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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT