Today, a great victory has been won by everyone in the state of Kansas who loves the arts. The Governor this morning signed the budget, which includes $700,000 for the newly-created Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission.

Advocates from all corners of the state spoke – and spoke loudly. Our voices have been heard. A big thank you goes to all of you who have helped spread the word through your communities and to your elected officials about the importance of public arts funding in all of our lives.

Congratulations to all on a job well done.

Thank you for your support of the arts in Kansas.

That’s from Kansas Citizens for the Arts, which led what can only be termed a phenomenally successful advocacy campaign to bring arts funding back to Kansas. A campaign that forced a sitting governor to beat a very public retreat from the idea of removing the arts from government in one of the nation’s most conservative states.

The new Kansas Creative Arts Industries Commission represents a merger with the state’s Film Services Commission, and the combined total for the new agency is essentially the same as what the arts commission alone was working with before all the controversy. But even so, arts advocates have occasion to celebrate this year, along with Sarah Fizell and the rest of the folks at KCA. In fact, if anything, this is an even bigger win for the rest of the US than it is for Kansas. For years, conservative ideologues have been trying to kill funding for the arts at the state level, but the threat of losing matching federal funds from the NEA had always held them in check. So finally, one governor follows through and eliminates funding entirely, and he gets lambasted mercilessly for it all year and has to reverse his stance in the very next budget. What does that say to the next governor who might be thinking about following Brownback’s lead?

It says you don’t want to mess with arts funding.

CLOSURES, OPENINGS, MERGERS, AND PAY CUTS

• Gentrification claims another arts space in Williamsburg.
• The Sacramento Opera and Philharmonic are in active merger talks.
• I would like to see more of this kind of story: after Pittsburgh Symphony musicians agreed to a new contract that forced them to take a 9.7% pay cut, their music director, Manfred Honeck, announced that he would take a 10% cut too. Of course, Manfred can afford to lose a bit of income, as he made $546,700 last year. But still, it’s surprisingly rare that we see even this much of a gesture from the leaders of organizations under financial duress. Meanwhile, the Wichita Symphony players recently accepted a further 20% pay reduction, on top of a voluntary wage cut of nearly 14% over the past two years. No word on any concessions made by the music director there.

MUSICAL CHAIRS

• Paul Brest, who has been president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for a little over a decade, is retiring next year.
• Antony Bugg-Levine will be the new CEO of Nonprofit Finance Fund. Bugg-Levine was formerly Managing Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and is an expert in impact investing.
• Mario Garcia Durham, the former NEA Director of Artist Communities and Presenting, will be the new President and CEO of the Association of Arts Presenters, replacing Sandra Gibson.

PHILANTHROPY TALK

• The philanthropy/nonprofit blogspace is all abuzz over the fact that GOOD, a for-profit media company focused on social causes, has bought Jumo, the social media and crowdfunding platform for nonprofits started by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes. The fact that Jumo is itself a nonprofit that was started with the help of $3.5 million in grants from the Ford and Knight Foundations and Omidyar Network seems to be the source of the intrigue.
• Good news for cultural diplomacy enthusiasts: New York’s Robert Sterling Clark Foundation has dramatically increased the resources it is pumping into international cultural exchange programs. A list of grants made so far is available here.
• The Save America’s Treasures grant program, administered through the National Trust for Historic Preservation, is shutting down.

RESEARCH CORNER

• Emerging arts leaders: do the Americans for the Arts Emerging Leader Council and your fellow citizens a solid, and fill out this survey to share tips, tools, and resources that you find useful with your peers.
• Musicians: do the Future of Music Coalition and your fellow citizens a solid, and fill out this survey about the ways in which you make your money (or don’t). I hear there are iPads to be won!
• I think it’s pretty awesome that the American Planning Association would publish a report called “Community Character: How Arts and Culture Strategies Create, Reinforce, and Enhance Sense of Place.”
• The Aspen Institute is studying artist-endowed foundations.
• Ways in which cities are using data and research to improve citywide out-of-school-time (OST) systems.
• Freakonomics contributor Daniel Hamermesh is out with a new book called Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful. I’ve been interested in this topic for at least a decade, ever since I first became aware of psychology and economics studies showing the substantial life benefits reaped by attractive people, and am glad to see it starting to enter the mainstream conversation. Curiously, the data suggests that there is more downside than upside to the attractiveness game for men as compared with women. Hamermesh goes so far as to make a (fairly cogent) argument for fashioning a legally protected class out of the ugly. Fascinating stuff!
• Sage advice for young cultural researchers from Canada’s Lidia Varbanova: “Cultural policy research field is rewarding but not an easy one: it requires a good portion of diplomacy and negotiation skills as it reflect diverse stakeholders because research without policy actions stays only in the libraries without real impact on improving the creative life of cultural professionals and the communities. It also needs patience, as in many cases undertaking practical policy actions as a result of research findings requires time, lobbying and joined advocacy efforts.”

