George Thorn, theater guru – interview in THE OREGONIAN

I had the great honor of being a student of George Thorn at Virginia Tech (I actually think I was his last graduating student).  George and his partner in Arts Actor Research, Nello McDaniel, continue to be among the wisest counselors for theater and dance in the country – we used to call them gurus and I think it still fits.  The books that were published by Arts Action Research still grace my bookshelves—and many of my friends. 

 

Interview: George Thorn on the ecology of the arts community

May 02, 2009 09:00AM. OregonLive.com

 

If you're a struggling arts organization, who would you call for 9-1-1 advice?

Probably George Thorn, the Portland-based independent arts consultant who's likely in the Rolodex of every arts organization in town.

Off and on for more than four decades, Thorn has advised arts nonprofits around the country to plan and strategize finances, programming, board development and administrative infrastructure. Never, it seems, has this expertise been in greater demand than now, during a recession that has forced most arts institutions to cut budgets in response to, and in anticipation of, a difficult year.

Born in Indiana, Thorn, 72, studied theater at Butler University in Indianapolis and also at Yale University. In 1959, Thorn moved to New York, where he began a career as a stage manager and then general manager of Broadway productions. After three years in Connecticut as the executive vice president of the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center, Thorn began to shift to consulting, eventually starting Arts Action Research with Nello McDaniel.

Thorn and his wife, Nancy, a former theater and television dancer, moved in 1996 to Portland, attracted to the city's modest scale and scrappy arts scene. Because of his partnership with McDaniel, Thorn spent much of his first 12 years in Portland traveling to New York for work. These days, Thorn spends most of his time in town, though he and McDaniel continue to work together.

Since 1996, Thorn has advised more than 75 Oregon arts and culture institutions of all sizes, disciplines and levels of success, including the Portland Art Museum, Portland Center Stage, Chamber Music Northwest, Northwest Children's Theater and the now closed Portland Art Center.

Last month, he was honored by The College of Fellows of the American Theatre, an organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes professional theater.

Recently, Thorn talked with The Oregonian about the financial health of Portland's arts institutions, the state of fundraising here and other arts issues. The interview was edited for clarity and space.

Q: You were so immersed in New York's arts world. Why did you leave?
A: Nancy and I left New York in 1974 for a couple reasons. It was the time of New York City's first economic crisis. This great city was disintegrating. It was also the time of a great transition within professional theater. In the theater, professional producers used to be the ones who put the shows together. But at the time, there was this transition from professionals to people who weren't professionals but could raise money. I had another business partner back then and together we managed five different shows for one producer. That producer could raise money. But he had no sense of aesthetics. It was just time to move on.

Q: You've been an arts consultant during a time that spans the emergence and maturity of nonprofits. What's been the biggest development?
A: One difference is that there used to be this belief in an institutional model. Whether you were an orchestra, a small gallery or museum, you were supposed to fit into that model. People are now organizing in terms of the way they need to as opposed to the way they are supposed to.

Q: Is that good or bad?
A: It's a great thing because the idea that one model can serve a collective that is so wide-ranging is not healthy. Many small and midsized organizations tried to fit into a model when they shouldn't have.

Q: Having witnessed New York's economic collapse during the '70s, how bad is this current recession?
A: This is the most serious recession I've ever seen. It's not cyclical. When we come out of this, we will be different. I don't know how, but we'll be changed. There's little in our past experience to help with this.

Q: We've seen many arts organizations scale back costs because of the recession. But shouldn't we expect some to shutter entirely?
A: I would think so. The way I would describe it is this: If a nonprofit was relatively balanced before the crash and endowed with good leadership, then they'll find their way through this. But if a nonprofit was out of balance financially, then the stress will be a hundredfold.

Q: Nonprofits have made budget cuts. But given the cycle of budgets, isn't the worst ahead of us?
A: I think everyone is making cuts because income and endowments are down. So in December and January people began to rethink budgets and how to break even. But I think balancing budgets for 2009-10 will be much harder. When the crash happened in October, performance organizations, for example, already had subscriptions, and year-end giving was coming in.

But only now and into next year will we truly see the ramifications on ticket sales, fundraising and memberships. I suggest nonprofits conceptualize not only for the several months left in this year but also for the time carrying forward into next year and beyond. People need to be working on an 18-month cycle now.

Q: What other advice are you giving nonprofits?
A: Be income-driven as opposed to expense-driven. If you are expense-driven, you build an expense budget based on what you want or need to do. Then you create income budgets to balance that. But if you are income-driven, you will develop your expenses responsibly and in line with the money you have.

