Cultural Impressions

Monday, June 25, 2018

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Who Owns Your Theater?

Dear Reader,

I am sorry that it has been over a year since I've published an article in this blog. I've been working full-time in New Brunswick, so time for writing has been scarce. I have written an article for American Theatre magazine, though, which you can find by following this link: http://www.americantheatre.org/2017/08/01/to-own-or-to-rent-that-is-the-question/

Below is my original, longer article. Thanks for reading! Lisa

Who Owns Your Theatre? by Lisa Lacroce Patterson

“It’s coming down,” the Producing Artistic Director said casually in the theater’s lobby last year.

“What’s coming down?” the patron asked.

“The building. It’s going to be torn down. I’m not sure when, but we’re going to be homeless for a while.”

Even though it was only 26 years old, Crossroads Theatre in New Brunswick, NJ, along with the adjacent George Street Playhouse, is now being razed to make room for a $215 million high-rise to be built on a combination of public and private lots. The proposed 25-story tower will have two theaters similar in size to the old Crossroads and George Street, along with some rehearsal studios, a few floors of offices, and will be topped off by several levels of apartments.

To varying degrees, Crossroads and George Street have been involved in planning the New Brunswick Performing Arts Center, and they vacated their buildings in the spring and will be displaced for at least two years. “It’s a good thing,” Marshall Jones, Crossroads’ Producing Artistic Director, says encouragingly. “George Street had outgrown their building. We are all optimistic that this will be a great opportunity for us to continue doing what we do in a new arts center that meets the needs of our audiences and artists.”

Crossroads Theatre Company, one of the nation’s premier African American theatres, was founded in 1978. In 1991, Crossroads moved from its modest 120-seat theatre into the $4 million theatre facility built especially for them with funds raised by the New Brunswick Cultural Center. The facility, situated next to the George Street Playhouse and the historic presenting State Theatre New Jersey, was four stories tall and contained a 350-seat theatre, spaces for set and costume shops, rehearsal studios and offices. Generous, right?

Crossroads Theatre in New Brunswick, NJ, demolition in progress.

Photo by Lisa Lacroce Patterson

While Crossroads was the beneficiary of a brand-new theater in which to operate, there were many strings attached, including the fact that it was obligated to pay market-rate rent, and it was responsible for the operations, utilities and upkeep of the entire building. This crippled the small theater company, and, shortly after it was awarded the 1999 Tony Award for Outstanding Regional Theatre, it shut down with a debt of over $2 million.

Over the next several years, and with a lot of help, Crossroads’ debt was in part paid-off, in part forgiven. Jones, an Associate Professor of Theater at Rutgers’ Mason Gross School of the Arts with two decades of theater management experience, was hired to resuscitate the company in 2007, just in time for the economic crisis of 2008. It’s been a struggle ever since, but despite ongoing financial difficulties, Jones has managed to produce exceptional work over the past ten years.

After his challenging experience maintaining the Crossroads building, Jones is hoping that this new performing arts center will provide the support they’ve long needed, but nothing is guaranteed as of yet. This season, Jones is launching “Crossroads on the Road,” with productions at Middlesex County College, NJ PAC and Rutgers University. George Street Playhouse, meanwhile, will be presenting its season in the former home of the Agricultural Museum of NJ on Rutgers’ Douglass College campus in New Brunswick. David Saint, the Artistic Director of George Street who has directed in 34 theatres across the country, says, “We are beyond thrilled that the New Brunswick Performing Arts Center is coming to fruition after 15 years of planning. Joseph Papp once said, ‘Theaters are like grapes – they grow better in bunches.’ I couldn’t agree with him more!”

***

Crossroads’ experiences raise the important question of theater ownership and how it affects operations and programming. Let’s take a look at some other ownership scenarios around the country.

Self-Ownership

There are plusses to owning and operating one’s own building. You can set your own schedule without having to take into consideration potential conflicts with partner organizations or the whims of a landlord. You are in control. Of course, you are then responsible for all the upkeep of your building, partially shifting a portion of the organization’s focus from theatrical production to property management, but some would say that it’s a small price to pay.

An example of apparently idyllic self-ownership is Writers Theatre (WT), a 25-year-old company that opened two new performance spaces under one roof in Glencoe, IL, (just north of Chicago) last year after completing a $33 million capital campaign.

Writers Theatre in Glencoe, IL. Photo by Steve Hall © Hedrich Blessing

The only complication is that the land on which the beautiful new theatre is situated is the property of The Woman’s Library Club of Glencoe, which owned the building that previously stood on the lot and which Writers Theatre had rented and outgrown. WT now holds a 99-year lease on the land, for which it pays an annual rent of $1, and both organizations share the facility.

“The Writers Theatre has enjoyed a strong relationship with the Woman’s Library Club since we first partnered in sharing the building,” says WT founding Artistic Director Michael Halberstam. “The members are very respectful of our schedule and happy to leave the maintenance and stewardship of the property to us. We were able to build our theatre center in the center of the Village of Glencoe owing to the club’s trust and generosity, and the club has been able to boost membership as a result of having a gorgeous new home.”

Ownership by a For-Profit Organization

Founded in 1973 in Philadelphia, the Wilma Project, renamed the Wilma Theater in 1981, also eventually outgrew its space. After a seven-year planning process that included an ambitious capital campaign, the Wilma opened its distinctive, new theatre on Philadelphia’s Avenue of the Arts in 1996 in a building on a prime commercial lot, both owned by a private developer, for which it holds a 99-year lease.

According to James Haskins, Managing Director, “We are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the internal systems. Now that the building is twenty years old, we are facing the challenges of operating in an aging facility. A very significant way we are addressing these challenges is by transforming our lobby into a full-service café and renovating our façade.” In January, the Wilma announced a $10 million capital campaign to set up what they call a “Transformation Fund” that will allow for these and other upgrades.

Rendering of the planned refreshed façade of the Hugh Hardy-designed

Wilma Theater on the Avenue of the Arts in Philadelphia, PA.

Image courtesy of Kristen Robinson

Wilma Theater’s Artistic Director, Blanka Zizka, has this to say on the subject: “Having a space is both a dream and trap. Artists have to be open to the world, flexible, and nimble. Space offers continuity, but sometimes it becomes restrictive. Live performance needs a space; having an intimate knowledge of your space is both satisfying and also challenging. That same knowledge of your space can turn into comfort and even routine. The space is demanding. It needs to be taken care of. It needs to be programmed. It has expectations. It asks for calendars and rules. Art asks for none of that. Art asks for learning, risk taking, experimentation. Space needs to serve the art. But in many institutions, that notion gets turned around and art ends up serving the space. This tension between space and art is something that is constantly on my mind.”

University Ownership

Other theater managers, like Marshall Jones, might counter that collaboration with a university is preferable. McCarter Theatre, the 1994 Regional Theatre Tony Award-winning theater company in Princeton, NJ, produces its work in a building owned by Princeton University that dates to 1930. Thirty years after it opened, at the beginning of the great American regional theater movement, “McCarter Theatre Company” began producing plays there, receiving independent 501 (c)(3) status in 1963. Ten years later, McCarter took over all artistic programming of the building and began paying an annual nominal rent to the University. The University still periodically uses the building for special events, but McCarter operates independently as a full-service producing and presenting organization.

The façade of the Matthews Theatre,

the largest performance space in McCarter Theatre Center, Princeton, NJ.

Photo by Matt Pilsner

The construction of the 373-seat Berlind Theatre in 2003 led to the creation of a new organizational title, “McCarter Theatre Center for the Performing Arts.” However, McCarter does not have exclusive use of the Berlind, as 50% of the construction cost was provided via a partnership with the University. In exchange, the University uses it in the fall and spring, for a total academic use of approximately 16 weeks. Even with that use, McCarter's Managing Director Tim Shields says, "McCarter Theatre’s ability to have a theatre such as the Berlind has provided so much to our artistry and to our patrons. We’re so appreciative of the myriad of ways in which the University and McCarter join forces in support of the arts."

There can be confusion among McCarter’s patrons, some of whom believe that the organization is wholly owned by the University and thus might not need their contributions. McCarter works hard to get the correct messaging out in order to maximize its fundraising efforts, and overall the relationship is overwhelmingly positive.

“There are many benefits to running a theater company from a university-owned building,” says Jeff Woodward, former Managing Director of both McCarter and Syracuse Stage, which operates out of Syracuse University in New York. “Even though McCarter had to raise its own money for renovations, a university is better equipped for building maintenance than a theater company is. At Princeton, there was one guy whose only job was to fix doors!” He went on to explain that the situation at Syracuse Stage was different in that the University was much more integrated with the theater, as classes were held in the building and there were always students around. But it was still a great partnership. “I would encourage any theatre company to forge a strong relationship with a college or university. Princeton students benefited from being taught by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Edward Albee and legendary South African playwright Athol Fugard while I was there. That never would have happened if it wasn’t for McCarter.”

Not every university-theater partnership, however, is ideal. Huntington Theatre Company’s recent experience showed that even a mutually beneficial relationship with a university can go wrong. In 2015, Boston University, which founded the theater company in 1982 and owned the 95-year-old Boston University Theatre in which Huntington operated for 33 years, announced its intention to sell the theater and two adjoining buildings. Over the years, the free use of the theater and cash contributions from the University are estimated to total more than $40 million.