ART AND THE LAW

• The previously-blogged New Jersey plan to require nonprofits in the state to allow program-restricted donations has been thankfully dropped.
• A little-known provision in current copyright law allows artists to apply for reinstatement of the ownership rights to their work after 35 years. That deadline is coming up and record labels, publishers, and others that rely on the assignment of copyright (and milking cash cow artists) for their business model are understandably freaking out about it and trying to challenge the law. The conflict centers on whether (for example) albums made under a recording contract can be considered “work for hire” and thus belong to the record company by default. With the legal ramifications unclear, Representative John Conyers has come out on the side of the artists.
• I never thought I’d be writing these words, but there is going to be an arts policy storyline on a major network television show.

ART AND GOVERNMENT

• Sam Brownback just doesn’t know when to quit. Not satisfied with being the first governor in history to completely defund his own state’s arts commission, now he’s having his chief of staff show up at ribbon-cutting events to mouth off about how wonderful the arts are. Meanwhile, he refuses to reconsider his decision – despite the fact that the state now has a $180 million surplus.
• Jay Dick from Americans for the Arts explains the complex web of societies for elected officials and why AFTA tries to have a presence at their convenings. In my (still developing) observation, this type of advocacy seems to be what AFTA is best at: the behind-the-scenes relationship building that takes place in different corners of the country and among policy insider circles. I sometimes think AFTA doesn’t get enough credit for its work in this area, which to my mind would be very difficult for others in the arts field to replicate. It’s definitely soft power rather than the hard power represented by massive lobbying dollars or enormous mobs with pitchforks, but soft power is better than nothing.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

• Diane Ragsdale considers the shape of arts cuts and new funding models in the Netherlands and Australia. Meanwhile, severalEuropean impresarios talk about the effect of recent budget cuts on their plans and speculate about the future.
• Sad news: a British cultural council in Afghanistan has been the focus of a terrorist attack. At least twelve people died in the fighting, mostly Afghani police and security guards.

AND SO ON…

• If you’re hankering for some great live jazz streamed direct to your computer, Tara George has your fix.
• I enjoyed this neat idea from Andrew Taylor on “job function trading cards.” He’s definitely right that small organizations risk making suboptimal use of their employees’ unique talents because they are too beholden to job descriptions.
• It sounds a little ridiculous, but I actually think these “gofer” services popping up are pretty brilliant. Besides providing value to buyers and sellers, it could help the long-term unemployed stay productive and earn a little on the side.

People are understandably looking for silver linings in this situation, and for me, there is at least one: this controversy has revealed genuine, broad-based public support for funding the arts in a very red state. Brownback’s desire to be rid of the Arts Commission was no secret. He originally eliminated it via executive order in February, which could easily have been the end of the matter. But a well-organized opposition campaign on the part of Kansas Citizens for the Arts was successful in convincing Kansas’s Senate — currently dominated by a 32-8 Republican majority — to override Brownback’s order. Subsequently, the Kansas House of Representatives — currently dominated by a 92-33 Republican majority — agreed to leave the money for the Arts Commission in the budget. But Brownback refused to back down.

Kansas’s legislators didn’t need to try to override Brownback’s veto. In fact, it was the only one of presumably many line-item vetoes that provoked this response. The motion to override even managed to garner a majority of the votes cast, 50-44 – but the measure failed because it would have required an absolute two-thirds majority (84 votes).