Q: What's the single biggest mistake nonprofits make?
A: Growing to a size and scale beyond the mission. That's when it loses its center, its mission, and tries to become something more than its resources indicate. Of course, it's easy to understand why this happens: Our society is based on growth. That's the primary criteria for success: Are we getting bigger, doing more programs? Groups thus feel this pressure to grow bigger. That's how nonprofits get a mile wide and an inch deep.

Q: Nonprofits talk a great deal about the shallow funding base. Do you think they're right?
A: Yes. Portland is the most difficult city to raise money that I've ever worked in. Portlanders surely appreciate what they have culturally. But what's missing, to a degree, is an understanding by them that an investment is necessary in order to keep what they have. They have to give money. Another reason is that there is a thin layer of support overall. What the city and the Regional Arts & Culture Council (the nonprofit devoted to arts funding for the Portland area) have done is important in terms of funding, but it can't compare to other cities. We also have a thin base of corporate funding because so many businesses are moving out. The foundations have been generous but that, too, is a small base.

Q: So it's difficult to raise money here, but do you think there is actually money to raise?
A: Overall, no. From individuals, yes. The corporations have been doing what they can. But again, that's a small base compared to other communities in other cities.

Q: You've talked in the past about a system of individual donors.
A: There is a window closing on the old system of donors here. The old system is composed of the families who long ago took responsibility for patronizing arts and culture and other sectors of the community -- Arlene and Harold Schnitzer, for example. As that generation passes, wealth is spread out across the next generation. But sometimes that next generation doesn't have the same interests and passions of their parents, though Jordan Schnitzer clearly does. Our large budget organizations, like the Portland Art Museum, will likely get through that closing window. But not others. What will replace that new system? We have some elements already -- RACC's Work for Art program, the Oregon Cultural Trust, maybe a dedicated funding stream down the road. In other words, there are a lot of individuals out there with money, but they aren't in the arts and culture system.

Q: In the visual arts word, there's been a dream to create a contemporary art center. There have been various attempts, but each has failed. Can it happen here?
A: I'm not sure there is a level of support for a center of the quality and size we desire. I think the first thing that would have to happen is that people would have to be prepared to commit a significant level of funding. Because if we are talking about a center with national, maybe international, reach and ongoing education programs, then that's a big price tag -- at least a $3 million or $4 million budget.

Q: Why isn't the support there?
A: I did a presentation about 18 months ago in Seattle. At the time, Seattle had just expanded its museum with a new outdoor sculpture garden. There was also a new great symphony hall and a new library designed by Rem Koolhaas. We just don't dream like that in Portland. It doesn't mean we don't dream. We just dream differently. We dream about light rail, sustainability, bicycles, green culture.

Q: Mayor Sam Adams recently introduced an idea to create a ballot measure for arts funding. What are the chances of such a measure passing?
A: It would happen only with a real educational effort to articulate why arts funding would add value to all of our lives. And we are a long way from that kind of understanding. On the other hand, if the arts community can rally all of its audiences, donors, members, workers and volunteers over one or two issues, then they won't be stopped.

Q: Don't you think the recession will affect people's willingness to give money?
A: Yes, but on the other hand, this is the best time to plan, to strategize, so that when we come out of this recession, we'll be prepared and ready.

Q: The ballot measure is really the mayor's idea. But he's been compromised politically because of the Beau Breedlove scandal. How will that affect any possible measure's chances?
A: I don't think the mayor will be that key. What's more important is whether a grass-roots movement develops. It will be a collective effort that won't be dependent on any one person.

Q: You and your wife, Nancy, could just enjoy a simple life in Portland after many years on the road and having accomplished so much professionally. Why bother with struggling organizations now?
A: It's simple. I get to work with terrific people and I love the work that I do.

Interesting articles/blog posts from last week – in case you missed them!

Here is a round-up of what caught my eye over the last week.  Let me know if there is something interesting I should be reading!

Interesting argument - Text Me Later (Or: How Theater Isn't Baseball) http://u.nu/5zz3

Cultural Groups ask what to mount next. The Answer - losses? Washington Post http://u.nu/3zz3

To gala or not gala - Iu2019m Honored. No, Actually, I Canu2019t Afford It. NY TIMES. http://u.nu/6xz3

How Much Does Mayor Bloomberg Want to Cut from the Department of Cultural Affairs? Clyde Fitch Report - http://tinyurl.com/dhcugv

Anonymous Giving Gains in Popularity as the Recession Deepens - Philanthropy.com - http://tinyurl.com/d45sky

More Valuable - The Ticket Buyer Or The Donor? - diacritical - http://tinyurl.com/d8sbrg