Huntington, which became an independent non-profit in 1986, tried to buy the buildings, but the University accepted a higher bid from a local developer. After much public outcry and the strong support of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, the new owners have agreed to donate the historic theater to the Huntington and give the company a 99-year lease on an additional 14.000 square feet for a new entrance and new public spaces in the high-rise they are planning to build adjacent to the theatre. Now, Huntington will control the playhouse, which was America’s first tax-exempt theater, and must start a $60 million capital campaign for maintenance, restoration and improvements that had long been deferred by the University.

The historic Boston University Theatre,

where the Huntington Theatre Company operates.

Photo by Paul Marotta

Public Ownership

Jeff Woodward is now the Managing Director of Dallas Theatre Center (DTC), part of the AT&T Performing Arts Center (ATT PAC), which is owned by the City of Dallas. According to Woodward, when a facility was recently flooded, the City and ATT PAC had to work out whose insurance was going to cover it, but DTC was blissfully not involved that administrative labyrinth. “ATT PAC, which is an independent non-profit, is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the complex. DTC has a lease with ATT PAC, not the City,” Woodward reports. “The City of Dallas provides an annual gift to the PAC, but as far as I’m aware, stays out of the day-to-day activity. I think this is a successful partnership because it allows the PAC to be a bit more nimble than a large municipality in maintenance, renovation and operational needs.”

Perhaps Marshall Jones sums it up best when he says, “If you look at the building as the hardware and the plays as the software, I am more interested in the software, and the artists. I’m not interested in fixing broken toilets. Managing a plant is onerous. The theater was a blessing and a curse. In the new theater, it will be a new era for Crossroads – the building will not be our identity. The work will be, and I welcome that.”

On the whole, regional theater companies that can focus on their work rather than on property management benefit from the support of their proprietors because the fulfillment of their missions can be more easily achieved.

Of the nine theatres referenced in this article, freelance writer Lisa Lacroce Patterson has worked for four of them: The Wilma Theater, McCarter Theatre Center, Crossroads Theatre, and she is currently on the State Theatre New Jersey’s development staff.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Alphabet City

It was 1991. I was 26 and unattached – no husband, no kids. So I spent my time doing what I loved to do most: working in the theater, and going to the theater.

The company I worked for was a small, scrappy non-profit, with its Lower East Side, un-heated, un-air conditioned offices on East 2^nd Street, between Avenues A and B. One particularly bitter cold day, I accidentally melted the rubber soles of my shoes because my feet were too close to the space heater I had under my desk.

It was a colorful neighborhood back then – colorful being a euphemism. Nowadays, I hear there’s a Starbucks or a GAP on every corner, but back then, it was dangerous, with the big, bad Thompson Square Park and all its drug dealers only five blocks away. I stayed clear of that area. My office block felt fairly safe, even pleasant, during the day. One morning, when I was walking to work from where the bus let me off, I heard a rich baritone singing “Up on the Roof” from a fire escape somewhere. It was a beautiful, surreal moment. I couldn’t spot the singer, but the sky was a gorgeous, bright blue, contrasting sharply with the deep red of the ornate crowns of the pre-war, walk-up buildings.

I worked long hours, and enjoyed the work. There was a lot to do for this promising, burgeoning company, and I didn’t mind chipping away at my perpetually long “to-do” list, often well past dinnertime, all by myself in the office.

One Monday night, I worked until 11pm, when I finally dragged myself to the corner of Avenue A and 2^nd Street to catch a cab home. I was tired, and there weren’t a lot of cabs around. I stood there, in the dark, feeling rather vulnerable with my arm out, watching the traffic speed north, when I finally saw a taxi with its light on coming toward me. I felt a wave of relief wash over me, but then, in a split second, a guy walking a half a block away from me thrust his arm out. The cab pulled over and he hopped in. I was incensed! To a random guy who happened to be walking by, I groused, “Did you see that?! That guy stole my cab! Clearly, chivalry is dead!” The young man kept walking, wordlessly. A moment later, I saw another cab and thrust my arm out. The guy I had talked to was now a half a block away, and he put his arm out. “Oh, no,” I thought. “Now HE’s going to steal my cab.” But when the cab pulled over to him, he pointed in my direction and sent the driver down to me. As I waved my thanks to him and got in the taxi, I heard him yell, “Chivalry is NOT dead!”

I smiled, my faith in humanity restored. I was so tickled by the story that I immediately told it to the cab driver. Leaning forward, with my face through the plexi-glass partition so he could hear me, I spoke excitedly, concluding with, “Isn’t that great?!” The driver agreed that it was, but, he said, he had one question: “Who’s Chivalry?”