Late Wednesday night, the dogfight over the Arts Commission was the top story on the Topeka Citizen-Journal‘s website. I don’t mean it was on the front page, I mean it was the #1 story in all of Kansas. For those of you who don’t know your state capitals, Topeka is Kansas’s – so this is the newspaper that all the political types there read. Various news stories have referred to the Arts Commission as “politically popular” and its demise as “controversial.” Editorials from diverse local sources like the Lawrence Journal-World and the Clay Center Dispatch have criticized the defunding of the commission. The pressure has apparently led to Brownback pledging that “some of” the money left over from his inaugural will go to support the new, private arts foundation he wants to set up to replace the Kansas Arts Commission. The backlash may even have indirectly saved public broadcasting from meeting the same fate, although Brownback promises that will be on the chopping block next year.

This is all to say that, as far as this lifelong East Coaster can tell, this story has been a Big Deal in Kansas. And that’s a good thing. Kansas Citizens for the Arts marshaled 5,000 emails on behalf of the Arts Commission – a big number for a state that size. People are upset about how this has played out, as they should be. If that upset can be translated into votes for candidates who recognize the practical — and political — value in supporting the arts, so much the better.

*

Various other reactions and think pieces in response to this news follow:

In a long rant, Barry Hessenius begs us not to let this moment pass by without pledging to do something about it. He suggests donating money to advocacy organizations, and setting up more 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, 527 organizations, and political action committees at the state and local levels to get the job done.

In an open letter written prior to Governor Brownback’s veto, Alex Aldrich, director of the Vermont Arts Council, clarifies his organization’s reliance on government funding to do its work. As the only one of the 50 state arts councils to do its work as an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the Vermont Arts Council had found itself drawing the attention of Brownback as a model for the system he wanted to set up. Yet Brownback conveniently ignored the fact that the VAC receives a significant subsidy from the state government (exactly what Brownback is trying to get away from), which is what makes it eligible for NEA funds as well.

On ARTSBlog, Kathy Smith shares her perspective as executive director of ARTSConnect, an arts service organization based in Topeka, Kansas. ARTSConnect was set up following the City of Topeka’s decision to end public funding for the arts entirely. It was the private entity that was supposed to pick up the slack, and in this way bears a striking resemblance to Brownback’s vision for a private Kansas Arts Foundation. Sadly, Smith’s experience doesn’t suggest much promise for that model: after three years, ARTSConnect had to cease making grants to the arts community due to a shortage of resources. I guess that, contrary to the beliefs of many conservatives, private money doesn’t “rush in” as soon as the government decides to stop funding something.

Jay Dick, Director of State and Local Government Affairs for Americans for the Arts, contends this is all about power: Brownback, having been rebuked by his own legislature, felt he had to teach them a lesson by showing them who’s boss. (I think it’s about power in a different way, too. Some folks might remember that Brownback was briefly a candidate for President in 2008, and quite possibly still has his eyes set on that post. Gaining notoriety by becoming the first governor to destroy a state arts council in the name of smaller government helps to get him headlines and establish cred with the conservative wing of his party nationally.)

Janet Brown, the executive director of Grantmakers in the Arts who spent many years as a devoted arts advocate in another Prairie state, South Dakota, lets loose an invective against Sam Brownback and gets off some great one-liners like:

Brownback believes, or at least he says he does, that the private sector can pick up the difference in state and federal funding in his state. Does he know he’s in Kansas? Does he think that corporations and private foundations (of which there are few) will care about giving $500 to an arts fair or main street gallery in communities like Pratt, Lakin, St. Francis or Parsons?

This decision only perpetuates the stereotype that if you are a “real” artist you wouldn’t live in a place like Kansas or Nebraska, or Missouri or South Dakota. The myth that the Midwest is a vast wasteland of culture lives on in Brownback’s veto.

Laura Zabel, executive director of Springboard for the Arts in Minnesota, lived in Kansas until she was 22 and lets Sam Brownback know exactly what his state has lost in people like her. Laura’s open letter is a must-read. It employs what I call the “I am the face of your brain drain” approach, which I love because I can only imagine that it must feel like getting squeezed in the nuts to any budget-conscious state official who might be reading it. In devastating sentence after sentence, Laura points out that:

• in 13 years, no one has ever asked her why she left Kansas;
• she has paid nearly $37,000 in taxes to Minnesota since she left;
• her entire family – two parents and three siblings – has moved to Minnesota as well, resulting in a loss of tax revenue for Kansas of approximately $100,000 thus far; and
• her and her siblings’ six young children, having grown up surrounded by the arts, will now have little incentive to return to Kansas in the future. “In short, Governor Brownback, I think you’ve lost this family for good.”

