The Times-Dispatch reports on the CenterStage groundbreaking (which I skipped to see Soulive at Friday Cheers) today, complete with quotes from a business owner who’s switched from opposing the arts center to supporting it. Either no critics were present, or none were interviewed for this article.
In either case, the most articulate criticism of the arts center, including the most recent developments such as Wilder’s volunteer board appointments, is still available over at Saverichmond.com.
Someone recently questioned why I hold onto my reservations about this project, especially considering my interest in celebrating Richmond’s new developments. I do want Richmond to become more “urban,” and I don’t on principle oppose a performing arts center which hosts diverse arts groups and helps reinvigorate downtown. But I’m sick and tired of the behind-closed-doors development deals, the continual shunning of public input, and the wasting of public money on projects that haven’t been rigorously scrutinized. Just take a look at the VAPAF board Wilder just put together to oversee both development and operations. Then try to make the case that things have changed in Richmond from the days of 6th St. Marketplace:
• Thomas F. Farrell II, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Dominion
• Jean Boone, vice president, Richmond Free Press
• Theodore L. Chandler Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, LandAmerica Financial Group
• Joseph C. Farrell, retired chairman and chief operating officer, The Pittston Company
• Michael D. Fraizer, chairman and chief executive officer, Genworth Financial
• William H. Goodwin Jr., president, CCA Industries Inc.
• Robert J. Grey Jr., partner, Hunton & Williams
• Eva Teig Hardy, executive vice president, Dominion
• C.T. Hill, chairman, president and chief executive officer, SunTrust Bank Mid-Atlantic
• Susan Holsworth, research librarian, Afton Chemical Corporation
• John A. Luke Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, MeadWestvaco
• Marvette Monroe, assistant vice-president, First Market Bank
• Michael E. Szymanczyk, chairman and chief executive officer, Philip Morris USA
• Richard E. Toscan, dean, School of Arts, Virginia Commonwealth University
• James E. Ukrop, chairman, First Market Bank
14 out of 15 are corporate; no non-profits are represented and only one has any professional art connection. Color me not impressed.
I sincerely hope that my misgivings are misplaced.
***Update: So a friend who’s experienced in the non-profit world has told me that in non-profit governance, you actually want almost exclusive representation from corporate leaders. The theory is they’ll make sure that the program folks, who’re actually running the show, have someone with business sense to make sure their “hearts” don’t get ahead of their pocket-books. In other words, corporate types theoretically make sure that the money they and others are donating to the organization is well managed and spent wisely. The program folks, in this instance the arts community, should have oversight of the activities of the non-profit.
So maybe my criticism is misplaced here after all when I bashed Wilder for appointing only corporate types to the board. HOWEVER, I’m still concerned that the previous board was all too happy to spend other people’s money without the type of financial oversight and business scrutiny they’re ostensibly there to provide, and I’ve seen no assurance that this board will be different. In fact, that would have been the newsworthy bit- not the names so much as the new philosophy that would guarantee that Wilder and other (former) critics’ questions had been addressed.
Other lingering questions:
- Boards are supposed to be made up of people financially invested in the project/non-profit they’re overseeing. How much has this board given of their own money to this project? I don’t know.
- How many of these folks are recycled from the previous board? (I can’t find the previous list, as the old website has been taken down).
- What assurance do we have that the new board will solicit meaningful input from the arts community in the actual operation of the performing arts center?
All input, discussion, and debate on this issue is encouraged. I’m no expert in issues pertaining to the arts or non-profit management, and I hope I’ve displayed here publicly a willingness to admit when I’m wrong. So you’re here asked and invited to add your commentary, questions, rants, or whatever!
June 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Don’t forget Media General’s downtown real estate deals and corporate involvement. There is a shocking lack of disclosure that should set alarm bells off in every jornalism school in the country.
The media in this two bit town suck.
June 2, 2007 at 6:53 pm
[...] | The Sixth Street Marketplace of The Arts. Must-reads. Also, worthy of reading is Urban Richmond?: Groundbreaking Report & Discussion. The author makes a great point about corporate boards being the norm for not for profit groups [...]
June 2, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I hate to disagree with your friend, but when it comes to the arts in Central Virginia, having people on the fundraising and/or programming board who know what they are doing is actually the key to success..
The link below leads to an essay that recounts some recent successful performing arts and visual arts ventures. Check out how the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts fundraising campaign did with a mixture of arts AND business people on its board:
http://styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=13682
I’d also remind folks of the miserable mess the “all-star” corporate board behind VAPAF left behind with their performing arts center plan — which was never studied, which was too small for a symphony and which was projected seriously over budget. That’s why it is necessary to birddog this project now that it looks like the same people are in charge. I’d also say that VAPAF is different in that they are a non-profit that will be receiving most of their money from the public through city and state taxes, not private donations. (Most of the members are either from VAPAF or from the performing arts committee – the question about their own private donations is a very good one).