PS – That theater company, Theatre for a New Audience, recently built and opened a beautiful new performing arts center in Brooklyn. I’d like to think that my hard work all those years ago had a little something to do with its success. www.tfana.org

Friday, July 29, 2016

No More Lazy Boards

In an Oct. 4, 2015 article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/arts/music/carnegie-hall-faces-internal-strife-ahead-of-anniversary-season.html), Michael Cooper of The New York Times reported that the recent management conflict at Carnegie Hall “has raised anew questions about the proper roles of boards and staffs at nonprofit institutions.” However, neither deep discussion nor answers have resulted. So, I thought I’d take the time to write about it. How involved should a board be in the day-to-day operations of a non-profit?

Background

Among the most stark differences between non-profit and for-profit organizations is their boards of directors. Many publicly held for-profit corporations pay often high-profile individuals large sums to sit on their boards. One such example is when, in 2011, IAC/InterActiveCorp, an internet media company, controversially appointed the then 31-year-old Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, to their board, paying her $50,000/year plus $250,000 worth of IAC shares. She joined such hard-hitters as Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, and Hollywood talent agent Bryan Lourd. Corporate board appointments are famously coveted for their high pay for minimal work. One businessman acquaintance in need of income told me that he asked a friend of his to get him on a corporate board to help alleviate the financial pressures he was experiencing. Conversely, in season 7 of “The West Wing,” fictional White House press secretary cum chief of staff C.J. Cregg (played by Allison Janney, pictured above) flat-out refused to consider these kinds of posts because of their superficiality and emptiness when she was considering her next move after leaving office.

The other side of the coin is membership on non-profit boards. Rather than being paid to sit on them, non-profit board members, who are responsible for ensuring that the organization carries out its mission and for setting over-arching policies, are expected to be high-level donors, getting no cash return for their investments but instead only a small tax break and the knowledge that they are helping a needy community. And rather than doing minimal work, the best non-profit board members not only donate generously, but also roll up their sleeves and fundraise, serve on committees, and serve as management consultants. It is rare that one board member can be strong on both the financial and expertise-sharing fronts, so it is generally accepted that involvement may be tipped to one side or the other, being mindful that 100% of the board members should make a financial contribution every year, even if it’s only a small one.

The paid, executive leadership of an organization reports to the board, so the board is the entity that is ultimately responsible for the fiscal health and long-term stability of the organization. Sadly, though, there is a recent trend away from hands-on, traditional board involvement. It has been observed that people want to be on non-profit boards for status and prestige, without having to give large sums, take responsibility for the organization, or do any of the work. In the case of arts organizations, how many times has a board member shown up at the box office for a sold-out show demanding tickets, saying, “I’m on the board,” and expecting preferential treatment? Yet, many non-profit board members take on the responsibility even though they already have full plates, juggling high-pressure jobs, demanding family lives, and their preferred recreational activities. Many board members barely even attend board meetings, let alone donate time or money.

The most conscientious non-profits do a thorough prospective board member training before the annual board elections are held. That way, prospective members have a full understanding of what is expected of them when they agree to join the board. What many non-profit board prospects do not understand is that, after agreeing to sit on a board, they become legally responsible for the organization. According to Grantspace.org:

The main legal responsibilities of a nonprofit board are often summarized in the "three Ds":

Duty of care: Board members are expected to actively participate in organizational planning and decision-making and to make sound and informed judgments.

Duty of loyalty: When acting on behalf of the organization, board members must put the interests of the nonprofit before any personal or professional concerns and avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Duty of obedience: Board members must ensure that the organization complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and that it remains committed to its established mission.

In addition to its legal responsibilities, the board acts in a fiduciary role by maintaining oversight of the nonprofit's finances. Board members must evaluate financial policies, approve annual budgets, and review periodic financial reports to ensure that the organization has the necessary resources to carry out its mission and remains accountable to its donors and the general public.

The board acts as trustee of the organization's assets and ensures that the nonprofit is well managed and remains fiscally sound. In doing so, the board must exercise proper oversight of the organization's operations and maintain the legal and ethical accountability of its staff and volunteers.

Board members can be sued, and in some states their personal assets jeopardized, if lack of oversight results in a law suit. It’s for this reason that individuals are well advised to get Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (D&O Insurance) if they decide to sit on a board.

Non-profit board members have been called “the ultimate volunteers” by many non-profit managers over the years, but often times, staff would rather have less active board members, because board members can create more work rather than help alleviate the heavy burdens of the often over-worked and under-paid staff. Volunteers require guidance, coaching and supervision. And because everyone knows that volunteers can potentially be unreliable (“You get what you pay for” being a popular mantra), many managers would rather do the work themselves just to be sure that it gets done, and gets done correctly.

Frequently, because board members donate their time and their money, the staff is in the awkward position of worrying about offending them with candid direction or coaching in light of the fact that whatever they say will most likely affect the amount of the board member’s annual giving. So, staff doesn’t feel as though they can talk freely with board members, hindering the board members’ success at whatever project they are volunteering to help with.

Additionally, some of the wealthiest board members candidly admit that they do not have any time to give, but will still write big checks. According to the executive director of a Philadelphia non-profit arts organization, that’s ok. “We need the money,” he told me.

Another trend is away from requiring a minimum “give or get” contribution for the sake of board diversity. The misguided thinking goes as follows: institutional donors (like foundation and government sources) look for ethnic diversity in non-profit organizations; however, ethnic groups like blacks and Latinos do not have the disposable income to contribute significantly to non-profits, so they shouldn’t be required to donate, or to fundraise from their equally financially challenged friends. So, the “give or get” requirement is unfair and eliminated.

These trends have put more pressures on the dedicated staffs of non-profits. Their boards expect them to work tirelessly so that their organizations fulfill their ambitious missions by implementing impactful programs and serving broad constituencies, and growing the organization. The pressure to put in long hours is enormous. It will be interesting to see, starting December 1, how the new and complicated Labor Department regulation requiring time-and-a-half overtime pay for most employees making under $47,476 affects non-profits. Surely, productivity will be affected, because the salary line in the non-profit expense budget is always the last to be raised. The Labor Department says that 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime, but it’s unclear how many of them work for non-profit organizations. Will leadership expect the workers to work overtime and not ask for the additional pay? If the millennial generation’s steadfast protection of their rights is any indication, that’s not going to work.

So today, we are seeing non-profit board members who, for whatever reasons, cannot give of their time or their money. So what good are they? Is it all just a façade?

The Carnegie Hall Controversy

In the fall of 2015, the traditional non-profit board/staff relationship was put to the test by the reputedly combative businessman Ronald O. Perelman, who had recently taken on the role of chairman of Carnegie Hall’s board, and who was a long-time, eight-figure major donor to the organization.

Mr. Perelman saw his role as a contributor of money and of time, and he rolled up his sleeves, ready to take responsibility for the organization. He asked questions. He expected answers. But was he obstructionist? Was he out of line?

According to The New York Times, two issues in particular drew Mr. Perelman’s attention. One was the upcoming awarding of the new annual Warner Music Prize. The prize promotes the Warner name, and Warner is owned by a firm that was founded by Len Blavatnik, who sits on Carnegie Hall’s board. An interesting backstory is that in 2011, Sony (who was working with Perelman at the time) was vying against Mr. Blavatnik’s firm to buy Warner. Concerned about a potential conflict of interest over the music prize, Mr. Perelman wanted to make sure the relationship between Carnegie Hall and Warner was properly vetted before executive and artistic director Clive Gillinson signed a contract related to the prize. However, Mr. Gillinson signed the agreement “over Mr. Perelman’s objections.”

Strictly speaking, Gillinson reports to Perelman, and so should have heeded Perelman’s wishes to hold off on signing. Perelman wanted lawyers to investigate the relationship between Warner and Carnegie Hall, which could have taken a long time, and which certainly would have been expensive, and which also would have jeopardized the award grant itself. One can imagine that Gillinson might have unilaterally decided that there was no impropriety and did not want to hold up the process of making sure that the prize would be awarded at the October gala by giving in to Perelman’s wishes. Perhaps he saw Perelman only as a meddlesome figure-head, and not as a truly responsible board chairman. Or maybe he thought that Perelman lacked integrity and wanted to throw a wrench into the works just to get even with Blavatnik after losing Warner to him. Regardless, it’s clear that Gillinson wanted to get on with “business as usual” and so moved forward, and Perelman called him on it.

The second issue that Perelman raised was a lack of fiscal transparency to the board. While I am sure there is a finance committee that looks at periodic (perhaps quarterly) broad-stroke statements, the committee may not be shown details that Perelman sought. He asked to see profit and loss statements for particular recitals that Carnegie Hall presented. According to the NY Times article on Oct. 4, 2015, he was “told that such financial information was never shared with the board or even the chairman.” If this story is true, I can’t help but wonder who had the chutzpa to say that to the board chairman?! Obviously, artist fees are typically kept secret from the general public to avoid bidding wars between rival performers. The Times reported that, after stalling, Carnegie officials ultimately did provide Perelman with the information he sought. It is incumbent upon the board leadership to keep sensitive information from becoming public, and the staff most certainly should not keep important fiscal information from the board leadership.

Perhaps the staff did not trust Perelman with keeping the classified information secret, and feared the time and money repercussions should the numbers leak. Or worse, perhaps the staff thought that Perelman wanted the information not for reasons of fiscal oversight, but for personal reasons. Heck, it would be interesting to know what a high-profile soloist like Yo-Yo Ma is paid for a gig at Carnegie Hall.

The New York Times reported that “Mr. Perelman’s suspicions were apparently aroused when a batch of data he obtained in late May came in an unreadable format.” I can just imagine an over-worked staffer muttering under his/her breath that they did not have time for this nonsense, and sending a document without taking the time to format it correctly. Perelman, instead of seeing this possibility, distrustingly leapt to an assumption that the staff was trying to hide something. The real issue may well have been that the staff is not used to having engaged board leadership and does not have the time to be as responsive as Mr. Perelman would have liked. Maybe the staff is used to a lazy board and doesn’t know how, or have the capabilities, to act when engaged leadership is in place.

Because of the P&L and the Warner Prize issues, Perelman, with the “input” of the board’s secretary and treasurer, but shamefully without the knowledge of the full 15-member executive committee, suspended Gillinson rashly on August 18. An emergency meeting of the executive committee was called for the following day, at which time Gillinson was immediately re-instated. Committee members said they felt blind-sided and were angry, justifiably so. Perelman subsequently announced that he would step down as chair, and an “internal investigation” of the suspected improprieties brought to light by Perelman was underway, although I doubt that the public will ever be made aware of the outcome with Perelman out of the picture.

One organizational choice that seems to put Carnegie Hall in a difficult situation is the title held by Mr. Gillinson: Executive and Artistic Director. His bio reports that he moved up the leadership ranks from being a musician. Traditionally, artists become Artistic Directors, and managers become Executive or Managing Directors. In many non-profit arts organizations, this two-pronged leadership structure, with both directors being paid equally, allows for a balance between the artistic and management concerns of the organization. It’s also a way to keep checks and balances in line. Perhaps if there had been a managerial counterpart to Mr. Gillinson, much of this recent hullaballoo could have been avoided.

Lazy Boards

Perelman notwithstanding, most non-profit boards would undoubtedly rather put all their faith in the executive staff rather than take what precious little time they have to get involved, ask the hard questions, and act to rectify negative situations. No one wants to make waves. Sometimes, board members just want to “save face,” keeping a low profile so that no one will notice to what extent they do not understand their role as a non-profit board member. Other times, they are just lazy.

“Rectifying negative situations” may sometimes mean taking the difficult step of replacing under-performing, or just plain bad, executive leadership, a process that is stressful and time-consuming for a board, who has to not only deliver the bad news to the leader, but make sure that all actions are taken legally to avoid a law suit, form a search committee, invest already stretched budgetary funds in hiring a search firm, and interview candidates to find a suitable replacement. Often times, this daunting “to-do list” is what tragically keeps a board wedded to an incompetent staff leader. And it’s the organization, the subordinate staff, and ultimately the community that pays the price.

After all, change is hard. To quote the introduction of Common Sense (1776) by Thomas Paine:

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right…

Paine, of course, was referring to the King of England’s abuse of power. But these sentences apply to many other situations throughout history and up to the present day. Perelman stepped down from being Carnegie Hall’s chairman, and probably would not have been re-elected anyway, because he made “unfashionable” waves that the rest of the board and the staff were not prepared for and did not want to deal with. Conversely, he acted in a rash and unilateral way that was entirely inappropriate. It’s a shame.

The Way it Should Be

Board prospects should be fully aware of, and in agreement with, what is required for membership before they agree to be added to a slate of nominees.
Fundraising duties should always be on the list of board responsibilities for every board member. Making “asks” is often outside the comfort zone of some people, but there are ways for those individuals to help with fundraising that do not include face-to-face asks, such as sharing prospect contact information, and allowing the use of his/her name in proposals.
There should be a “give or get” policy for all members, regardless of race, but taking into consideration what is practical in order not to shut out any socio-economic groups.
Time commitments, such as committee participation and general meeting attendance, should be articulated and agreed to in writing. Dates for all meetings should be announced at the beginning of each fiscal year in order to give plenty of advance notice.
There should be a Governance Committee of the board that tracks giving, fundraising, committee involvement and meeting attendance. The committee should produce a Board Report Card for each board member that is reviewed in person at the end of each fiscal year. It is important that this is a board member – to – board member meeting, as it wouldn’t work if a staff member prepared the report cards. Peer-to-peer evaluation is necessary.
Failure to fulfill board commitments despite the support of the governance committee and of the staff should be grounds for rotating “dead wood” off the board. Being on a non-profit board is not a decision to make lightly. It’s a serious responsibility.

Many non-profits are afraid to be so demanding. They worry that no one would be willing to join their boards, or make big donations, if they make the board requirements too strongly. But the benefits of being on a board should also be articulated clearly: being listed as a board member in publications, ticket perks (if there are any), prime gala seating – whatever they are. It is not one-sided, although ideally, board members should be supportive for unselfish reasons.

