That the folks in the room didn’t assume my humor really does speak to the hyperbole that regularly occurs in these kinds of conversations. I am confident in my leadership of the DC Advocates for the Arts.  But I do still regularly question it, and have it questioned for me, and I don’t think that’s a weakness. I almost wish I was like a Luddite, or Randian protagonist, interested only in my own success, but in fact, I am not.  I hope that my leadership is a part of something larger than myself, and if it is, my leadership is replaceable. To me that is not in conflict with my confidence, professionalism, commitment, or leadership, but it does temper my self-promotion.

In one of those informational meetings a few months ago a staff member for DC Councilmember Cheh suggested I contact Janet Fries, a dc-based lawyer. He mentioned that Janet had been reviewing the DC Bar materials relevant to the arts, and had found that there was a hole in the code regarding gallery transactions. I had no idea what he was talking about, but I followed up with Janet and she explained it to me. I brought the issue to the DC Advocates for the Arts board, and with Janet’s help we’ve created a petition asking the council to address our specific concerns.

DC needs to amend the Commercial Code so that artists’ property isn’t taken by creditors if a gallery goes through bankruptcy. When they overhauled the business laws a few years ago they stripped out sections governing consignment transactions — which is what it is when an artist gives their work under contract to a gallery. There is no lose in this for anyone. We know with community support we can get this done. If you haven’t signed the petition yet, please click here and sign now!

The Safety Net for the District’s most needy was a major issue in last year’s budget deliberations, and it remains a major concern this year. The budget fight happening in the District is mirrored in similar fights across the country. The Americans for the Arts are tracking budget debates nationwide, and they recently shared an article which noted,

“Children’s welfare supporters faced off against art advocates in Sacramento because of a proposal to spend a half million dollars on new exhibits at the future Crocker Art Museum…. ‘We’re in a crisis. We’re in a situation where kids are going to die,’ child advocate Bob Wilson said.”

That terrible crisis occurring within California’s budget battle highlights two things: that the most important social service politicians can provide – long term – is sound fiscal policy; and that the biggest mistake arts advocates can make right now is to turn a blind eye to the most needy. Arts advocates must speak out to preserve arts education, arts investment, and public art. But we should also be fighting for affordable housing, meals for the homeless, and education. Because we are in a down economy, it is critical that arts advocates take the time to inform themselves, and participate in these discussions intelligently. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “We’re each entitled to our own set of opinions, not our own set of facts.”

The proposed FY 11 budget includes a 10% cut for the arts this year, which is in line with general reductions in development spending. Due to no fault of their own, many city Safety Net programs have been decimated by the economic decline, including, as an example, low income housing. The Housing Trust Fund, which supported affordable housing for the most needy in the District, had grown over the last decade based on a dedicated appropriation allocating15 percent of deed recordation and transfer taxes (from sale of real estate) to the fund. But when the market crashed, and people stopped buying homes, the fund also crashed, and money for low-income housing projects disappeared.

Policy-makers have to find new revenue streams because money for existing programs has disappeared. Last year, the council took a number of steps, including: DC’s general sales tax rate was increased from 5.75 percent to 6 percent; The Cigarette tax was raised from $2 per pack to $2.50; The Gasoline tax was raised from 20 cents per gallon to 23.5 cents, matching the rate in Maryland, and revenues from the tax were moved from DC’s highway trust fund to the city’s general fund. With all of the things they did do last year, there were a number of things that they considered, and did not do. One example is a tax on live theater performances.

In some ways, a ticket tax would make sense. Last year, Ed Lazere, Director of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, wrote a post in Greater Greater Washington, suggesting that the city should impose a theater ticket tax. He noted, “If you go to an event at the Verizon Center or a Nationals game, the ticket sales tax is 10 percent. Movie tickets are taxed at the basic rate of 5.75 percent. But people who buy tickets to theater performances — plays, musicals, opera, dance, etc. — don’t pay any sales tax at all.” Ed was one of the people responsible for securing the housing trust fund appropriation mentioned earlier, and is a respected voice in public policy considerations.