Laura’s letter makes the excellent and rarely-heard point that this is not just about the arts organizations who were once directly funded by the state and will no longer be. It goes much, much deeper than that. It’s about building and maintaining an infrastructure for creativity – a friendly environment for cultural expression. If that’s missing, you’re going to lose people: smart, motivated people. As Laura sagely points out, “energetic, college-educated” folks like her — attributes shared by most artists and arts administrators — are like walking bags of money to states and cities. It only takes a few of them deciding to leave to make a big difference to a place like Kansas.

The full press release, from the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies‘s CEO Jonathan Katz, is below the fold.

Update: via Grantmakers in the Arts, here’s a news article from the Topeka Capital-Journal. While the news is upsetting, it is very good to see the arts commission referred to as “politically popular” in a state like Kansas. That’s a testament to the efforts of the Kansas Citizens for the Arts and the arts community in Kansas more generally over the past several months.

Update II: Bob Lynch from Americans for the Arts weighs in. His statement emphasizes that Brownback’s veto does not save Kansas any money, but instead makes it poorer – not just through theoretical notions of economic impact, but quite literally because gutting the Arts Commission means throwing away$1.2 million in matching funds from both the NEA and the Mid-America Arts Alliance.

A False Economy: Arts Vetoed in Kansas

Today more than ever, states that want to be competitive need a policy agenda that supports and nurtures the creativity and economic productivity of their citizens. With his veto of funding for the Kansas Arts Commission, Governor Sam Brownback has now declared his opinion that Kansas is too poor for that. The real poverty expressed in this action is not of the pocketbook; state arts agencies yield excellent return on investment in jobs and tax revenues.

Proponents of government efficiency should be deeply disturbed by Governor Brownback’s decision. Elected officials are obligated to ask, “What are the citizens of my state getting in return for this investment of public dollars?” The answer in Kansas is “Plenty.” The Kansas Arts Commission:

• fostered an arts and cultural sector supporting more than 4,000 jobs and generating more than $15 million annually in state and local government revenues;
• brought home $5.9 million in federal dollars to support arts activities for all Kansans over the past 10 years;
• engaged 300,000 students in arts education programs in and out of school last year;
• provided important social and creative outlets for seniors, persons with disabilities, children and underserved populations.

A $689,000 appropriation to the Kansas Arts Commission would have comprised 0.005% of the total state budget, one half of 1/100 of one percent. Governor Brownback’s veto won’t make even a modest dent in the state’s budget gap. It will, however, diminish the state’s ability to leverage public and private investment, compete in the creative sector, improve education, and make Kansas a more rewarding place to live, work, visit and raise a family.

Rather than achieving any savings, this veto creates a net loss. Without the Kansas Arts Commission, the state’s eligibility to secure its designated share of National Endowment for the Arts funds is in jeopardy. Those dollars can be allocated elsewhere, leaving Kansas taxpayers to pay for the arts in other states. Also lost through this veto is the state’s power to leverage private and public investment. Last year the Kansas Arts Commission awarded $1.4 million in grants, which was matched by $60.7 million in local and private dollars.

Kansas taxpayers want the kinds of communities that the arts create. Thoughtful decision makers see the arts as creative skills, as jobs, as industries—not as a frill. This is why Kansas citizens spoke out against the governor’s initial attempts to dismantle the Kansas Arts Commission, and why the legislature recommended funding for the agency. The veto of the entire Kansas Arts Commission budget was selective in its focus and extreme in its magnitude. Other states—wisely—are maintaining a public investment in the arts. The Kansas Arts Commission’s 45-year legacy of service to families and communities—a legacy which received support from Republican and Democratic governors alike—may now be denied to future generations.

The citizens of Kansas deserve better.

Jonathan Katz
Chief Executive Officer
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies