around tossing them at all parts of the burning building and expect that to do any good.
II. PBS FUNDING
"All lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest..............."
Once again the internet has been abuzz with action and outrage about the latest Congressional attempt to eliminate crucial funding for Public Broadcasting. Hopefully, our collective voice will be heard and current amendments restoring funding will pass the floor today or tomorrow.
If we succeed in once again maintaining public funding for PBS, I hope, in that aftermath, we don't again complacently cry victory too loudly, because repeatedly having to defend ourselves is no victory. Victory would be growth in public spending support. We need to move from defense to offense - from being reactive to being proactive - from political impotency to political power. We simply can't continue ad infinitum to expend so much time and energy running in place - and we should understand what being really victorious means.
Maybe this is a good time for more of us to join the Americans for the Arts Action Fund - a small $20 investment in mounting the machinery that might, someday, move us closer to political power.
III. BITS & PIECES
Click here for a related? article on what is going on at PBS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701712.html
Have a great week.
Don't Quit!
Barry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