Bad Behavior at the Theater: Reviving an Old Tradition « Clyde Fitch Report - http://tinyurl.com/d4vjw4

Celebrities Are Taking All the Jobs - http://tinyurl.com/cm3ur9

Equal Time For Planned Giving http://viigo.im/rFc

Fundraising suffered big drop in 2008 http://viigo.im/rii

99seats: Priorities, Part 1 - http://tinyurl.com/d4sn4v

Let's Get Practical! - Artistic Manager and Resident Companies http://tinyurl.com/cpbdse

Broadway, Off-Broadway, Theater : How to invest in a Broadway show. Part I - http://tinyurl.com/d5cgur

How to invest in a Broadway show. Part 2 http://tinyurl.com/dnzg4t

Reasons to be Pretty to Encourage Texting at the Theater - http://tinyurl.com/c5o864

Union Calls City Opera Strike ‘Likely’ Given Demands - Bloomberg.com - http://tinyurl.com/tra5t

Why Twitter Quitters don't Get It http://tinyurl.com/c4neyh

HarvardBusiness.org: The 24/7 Employee http://tinyurl.com/dcz8mu

The World of Celebrity Giving: http://www.looktothestars.org/

IRS provides a mini-course on the new 990 form for charities - http://tinyurl.com/cuo8wh

There are BO users and AO [Twitter] users: Before Opera/After Oprah' ( http://tinyurl.com/cojbdc )

Parabasis: No One Edits Poets. Pondering new play development and collaboration - read the comments too. http://u.nu/4463

ArtsBeat: Barlow-Hartman, Broadway Publicity Agency, to Close http://viigo.im/q2W

Is Your Social Network Cool Enough To Be A Tree House? http://viigo.im/pS6

Social Net Fundraising - All Hype? The Agitator. (Pretty sound advice) http://viigo.im/pQW

A Nonprofit New York Times? http://tinyurl.com/cskgs3

Theatre vs. Theatre Companies (The Playgoer) http://viigo.im/pln

Wall Street Journal Only Top 25 Newspaper To Report Circulation Increase http://viigo.im/pfw

Diacritical: Do we need institutions to create art? http://u.nu/5dp

Bring it to scale

Bridgespan has released a new report about bringing organizations to scale.   Organization replication and scale is something we tend to forget about when it comes to the arts.   But isn’t the first question we should ask - what is the “right-size” for an organization to accomplish its mission?

The Bridgespan report notes some key challenges for nonprofits in determining and fulfilling scale:

1. Distinguishing promising programs from proven ones is complicated, costly and essential.  Many social service organizations have little if any evidence of their programs’ efficacy. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t producing results. But it does mean we cannot say for certain that they do.
2. Scaling requires rethinking traditional patterns of funding. If we want to make a pervasive impact on our nation’s most difficult problems, we are talking about supporting fewer organizations with larger sums of money. Concentrating resources on a few organizations is rarely how money flows today.
3. Scaling a nonprofit’s programs without investing in its capacity is a recipe for failure. Building organizational and human capacity – putting in place the strategy, systems and, above all else, the right people in the right jobs to convert money into results – is as important a factor in bringing a program successfully to scale as the money itself.
4. Ongoing research, evaluation and performance measurement are imperative as an organization scales. Put simply, there is no other way to ensure that even a well-funded program with proven outcomes will be expanded and sustained. A good idea absent its execution is in fact not a good idea at all.

Last summer at Harvard Business School’s Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers, we spent a lot of time talking about scale.  This was the first time I really fully explored the concept in terms of the arts and in particular theatre.  In the post, I pointed out four strategies in terms of scale.

1. Get support for fixed costs (and maybe semi-variable costs), and have variable (and maybe or semi-variable) costs covered by earned income.
2. Franchise.
3. Engage in partnerships (or even possibly mergers).
4. Create a subsidiary of a commercial business.

Shouldn’t successful organizations and programs be replicated? What would bringing it to scale mean for theatre? Can we "franchise?" Aren’t co-productions, touring, or moving a show be a type of franchising in the theatre?  Certainly education programs are replicated – it happens naturally more often than not without a strategic plan, but why not plan to replicate and take certain ideas for programming to scale.  In a way the NEA Big Read program is doing exactly that. 

When talking about funding models and whether theatre’s should be saved, if we can talk replication, we have to take mergers under consideration.  For some reason in the arts, mergers are often interpreted as failures.  But consolidation, restructuring, and resource-sharing can be VERY effective for theatre organizations and individual productions, so why not out-right mergers?  Certainly in terms of scale it may make sense for organizations and the community.

