Arts groups circle wagons against "pathetic" arts funding

Update: The Indy Weekly has a nicely-done intra-issue article on the subject posted at their web site.

We talked earlier this week here at BCR about the dramatic cuts proposed in this year's FY09 City budget for non-city agencies (NCAs), including a significant drop in the budgeted support for fine arts organizations, and leaving supporters of the  implementation of the Cultural Master Plan (CMP), passed in 2004, concerned about the level of committment the City has to the arts.

At a high level, the bottom line cuts to arts funding total $115,000, a reduction from $1.61 to $1.495 million in FY09. But these proposed reductions come concurrently with a time of severely reduced philanthropic contributions straining the non-profit sector across the board.

So much so that City Councilwoman Diane Catotti called the level of proposed cultural funding "pathetic" in an N&O article earlier this week.

How severe are the impact of the cuts? According to a number of non-profits, dire indeed. Most notably, according to an email circulating from supporters of arts funding, the popular Bull Durham Blues Festival could be a casualty of the reduced funding to the arts. So too could The Scrap Exchange, which is reportedly seeking a new home and may choose to relocate outside of Durham if funding is reduced. The American Dance Festival and Full Frame, though not going anywhere, would reportedly need to cut staff and community programs, too.

For its part, the African-American Dance Ensemble -- a group featured in the national press, including the New York Times -- finds itself out of city funding entirely, a status change that would be an embarrassment given the organization's level of visibility.

As Matt Dees points out in his N&O piece linked above, the City Council has been pushing to wean non-profits targeting the arts and recreation from taxpayer funds; previously-funded organizations are set to receive diminishing dollars until support ends for existing recipients two years hence.

Yet Durham's funding for the Cultural Master Plan is also set to run out this year. And while Council members are quoted in the paper as seeking backfill dollars in this year's stretched budget for CMP funding, it's as of yet not a done deal.

Ironically, one aspect of the CMP is sustainability -- that is, helping to educate and prepare non-profits in the arts and cultural fields to develop philanthropic skills to be able to draw from a diversity of funding sources and to be less reliant on municipal dollars.

Funding reductions aside, a thorn in the side of those involved in advocating for a restoration of arts funding is the method by which this year's grant recommendations were made. According to one report, the City has been less than forthcoming on the process and selection criteria by which grant decisions were reached.

(For my part, I emailed Glenn Thomas, who's listed as the Non-City Agency grant review contact on the City's web site, on May 23 asking for the report detailing the recommendations of the review panel, as background for this story. I've received zero response from the City staff on this, something that may be of interest to the good folks in City Hall who read BCR.)

Expect this to be a major topic of discussion at Monday night's City Council meeting, for which arts activists are hoping to turn out dozens if not hundreds of citizens to protest the proposed funding reductions, and to call for at least three years' worth of funding for the Cultural Master Plan.

Comments

[Masshole]

Well, times are tough all over. People are tightening their belts and wallets across the region and the country. I do not see why anyone should get as pass. If anything, in times like this I think government should be even more careful in how it spends money even as it asks for more from us.

I am sure there is something that can be done to help some of these programs "stay afloat" in the form of community efforts. All told, I would prefer a balanced budget with reduced funding for anything non-essential to the alternative.

All told, its less than a ten percent cut to the budget so some scrambling should be possible. Its quite common for groups affected by stuff like this to pick the things that have the most public traction to say oh now this means we cant do x when in reality it doesnt mean that at all. It is just an effort to prevent the cuts. Still, considering that there have likely been consistent increases in recent years this does not appear to be particularly unfair.

[increase?]

There have been no increases in recent years. There have been only cuts in recent years. This year they are even more egregious. Let's stop investing in the school system while we're at it. Why invest in anything other than roads and gas to drive police cars on those roads? Why invest in anything non physical that makes Durham great? I can't follow the logic of not investing in the creative enterprises that consistently make Durham appear in ranking of great places to live, work, and visit despite or sophomoric leadership, high crime, etc, etc.

[James M.]