I have no doubt that many non-profits enjoy — as they should — corporate representatives on the board. But very few non-profits completely IGNORE people in the chosen field like VAPAF has. And now Mayor Wilder has.
And the problem with these Richmond all-corporate boards (as I understand it from friends intimately familiar with dealing with them): A lot of them rarely show up to the meetings, they are not versed in the field, they have no emotional (or artistic) interest in the project, and so they end up doing what’s politically expedient or just go along with the crowd. Sounds great for a vibrant performing arts scene, doesn’t it?
“Asleep at the Wheel is one of my favorite bands,” a friend of mine, an arts professional, said about this committee just convened for CenterStage. “It’s hardly the way to run an arts center.”
June 3, 2007 at 8:06 am
From the begining, my biggest cncern abut this project has been the opportunity costs and skewed priorities. There are no new public schools built, the jail is still in shambles, and we still have the most regressive minimum water rate in the nation, but Richmond ‘leaders’, both civic and corporate, still think our most pressing need is a new arts center.
The meals tax raise is still in place despite the lack of referendum.
June 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Don-
Don’t hate to disagree- there should be more conversation about these issues.
The point my friend made to me, and that I tried to pass on in my own words, was simply that my objection to the make-up of the board was misplaced it if was based only on their corporate affiliations. Many boards of local non-profits – in and out of the arts world- have solely corporate folks on their board and they do fine.
Check out the board of Theater IV- it’s mostly corporate, and if the “community volunteers” without corporate names behind them are arts folks, they’re not labeled as such:
http://www.theatreiv.org/contact.html
Now, I assume that they all have experience with, interest in, and personal investment in the arts scene. But the fact that their board is majority corporate tells us nothing about its performance, and the same can be said for VAPAF. I think the VAPAF board issues lie elsewhere than the corporate nature of its board- like the fact that it’s politically appointed, poorly managed, with little input from the arts community.
The point is, if you’re going to have all corporate folks, you MUST ensure that there’s adequate input from the program folks, and that you have a functioning board- not an “all-star” board that boosts member’s credentials and doesn’t require their personal time (i.e. showing up to meetings) or investment in the project.
Our friends actually agree on the problem with these “all-star” boards, she’s experienced the same thing your complained about in Richmond’s non-profit scene.
June 4, 2007 at 9:54 am
Then we agree not to disagree!
The ultimate question is: Will this town ever accept change and actually tap into new ideas and newer, younger leadership… or will it continue the same kind of “country club mentality” that has left us with a richly deserved reputation as a town that refuses to acknowledge the 21st century. This board was a huge missed opportunity to actually start putting expertise and know-how on city advisory committees, instead of loading them up with “insiders,” corporate figureheads and political friends.
I can’t speak for Theatre IV – I suspect their programming decisions are made by management and the board is mostly advisory. But let’s aspire to greatness and take a look at the largest and most famous of the nation’s performing arts non-profits, the Lincoln Center in New York. Opera singer Beverly Sills served as its long-time chairwoman, perhaps the most effective leader and fundraiser the Lincoln Center ever had. She worked successfully with Lincoln Center president Nathan Leventhal until she left to become chairwoman of the Metropolitan Opera.
Lincoln Center encompasses many different organizations, theatres and programs — and many different boards. For instance, the Jazz at Lincoln Center board has included such luminaries as jazz musician Wynton Marsalis, promoter George Wein, record company presidents Lisa Schiff and the late Ahmet Ertegun, and authors Albert Murray and Henry Louis Gates. Elsewhere, you can find actors, talent agents, producers and writers sitting on various Lincoln Center boards.
So having knowledgable arts people sitting at the planning table of a performing arts entity is hardly some novelty — it’s been working for the biggest and best for decades. It’s also plain common sense.
No, Mayor Wilder’s picks are particularly uninspiring and disappointing, since nearly 1/3 of CenterStage board members come from such a limited corporate gene pool — Reps from Dominion Resources and Ukrop’s/First Market make up nearly 1/3 of all members — and almost all come from a public/private partnership that wasted $8 million and never even got their knuckles rapped. Plus no one can make the argument that this board even represents the diversity found in Richmond’s CORPORATE world.
You should encourage your friend to share more about her experiences dealing with these all-corporate boards. It would be interesting to read.