We certainly are seeing a form of mergers in co-productions and new play development.   Adrian Ellis wrote in the Art Newspaper that this would be one of the three ways to compensate for the losses in philanthropic, endowment and visitor incomes for museums, “what museums accept they cannot do alone, they will explore doing together more thoroughly and earnestly than in the past: collection sharing, joint acquisitions, pooling conservation resources, and pooling curatorial appointments.”

Without question determining scale is difficult and requires significant examination, but it seems to be an essential step which we don’t take enough time to address and plan.

If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).

Key Issues facing the nonprofit theatre industry (a top ten list)

Issue One: The business model is broken (if it ever worked).   We need a new definition of fiscal health and sustainability based on individual organizations needs.

Theaters across the US are acknowledging that the traditional nonprofit theatre model is broken (60% earned/40% contributed). For many structural deficits have become the norm rather than the exception.

Other Earned Income resources can be explored but must not pull the theatre off mission.  Enhancement income can be raised from aggressive new play development and active exploration within the industry. Although this is a somewhat unpredictable source of income when done under the right circumstances it can be very helpful in offsetting expenses.  When done for the wrong reasons (read – for the money) it can be devastating.  Co-Productions are another performance related income stream. Similar to enhancement income, the partnership is as important as the income source. Many Education Programs generate significant revenue through participant fees, vendor agreements with academic institutions, or corporate training programs. Real estate acquisition and utilization can be a revenue source for many organizations.

Rising Production costs must be reasonably contained, however, eventually many theatres might have to go through a certain amount of correction on their production expenses if they are “living beyond their means.”  Programming, fund-raising and administrative needs of companies need to be assessed regularly.

Theatres need to address contributed revenue across the board – annual campaigns, specialized campaigns, and reserves/endowment.  Alternatives to traditional endowments will need to be explored.  Working capital must be addressed. 

We must assess our governance structures and make sure there is balance between board, artistic and managing leadership.  Too often healthy discussions become tyrannical demands by one or two of the partners. 

Issue Two: Many of our mission statements have become interchangeable.

Writing missions by committee has watered down many theatres’ missions.  Consensus has become a compromise to mediocrity.  Organizational values are sometimes difficult to identify and in a few cases have been lost to the whim of leadership changes and egos.  We must return to missions that address a need.  Why do we have mission statements in the first place? We need a purpose.  We have to have an identity right? A uniqueness? A reason our community needs us? We have to use our resources and capabilities to fill some social need.  We need goals to measure our impact against!

Issue Three:  We have lost our relevancy within our communities.

The first two issues have created the most challenging and threatening issue of all.  Several organizations have veered away from their original mission and become increasingly irrelevant.  Theatre has become about making the safe choice.  We shy away from artistic risks over concerns for finances – just when we should be taking the greatest risks with our work.  We aren’t spending enough time getting to know our constituencies so aren’t picking work that matters to them. We must live up to the responsibilities we have to our community.

Issue Four: We aren’t investing enough in new kinds of theatre – the evolution of the form.

Theatre has a bad tendency of being behind the times, we must explore how we use new technologies, environmental theatre and challenge the definition of the theatre or new forms will evolve without us.

Issue Five: We should partner more often with other arts organizations or social service organizations.

We must identify mutually beneficial partnerships and eliminate those that drain resources.  Natural partnerships have formed with other theatres and some arts organizations, but we must actively pursue new bonds and relationships that allow us to share resources and fund our expenses.

Issue Six: We don’t do enough for families.

As members of a community, we must do more for families.  In a world where group experiences are becoming more and more virtual we must provide programming that  brings families together under our roof to experience live storytelling.  We must make theatre-goers.  If you haven’t experienced something you will never miss it.  We need to provide flexible services and scheduling to parents as well as provide the tools with which to explore theatre together with their children.  We need to have programming that reaches audiences of all ages focusing on the major transition periods.

Issue Seven: We need to make theater more accessible.

Programs that lower ticket prices must be created so that more people can see shows.  We have marginalized much of the theatre-going experience to the affluent.  Of course not all programming will be accessible to everyone (that is unfortunately inherent in the arts structure).  But we have reached a point of imbalance.  A correction is essential to remain relevant, to serve most missions, and to keep theatre alive.

Issue Eight: We need to build theater’s Audience Base.

We must create participatory experiences beyond productions.  Education programs, outreach programs, audience development programs – whatever you want to call them, must be at the center of the organization along with productions.  We cannot afford for them to remain or become satellites to production.  When all of the information in the world is available in a few keystrokes in a google search, we must feed the desire for deeper, more qualitative, more educational experiences. We have to listen to our audiences, create a dialogue, and create forums for ideas to be expressed.  We have to work as diligently on the relationship with the audience as we work on producing the work.  We must speak their language and use their communication tools.

Issue Nine: We need to build theater’s Donor Base.

We must work with the entire nonprofit community to stop complete marginalization of the arts.  We must finally create a multi-layer argument regarding the value of the arts.  We must stop the competition and aggression towards other arts organizations.  Again, we must listen to our donors and create loyalty and generosity that is based on something more than a rewards system for patrons.

Issues Ten: We must empower and invest in our staffs.

Without committed and seasoned staffs we will not achieve any of our goals. We need the staffs of organizations to drive programming and ALL activities of the of the organization in partnership with the board to achieve appropriate growth, long-term strategic goals and the necessary fund-raising to sustain the organization.  We need to invest in continuing education for our staffs.  We must break the cycle of short-term employment and increase staff retention.

As with any list about an entire industry, of course there are folks working on these issues.   Please share what you are doing!  Learning from one another and working together is the only way to address these issues industry-wide!

If you are reading this post via Facebook Notes, please click-thru to Off Stage Right and be counted (and keep reading other posts).

Who should get funding in times like these?

Controversy in the funding community...see Wall Street Journal article below

We all know that the arts are facing some serious challenges. Unfortunately, it is a reality that now more than ever we are competing for dollars against social service initiatives.

Let's be honest - feed a homeless child or help a theatre put on show? I have to admit - I would probably give my dollar to the homeless child. In times like these most people will. Of course there is the argument that Arts feed the soul. But who are we kidding, as with September 11 and Katrina, we need to adjust our funding requests and justifications.

I am not suggesting we all go out and start a bunch of new programs directed to the increasing "poor." Quite the opposite. I think we all need to think about our missions. Are truly serving our communities as we want to or are we only serving the upper echelon of our society? We have to ask ourselves honestly does our organization only want our programming (except maybe education programs) to serve the upper echelon of society.

Unfortunately the majority of the professional theatre in this country is produced and presented for wealthy. It is an assumption I am making - before everyone comments asking for proof - based on price of tickets alone (let alone the cost of baby-sitters, dinner out, and transportation). Of course discount and outreach programs open the doors to a few others, but as a whole you have to have a healthy weekly pay check to catch a performance. What are we as theatre managers to do to open up our houses to those who can't afford $35-65 tickets? And do we really want to? And if we can't or don't - how can we or should we compete with all of the social service and education initiatives out there, especially when most of our donors have a lot less to give?

Just the beginning of the conversation.




MARCH 23, 2009, 8:18 P.M. ET

Foundations Oppose Call to Target Grants

A prominent philanthropy watchdog has riled some foundations by releasing a report suggesting they should devote half their grants to minorities, the poor and other disadvantaged groups.

The report, released this month by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, argued that foundations should meet a handful of benchmarks to practice "philanthropy at its best," including making half their annual grants to "lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined."

Several foundation leaders have called that benchmark overly prescriptive and argued it could exclude philanthropies that pursue missions such as the arts, medical research and education -- areas that might not always directly affect the groups identified by the committee. In addition, the committee lobbies Capitol Hill, so some fear the report could spur stricter regulation of foundations' activities.

Criticism of the report has intensified in recent days, with a well-known foundation president blasting the report's findings on an Internet blog and another large foundation canceling its membership with the committee. The committee in turn circulated a memo attempting to shoot down criticisms.

Aaron Dorfman, the committee's executive director, said his group doesn't seek to codify the benchmarks and that he has been "surprised by the amount of venom" the report's suggestions have produced.

"We couldn't have been clearer that this isn't intended to be a set of legislative suggestions or mandates in any way," Mr. Dorfman said. "This is a document to spark discussions among the leaders of our nation's grant makers and to challenge them to be more responsive to marginalized communities."

The debate over the report comes as foundations face increased economic and political pressures. Foundation assets fell about 28% last year amid tumbling world-wide markets, according to the Council on Foundations, a Washington group that lobbies on behalf of more than 2,000 grant makers.

The committee's philanthropy benchmark report found that most foundations steer about a third of their grants toward "marginalized groups," defined to include the poor, minorities, women, people with AIDS, the disabled, the elderly, immigrants and refugees, and crime and abuse victims, among others.

The committee advocated 10 benchmarks. It said foundations should distribute 6% of their assets annually, up from the current legally required 5%. The report also advocated better transparency and more-diverse boards at foundations.

But the benchmark on grant allocations drew the most fire. Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, called that proposal "breathtakingly arrogant" in a blog entry on the Huffington Post Web site.