Speaking as a member of the non-profit community, times are tough all over. Funding is getting cut, donors are tightening their belts and donations aren't coming like they used to. Couple that with a disgraceful United Way and you get a recession for everyone. I'm sorry the Arts programs aren't seeing increases, but not surprised or worry. Arts flourish in adversity; homeless people do not. Neither does literacy, pregnant teens or food banks. If it comes down to giving our limited funds to human service groups or arts groups, well, arts loses every time. It's sad but true. And if you want to invest in the "creative enterprises that consistently make Durham" great, then dig into your own wallet and give. Don't rely on the government to get anything done; it's just not a good idea.

[KH]

Most other cities get huge amounts of arts funding from the corporate community and private foundations. Maybe the Research Triangle Foundation (RTF) could collect money towards the arts (and non-profits) from their tenants. They are benefiting from a huge tax break anyway. What's a collective $1.5M from over 75 corporate members. That's less than $20K per company...!!!

Hmmmmm...The city could reduce its contribution to non-city agency funding yet provide matching funds to RTF's donations (I say $500K) along with requiring the organizations to meet agreed upon performance goals. (i.e. X number of art shows, Y people provided home/financial counseling with Z% avoiding foreclosure, etc.)

[TSH]

As odd as this may sound, one of the reasons we picked Durham over other Triangle communities is that it has the SCRAP Exchange. The city we moved from has a similar program albeit is receives very little public funding and is mostly funded by private businesses and donor support. But the SCRAP Exchange is one of those things that makes Durham a little funky and edgy. Our family would be very sad if they had to relocate. It's a delicate balancing act between providing necessary services during an economic down turn and still attracting new citizens and businesses to Durham.

[Lou]

Some might want to consider whether the arts are worthy of funding at all- does Durham (or North Carolina, or the United States) want to be seen as saying that culture isn't something worth investing in? Or should we only put our money into that seems immediately tangible?

The sad thing is, we're talking about (relatively) small amounts of money- along with the Scrap Exchange and the African-American Dance Ensemble, I would guess it would also point towards Full Frame and ADF leaving Durham down the road. Seems worth keeping the funding to me..

[Tar Heelz]

Of course the arts are worth funding. Of course cultural expenses have value.

However, as mentioned above, times are tough and Durham's taxes are high and getting higher to fund its lengthy wish list. Was there no follow-up question for Ms. Catotti's pronouncement of the funding level as "pathetic"? How about, "Councilwoman what budget items would you propose cutting in the alternative?" Or maybe, "Ms. Catotti, is it your position that Manager Baker should have proposed an even HIGHER increase in taxes for Durhamites?"

[Bull City Rising]

Tar Heelz--

I've posed your question to folks I know who are among the advocates for this issue. Frankly, this is at the heart of the question: what should or should not be the priorities for the City this year?

As the N&O and H-S have noted in their very good coverage of this year's budget season, fuel costs and employee compensation (i.e., arranging the latter to be comparable with neighboring communities) are the key drivers of this year's budget.

Fuel there isn't much we can do about. In terms of salaries: this is a point I'll expand on in a future blog post, but bottom line is, I'd suggest focusing only on pay equity for public safety officers in this round, given that Durham's well-trained officers are prime candidates to be poached by other departments.

Is it a good idea to raise the salaries of other City staff to neighbors' levels? Yes -- but not this year. There's always a lot of demand for the relatively recession-proof public and non-profit sectors during downturns, a trend that dissipates as economic conditions improve and the private sector begins hiring.

Which is another way of saying, if the City as a manager is less likely to face the same level of competition for its employees in the next year, why raise salaries for those non-safety positions now? Why not phase that in at a point when you need (not just want) to be more pay-competitive?

I'd also suspect to find some of the solid waste collection efforts on the chopping block.

Will the arts funding be restored? Note I'm not taking a normative position (good or bad) on this. My suspicion is that City staff, well-browbeat by Council this week, will bring the bottom-line number down far enough to eke out some more headroom for lost funding in a number of politically-sensitive areas, this one included.

(After all, for better or worse, we know how the sausage is made here -- and the NCA funding cuts were just across-the-board enough to tick off the progressive _and_ Bell/Cole-McFadden wings of the Council. That's not a position likely to have long-term traction in our fair city.)