***

CODA: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/arts/music/with-big-gift-carnegie-to-name-tier-of-boxes-for-blavatnik-family.html?_r=0

For further reading: The Board Book: An Insider’s Guide for Directors and Trustees by William G. Bowen

Special thanks to Stanley N. Katz for his input to the post.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

GO AWAY: Some Memories of Fred Ebb

You can spray wherever you figure

The streptococci lurk
You can give her a shot
For whatever she's got
But it just won't work

If she’s tired of getting the fish-eye

From the hotel clerk

A person could develop a cold

From “Adelaide’s Lament” by Frank Loesser (“Guys and Dolls,” 1950)

After charmingly singing this verse with his native New York accent on “Broadway: The Golden Age,” a touching documentary by Rick McKay released in 2004, the year of Fred’s too-early death at age 76, lyricist Fred Ebb said, with his signature frankness, “Augh! I would kill to have written that.”

Always modest, he doesn’t mention all that he did write during his 50 plus-year career (which preceded three shows that were produced on Broadway posthumously), including 17 stage and screen musicals with his long-time song-writing partner, composer John Kander, the time-honored smash hits Cabaret, New York, New York and Chicago being the most famous of them.

One of my favorite Fred Ebb lyrics is from a lesser-known, light-hearted and humorous ditty, “Arthur in the Afternoon,” from The Act (1977), a thin-plotted star vehicle for Fred’s beloved protégée Liza Minnelli, who famously sported elegant costumes designed by Halston for the spectacle, and who won a Tony Award for her block-buster performance:

He has a small apartment in the center of town
I'd hardly say it was posh
But I gun my Hyundai and I hurry on down
To hear the banister squeak and the waterbed slosh

While there is a simple A – B – A – B rhyme scheme in this verse, I love Fred’s cleaver use of mid-line alliteration and rhyme. In many of his songs, Fred shows us time and again that alliteration can be just as, if not more, effective than rhyme in songwriting ("Hyundai" and "hurry" in this example). I also love the mid-line rhyme of “gun” and “Hyun(dai).” Seemingly insignificant word choices like these were labored over by Fred during his creative process, and the results made you want to listen to the songs over and over, in the same way that so many people are finding the “Hamilton” cast recording addictive today. Even Fred’s name plays on his technique, with his monosyllabic first and last names both playfully sporting a short /e/ sound.

The storytelling in Fred’s lyrics is also fabulous. My favorite example is, “Ring Them Bells” from the television concert Liza with a Z (1972). When I told Fred how much I love that song, he said, “It’s a true story!” He was so proud of that. My family groans every time I launch into that song, because it’s long, but I love it. It starts with, “Gather around, I’ve got a story to tell, about a Manhattan lady that I know very well…” Aren’t you just dying to know more?! Ditto for the introduction to “Cabaret:” “I used to have a girlfriend known as Elsie, with whom I’d share four sordid rooms in Chelsea…” Tell me more! (Note the internal rhyme of "four" and "sor(did)!")

But Fred’s genius never got the attention it deserved, primarily because he didn’t want it. One time, when we were out to lunch together and he was beguiling me with fabulous stories of his life, I suggested that he write an auto-biography, or have someone write a biography of him. He demurred, saying that he hated those tawdry, “tell-all” books. Plus, I knew he didn’t want to draw any attention to himself because he was humble, to a fault in my opinion, but I pressed him anyway. I told him that his book didn’t have to be a “tell-all,” but he wasn’t convinced. Finally, in 2003, the book Colored Lights: Forty Years of Words and Music, Show Biz, Collaboration, and All That Jazz came out in the form of a long interview of the duo “as told to Greg Lawrence.” Since only around four people read this blog, I figure I’m safe to shower Fred with accolades here.

I was introduced to Fred by his musical partner John Kander in 1991, when my dear director friend, Jay Berkow, proposed to me that we produce a revival of The Rink (1984). I had met John while I was working at Theater for a New Audience and we were producing Romeo and Juliet at the Victory Theater on 42^nd Street (before it was renovated). When I told him of our interest in The Rink, he confessed that The Rink was a favorite of his and Fred’s, and would love for us all to have a go at it. John and Fred were always very supportive of young, talented enthusiasts. (We were both in our late 20s.)

From a video I found on YouTube posted by the Inge Center in Kansas in 2012 (although it seems to have been filmed in 2003 or 2004), here is what Fred had to say about the Broadway production:

It looked like a sure thing, but those are the projects to beware of. The sure things really aren’t, ever. And there we had Chita and Liza and five wonderful guys – Jason Alexander being one of them. It was quite a piece. And I thought it was wonderfully well directed, which it was, and wonderfully performed, which it was. And, I don’t know. It just didn’t seem to appeal to the critics – who I hate anyway - but they didn’t buy it. I don’t even know why, not even now do I know why. Some shows, if they don’t get everything you wish for them, you can read a review and say, “Oh, yea, well I can see why he didn’t like it. I don’t agree with him, but I really understand that.” And I don’t understand “The Rink.” I just don’t. It was just really well done. Everybody was at the peak of their powers, I thought. Chita was magnificent. Liza bit off a part that nobody expected her to play, which, by the way, I didn’t think helped us. You know, they wanted these Halston sequin things, and she played the whole thing looking like kind of a schleppy girl.”