When the DC Advocates for the Arts visited with Councilmember Kwame Brown last year protesting arts funding cuts, his staff discussed the possibility of a dedicated tax for the arts generated from a ticket tax. Before the bill could even be introduced, however, arts businesses, already completely strapped by the down economy, were successful in convincing policy-makers that the proposal would actually reduce total revenues. (A tax would effectively make ticket prices more expensive, and this could affect number of tickets sold.) This year, again, council members want to raise revenue so that they can save programs. So again this year, a lot of ideas are being floated, including the same theater tax idea. Given that it’s election season, it’s unlikely that arts interests will be completely ignored to raise a small amount of tax revenue. The DC Advocates for the Arts will keep you informed as the budget debates proceed, and we hope that you will participate to whatever extent you are able.

District Arts funding appears in the DCCAH’s budget in two ways. Money approved for management by the Commission, and earmarks. The grants are competitive. You apply, go through panel review, and if you are selected, you receive money. Earmarks are written into the budget. They are non-competitive, there is no review, and no oversight.

Looking at the planned FY 2010 budget, it looks like the general fund is down over 50% from the 14 million FY 2009 level. In fact, the planned FY 2009 budget looked very similar to this year’s budget at this stage. Last year, five million in earmarks were tacked on outside of the agency’s budgeting process. This year the same thing is happening. They are apparently still closed-door haggling about the exact earmarks, but in the end, the FY 2010 budget will look quite  a lot like the FY 2009. Looking at the FY 2010 budget right now, it looks like we’re experiencing massive cuts. But that is only because the earmarks haven’t yet appeared. They are not public – in consideration – and only appear on the actual, approved budget. Excuse my alarm in misreading the budget. Things haven’t really changed at all. It’s just that almost half of local arts funding dollars go through politicians, not the DCCAH budgeting/granting process.

It should be noted that the earmark system – while wickedly abusive of political influence and back room pandering – is currently necessary. The largest grants that the DCCAH offers is 250k. If you are a District arts org needing major funds the only way to get them from the District is through an earmark.

______________________________________________________________________________

As some of my readers already know, local arts funding has been particularly targeted in DC’s recently submitted FY 2010 budget. The DC Advocates for the Arts, and I as chair, are engaged in conversations considering what might be an appropriate response to the slashing of local arts funding.

The cuts to the DCCAH dont make economic sense. The only way to understand the cuts is to understand how our priorities shift – as a whole – based on economic trends. For a number of years Gallup has been tracking the interaction of economic issues with concern over environmental trends. The poll below shows that we stop prioritizing the environment when the economy is in trouble. This may not be in our best economic interest. For instance: green economy/green energy jobs would be local jobs, not exportable, based on creation of energy in the United States. Even if we are cutting, the government still spends a lot money. How should we prioritize that spending? Our public officials need to look beyond poll numbers to make decisions in the best interest of the local economy.

Funding local arts is an efficient means for government to stimulate small business, and support livable communities. The Districts FY 2009 budget was a 9 Billion dollar spending plan. The DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities granting budget – which is the money distributed to local artists, was 13 million in FY09. It is easy to look at rising deficit numbers and assert that we have to cut everywhere. But cutting money that makes you money — that isnt where you start if youre smart. Local arts grants stimulate local tax revenue from emergent and small arts businesses. On top of that – the cuts are far too small to make any difference to the big numbers.

From FY 2009 to FY 2010, the DC Department of Human Resources has been cut from 17 million to 15.3 million, a cut of 10%. The Office of Finance and Resource Management has been cut from 246 million to 240 million, a cut of 2%. The Office of Contracting and Procurement has been cut from 15 million to 12.8 million, a cut of 15%. From FY 2009, the budget of the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities has been cut by 37% overall, and the general fund (the grants) have been cut 51%, for FY 2010.

Cutting the arts is the wrong decision economically. If cuts must be made, the arts should not be cut more than other lines in the budget. Local government arts spending provides services to district residents (through arts and continuing education) and contributes back through tax revenue. While it might seem antithetical, now is the time to increase, not decrease, individual grants to artists and small arts organizations.