"I don't agree with it at all," Mr. Brest said in an interview. "Whether you call it arrogant or inappropriate -- you could imagine 10 different organizations deciding the most important issue is cancer" instead of marginalized communities, he said.

The California Wellness Foundation canceled its membership with the committee and asked for money to be returned after reviewing the report. The report "sounds like an attempt to endorse a one-size-fits-all approach for all foundations," said Gary Yates, the foundation's president. He said the foundation canceled its membership because it didn't want to be viewed as "tacitly endorsing positions" the committee takes.

Many foundations, charities and nonprofit leaders endorsed the report. Among the most prominent was the Atlantic Philanthropies. Many critics are "misreading" the report, said Lori Bezahler, president of the Edward W. Hazen Foundation, another endorser.

"This is a set of ways we can look at our work," Ms. Bezahler said, adding that many other groups have explored best philanthropic practices.

In a follow-up report addressing criticisms from foundation leaders, the committee said "flexibility is important" for foundations and that their leaders should decide whether to meet or exceed its proposed benchmarks.

Theatre and its Community

I was recently asked what a theatre's responsibility to its community was...here is an excerpt of my response:

Every theatre has the responsibility to create a world where individuals can come together for a shared experience where stories are told, ideas are explored, and conversations are inspired.

The written word has long been an important outlet for the creative exploration of the human emotional and social experience. Theatre—like no other medium—has the unique ability to create a dialogue between writer and audience that also bridges the gap between the individual and shared group experience.

Theatre evolved as a social convention to teach people morals and; spur people to action through learning from the action on stage. Throughout the decades it has served as as a way to “communally experience" a situation-- family drama, war, disease, loss, or triumph -- providing an opportunity for connection or catharsis.

Although the physical structure in which theatre occurs is important what is most critical is the feeling -- the atmosphere -- that the building exudes. I believe all theatres should emulate the comfort and welcome of a living room or an old fashioned drawing room – an intimate space where friends gather for good conversation or a lively debate.

A theatre organization should strive to do the following in its own community:

• Identify and explore relevant social issues happening at a global, national and local level.
• Provide a safe forum for discussion and learning for people of all ages.
• Make the theatrical experience as accessible to as many people possible through price, location, customer service, and other forms of outreach and support that remove barriers to attending.
• Inspire audience members and participants to take action towards changing the world.

It should be noted that leading a theatre means that you must also accept certain community responsibilities. You must personally get to know your local community and be an active participant in that community. You are taking the position of an educator –the most influential person in any community. Being an educator means that you can inspire minds, both young and old, to seek their personal best and demand the community be at its best. You must accept the mission to make sure that there is a future audience, a future generation of artists, and future funders. You must help create experiences similar to the one that sparked the fire of passion inside you, that led you to pursue a life in the theatre.

You also have the responsibility to bring the national and global community to your home and to explore how the broader issues relate to us and why they are so important. Remaining relevant and current is the key to artistry. Theatre cannot be meaningful if it doesn't grow organically from your community (local) needs and yet rise to meet the national and global challenges facing us all. It cannot be forced, it must be studied, learned and lived.

What should we ask theatre artists to do for our community?

• Create a world on stage where the artists often teeter on the brink of destruction or utter happiness and we, as the audience experience living on the edge through them, without having to actually do so to understand it and learn from it.
• Bare their souls in telling a story
• State the unthinkable.
• Do the unforgivable.
• Act in weakness.
• Be trapped in fear and do nothing.
• Inspire us to speak or be safe in silence.
• State what must be said.
• Act heroically. Take risks.
• Make us laugh. Make us cry. Make us do both at the same time.
• Teach us about our neighbors, people of distant lands, people from the past, and people from the future.
• Force us to lean forward in our seats, hold our breath, and wait for the next word, moment or action.
• Make us feel alive.

Board retention in good and bad times

One thing I have been thinking about a lot in the recent weeks and keep meaning to write about is board member retention during these difficult economic times.  The Wall Street Journal article below was a kick in the stomach reminder that we need to be focusing some significant attention on our boards.  In times this dire, it is essential to keep key stakeholders engaged.  With the pressing economic concerns for both the organizations and the individual board members, a delicate balance must be maintained between being honest about situations and being overly negative or pessimistic. 

It is a necessity to remember to celebrate successes no matter how small.  Even in good times this is something many nonprofits forget to do.  By nature we are problem solvers and excellent at crisis management, once something has been achieved we often make the mistake of moving onto the next task before congratulating ourselves on our accomplishments. 

Our boards need to know that they are important to us in every way possible - as a workforce, as information resources, as access to networks and as funding sources.   There are plenty of reasons for board members to be concerned - if we are conscious of this during our interactions we will find a proper balance.  But the MOST important thing is to keep them engaged!

