IBJNews

Arts Commission to share duties with regional groups

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Arts Commission will share grant-making duties with regional partners under a restructuring plan approved Friday.

The commission revamped the way it allocates money out of concern about future state budget cuts, which would further reduce grants available to arts organizations. The restructuring will reduce the state agency's administrative costs by about $344,000, with the savings going back into the pool of grant funds for arts groups.

Following a 30-percent reduction in the state's last biennial budget session, the arts commission's budget is about $3.2 million this year. If state tax revenue continues to drop, the budget could be reduced further in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Statewide, 10 regional partner groups redistribute Indiana Arts Commission grants and provide other support to artists and organizations in their territories. The central Indiana partner is the Arts Council of Indianapolis.

The restructuring plan would reduce the amount of money that regional partners receive for general programming and technical assistance by 64 percent, arts commission spokesman Rex Van Zant said. Regional partners now receive an average of $27,000 a year for general purposes. 

Under the recently approved plan, regional partners will continue to oversee grants for large arts groups such as the Indianapolis Opera or Indianapolis Civic Theatre. After hearing input from the regional groups, Van Zant said the commission agreed that "it would diminish their profile and influence if they were no longer working with the largest organizations."

The pool of money for those groups would increase by about 53 percent from $337,731 currently to $519,125, Van Zant said. The pool of funds for smaller groups will increase as well, but the arts commission staff in Indianapolis will oversee those grants.

Regional partners also will handle project-specific grants, which often go to schools or libraries, Van Zant said.

As IBJ reported last month, the proposed restructuring raised concerns among regional partners that have counted on a certain level of administrative funding from the state organization. Some regional arts administrators felt the commission was abolishing the regional-partner system, which was created 13 years ago to make arts available in all 92 counties.

Another aspect of the restructuring, which will take effect in 2012, is that other not-for-profit organizations—such as community foundations—will be able to compete for the opportunity to administer local arts grants. Van Zant said that does not mean the commission is abolishing the regional-partner system. 

The new grant-making hierarchy takes effect July 1.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Restructuring state arts funds
    What does it mean that "the commission "agreed that [restructuring] would diminish the profile and influence" of the regional partners? Doesn't the commission care about the short-term and long-term viability of the regional partners as equally as it cares about the "arts groups" who purportedly will benefit from "restructuring"? Or is decreasing "the profile and influence" of the regional partners the ultimate goal?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT