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:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim

ADVERTISEMENT