Believe it or not most board members join a board for some reason other than to write a check - a deep connection to the mission/cause, a desire to make a difference in his or her community, social-standing/prestige, or a slew of others reasons.  Hopefully during the recruitment process and the individual's time on the board the reasons that drew the person to the board are clear.  Our job as staff leadership is to make sure that we take time to address these reasons with positive reinforcement during these times (and all others). 

In times like these we have to fight the impulse to hunker down and have a small group make the tough decisions.  A healthy process must be maintained.  We need to work with our board leadership to ensure that each board member has a chance to be heard and be part of key decisions -- especially organizations that are truly at risk or on the brink.  After all very few people join a board if they don't want to take responsibility for the organization's well-being. 

Healthy board management is going to be very important the in the months ahead.

From the WALL STREET JOURNAL

GETTING PERSONAL: Charity Board Members Insure Against Risk

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Even at charities, boards of directors are watching their backs.

In an environment ripe for investment- and employment-related lawsuits, a number of nonprofits are increasing their directors and officers coverage - or D&O - while insurance companies say they have seen an uptick in the number and severity of claims.

"Individual directors are now more concerned about making sure insurance is in place to protect them and their organization," says Michael Schraer, a vice president and not-for-profit product manager at Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.

Several prominent charities have been caught up in recent investment frauds, including the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff, and most are struggling with shrinking endowments because of the market decline.

Charity board members can be held personally liable for mismanagement of investments or employment mishaps, among other things. An individual's umbrella insurance policy won't necessarily cover these claims.

"If a board member is sued, it means their house, their retirement savings, their investments that could ultimately come into play," says Scott Simmonds, an independent insurance consultant who advises nonprofits on D&O insurance.

This kind of insurance "pays for poor decisions," he adds.

Coverage, which can start at around $1,200 a year for organizations with fewer than 25 employees, varies by plan and carrier but D&O policies typically cover claims over misused funds or mismanaged assets.

Policies also address employment issues such as wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment - important at a time when many hard-pressed charities are being forced to trim jobs and other costs. More than 90% of claims against boards of directors involve some type of employment dispute, according to the Alliance of Nonprofits for Insurance Risk Retention Group.

Know the Rules

Most states have volunteer immunity laws that protect board members from personal liability when acting in good faith. However, coverage is limited and these laws may not protect against federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. What's more, volunteers will likely have to pay fees to defend themselves.

Nonprofits usually say they will indemnify board members, or pay for legal costs. However, nonprofits may not be permitted to indemnify board members against all types of actions and may require the board member to pay legal fees first and then get a reimbursement.

And if the nonprofit doesn't have enough money to cover the claims or has gone out of business, the individual could be held accountable.

"Foundations that go out of business because they had all their assets invested in Madoff will not likely be able to pay for defense costs," says A.Q "Skip" Orza, a vice president at RLI Corp., an insurance company in Peoria, Ill.

D&O insurance policies can serve as additional coverage - typically at least $1 million of coverage per year - or pay claims on behalf of the nonprofit so the organization doesn't have to dip into its funds.

Sizing up your policy

D&O insurance can differ from other types of liability insurance and policies should be reviewed annually.

It typically covers lawsuits filed while the policy is in force, regardless of when the wrongful act occurred. And limits are aggregate, not per occurrence: Unlike an automobile policy that pays up to a certain amount each time you get into an accident, D&O insurance will only pay up to a set limit for all of your claims that year.

Since contracts can span 30-60 pages, board members should carefully read the terms and conditions to determine what is deemed a wrongful act and what is excluded from coverage - such as bodily injury or sexual abuse.

Board members should also keep tabs on the financial strength of insurance providers using ratings issued by companies such as A.M. Best Co.; Moody's Investors Service, a unit of Moody's Corp.; and Standard & Poors, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos.

MARCH 10, 2009, 3:31 P.M. ET

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

This article gives a great overview of one city's cultural institutions.  Nice to see some smart thinking happening here in Connecticut.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Other bloggers thoughts on the business model issue

Read these!

Beth's Blog: how nonprofits can use social media: The Crumbling of Nonprofit Arts Organizations (includes great map)

A. Fine Blog: Greatest loss of 2009: Social Capital

diacritical

Douglas McLennan of Arts Journal has started blogging - I know I thought all along surely he was, but alas... His first full post is a nice companion to many of my posts last week.

Is the NEA bad for the Arts?

Recent Articles

Some recent articles that I missed until today - maybe you did too.