In a nutshell, that’s what Fred told Jay and me back in 1991. It turned out that Fred and John both lived close to me on the upper West Side, and invited us to attend several meetings at Fred’s apartment, where they introduced us to Terrence McNally, the book writer, and we set to work on The Rink.

John was, and still is, such a kind man. I didn’t know what to expect when I met Fred. After all, he’s the guy who wrote some hysterical but caustic lyrics, like these from a show I appeared in in college:

Now, every son-of-a-bitch

Is a pain in the ass

Whatever happened to class?

- from “Chicago” (1975)

When I nervously arrived at his apartment for that first meeting, I was greeted by this doormat:

Gulp!

Fred and Terrence weren’t as warm as John was in the beginning of our relationship, but as I got to know Fred, I discovered that he was a pussy cat. He was sweet, sensitive, kind, and thoughtful. I will always treasure the gift from Tiffany’s he sent when my first daughter, Jackie, was born in 2000.

And I’ll never forget that lunch we had when we talked about a possible book. I mentioned to Fred that I would be moving to France for a year with my husband, and he told me that when he was in grade school, he won a prize for his recitation of a famous fable by Jean de la Fontaine (1621 – 1695), Le Corbeau et le Renard. Then, without missing a beat, he launched into it:

Maître Corbeau, sur un arbre perché,
Tenait en son bec un fromage.
Maître Renard, par l'odeur alléché,
Lui tint à peu près ce langage:
"Hé! Bonjour, Monsieur du Corbeau.
Que vous êtes joli! Que vous me semblez beau!
Sans mentir, si votre ramage
Se rapporte à votre plumage,
Vous êtes le Phénix des hôtes de ces bois."
A ces mots le Corbeau ne se sent pas de joie;
Et pour montrer sa belle voix,
Il ouvre un large bec, laisse tomber sa proie.
Le Renard s'en saisit, et dit: "Mon bon Monsieur,
Apprenez que tout flatteur
Vit aux dépens de celui qui l'écoute:
Cette leçon vaut bien un fromage, sans doute."
Le Corbeau, honteux et confus,
Jura, mais un peu tard, qu'on ne l'y prendrait plus.

I was so charmed, and I was kicking myself for not having thought of bringing a tape recorder to our lunch. (These were the days before cell phones.) How I wish I had recorded our discussion, although in my heart of hearts, I know he probably wouldn’t have allowed me to tape it.

I had no trouble imagining how adorable Fred must have been as a child. He even admitted it, in his own self-effacing way, early in the 2003 book, when he says that he used to win talent competitions in Atlantic City, because, “I guess I was sort of cute.”

In reading the book, I often smile to myself, because several times in the first chapter, when Fred refers to a certain lyric, John says, “Go on. Recite it. I know you’re dying to.” And then he does. I can just see the twinkle in both of their eyes. And I’m so glad I got a private recitation, in French even!

Throughout our working together on The Rink, I always tried to figure out the essence of John and Fred’s relationship. I watched them closely. I looked for a crack in the veneer, or for mutual affection. But all I ever really saw was professionalism and respect. I remember sitting at Fred’s kitchen table when John arrived for a meeting one morning, and John greeted him by saying, “Hello, partner!” to which Fred replied, “Hello, partner” in return. And then we got to work.

At the beginning of a compilation of Kander & Ebb sheet music published by their friend Tommy Valando, there is a brief interview with the pair, and the last question was, “Would you consider yours a happy collaboration?” Fred replied, wearing his heart on his sleeve, “Having been brought up to be truthful, I will tell you exactly how I feel. Our collaboration is the best thing that ever happened to me.”

But for all Fred’s success, it was clear to me that he was fundamentally a lonely man, and I didn’t quite know what to do about that. He was envious that John had a longtime relationship. He told me, “I don’t have that.” I felt helpless. I wished there was something I could do for him.

I also know that Fred felt that John had a privileged upbringing in Kansas City compared to his own in Manhattan. He mentions something in the book that he once told me: “John was brought up on warm goat’s milk! I didn’t have that.” Frankly, at the time Fred told me that, I couldn’t imagine why anyone would want warm goat’s milk. But I guess it's a generational thing!

More often than not, when I saw Fred, he was wearing his NYU hoodie. He was an undergrad there, and I went to grad school there, so I felt we had a connection. This is how I will always remember him. I never took a photo of us together, in my effort to hide my dumbfounded admiration and to appear to be professional.

I wish Jay and I could have made a big hit out of the revival of The Rink for Fred. Who knows? Maybe we will someday.

Detail from an autographed poster from “The Rink,”

a gift from my former English professor and dear friend June Schlueter.

For further reading: http://www.broadwaycares.org/fredebb2014