Seattle Post Intellegencer goes digital only - no more print. March 16

Bloomberg Musical has cure for Broadway Blahs - in seat drinks service? on Broadway? March 17.

Guardian Arts World braces for a hurricane - a look at UK arts organizations' issues during the global financial crisis. March 14

Chronicle of Philanthropy 52% of donors plan no decrease - new survey results by Cygnus Applied Research

Nonprofit Fundraising Trends - Retriever Development Counsel survey results

Crains Experts give nonprofits tips in weather tough economic times

NY Times The Problem with Nonprofits - mini review of the book UNCHARITABLE. March 9

NY Times Charities say Government is ignoring them in Crisis - deals with implications from Obama charitable tax deduction changes. March 4

Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission

In July 2008 I particpated in the Harvard Business School's Social Enterprises Executive Education program Strategic Perspectives for Nonprofit Managers (SPNM). It was one of the best and most transforming weeks of my life.

Here are all of the links and topics for posts from SPNM:
Overview
Inspiration
Capacity
Leadership
Scale
Strategic Service Vision
Mission and Strategic Triangle - Legitamacy & Support / Organization / Mission
Value Chain
Market Research
Measuring Impact


Third class today revolved around theory of change (causal result of if I do A I will get B).

GREAT article about tools for cooperation. Long discussion about culture shift requiring more than tools - you need agreement! Nothing new here but really interesting framework that broke out the tools. The document is locked so I can't copy it into this entry. (I promise to post and discuss when I get back).

The final session today (well yesterday now that it is 12:25) was all about mission! Surprise! Imagine that. The real surprise it that a t a nonprofit strategy program we waited until day two to thoroughly dissect the importance of mission and what are the components of a good mission.

We looked at sample missions from some of the program participants. Of course since Harvard is so savvy, they went to the organizations websites to find the mission versus asking the participant's to provide it. This lead to several vision statements being pulled, organizational descriptions being pulled, or other narratives. Tricky how they slid in a lesson about clarity on communications espiecally your website! You Harvard folks!

Breaking down what should be in a mission with 82 nonprofit peers makes for some interesting discussion. All of the missions answered the question "what the organization does?" Some of the missions answered "who the organziation is?" Some answered "What the organization will achieve - how the organizaiton will transform its community (values and vision are of course inclusive in this)?" We were back to auditable and aspirational - go back to earlier post (I promise I will put links in when I am back and not so tired).

So began the debate - should missions be auditable? Do you include aspirational goals in the mission? What is the place of that value chain (see next post about value chain and the playhouse) we talked about yesterday (I know links). What is the difference between a mission statement and vision statement - do you need both. If mission talks about value and social impact of organization, does vision than talk about the relationship between the results of what you do and how it changes the world?

Of course at this point I think - wow we need to rewrite our mission statement, immediately followed by wow am I too critical of our mission statement.

Why do we have mission statements in the first place? Well we have to have a purpose right? We know it isn't to fill shareholders pockets or any individuals pockets with profits. We have to have an identity right? A uniqueness? A reason our community needs us? We have to use our resources and capabilities to fill some social need, don't we. Isn't is our job to search for the highest value for our organizational assets (this one was Professor Moore's). I guess that's why we have mission statement. We need something to guide us in our decisions and work.

But let's go with Professor Moore...If a leader's job is to find the highest value use of the organizational assests, what does that mean...

The Strategic Triangle!

Legitamacy and Support / Organization / Mission

The value chain connects organization and mission.

Balanced off of Needs, Task Enviroment, Clients, Donors, and a collective agreement about value reinforced by donor "approval of the collective value!"

Okay so we still don't have agreement from 82 people about what goes in a mission statement!

So how about this criteria - suggested from class:
1. Mission mobilizes legitmacy and support from a third party (donors)
2. Mission is a direct statement of organizational value (value chain)
3. Mission gives guidence, focus, direction, and measurement to operations

If we go with that it is an auditable mission. But there was a call that it should also make a promise. (absolute vs. relevence)

So back to my thoughts on our mission...

...to transform lives through the power of theatre. Our aim is to enlighten, enrich and engage a diverse community of theatre lovers, artists and students by presenting excellent professional theatre and offering a welcoming experience that perpetuates the long tradition of the "red barn."

How does it stack up against the above criteria? If that is the right criteria? Well that is certainly something to explore with others when I get back?

Note to self - seriously in the blog not from class - I think our shared vision statement get to some of this...Must check. Thank goodness it is hanging above the desk in my office :) On the bulleton board next to this theatre OGSM (Objectives, Goals, Strategies, and Measurement).

Okay it's 1:00Am I better go to sleep if I want to gain any knowledge from tomorrow's classes.