Welcome to the latest installment of “Leading Questions: Wisdom from the Corner Office,” where
IBJ sits down with central Indiana’s top bosses to talk shop about their industry and the habits that lead
to success.
Dave Lawrence, 42, was named president and CEO of the Arts Council of Indianapolis in December after an 11-year career with
the arts funding and advocacy group. Intimate knowledge of the group's programs and the local arts community would be
vital in guiding the not-for-profit through perhaps the most challenging period in its 23-year history. Local government grants,
which the council allocates to the city's arts groups, have shrunk from about $2.5 million in 2007 to $1 million this
year. In that time, the group's budget has fallen from $5.5 million to $2.8 million.
In the video below, Lawrence discusses his hopes for continued support from the city of Indianapolis in
its 2011 budget, which will be announced later this month, as well as prospects for finding alternative sources of city funding
beyond the general fund. And as arts organizations struggle to find places in their already notoriously tight budgets to trim
expenses, Lawrence notes the dangers in the recent trend of pruning programming and rehearsal time.
Public funding for the arts has been a divisive issue for decades. The Council found itself in the middle of that debate
in 2008 when some local interests, anxious about big increases in property taxes, took aim at the city's budget for arts
funding. In the video below, Lawrence discusses the group's initial response to critics and how it needed
to sharpen its message.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
13 Comments
Add Comment
Most artists I know despise the Arts Council. The organization is little more than a elitist bureacratic monstrosity that sops up funds that would otherwise be going to the artists themselves. When the Arts Council goes before the Council asking for money, understand they're not asking for money for the arts, the Arts Council is asking for money to pay themselves...and quite handsomely I might add.
The Arts Council has virtually no positive impact on the arts. They would not be missed by the arts community.
It's not worth detailing the other inaccuracies because George has a philosophical problem with providing funding for the city's arts organizations via tax dollars. Additionally, if he really knew all the work that the Arts Council does, he would know that it is recognized nationally for the grants it does provide to individual working artists every year (not via tax dollars).
Certainly you don't dispute that Lawrence is making a six figure salaries as well as others at the Council are as well? And certainly you don't dispute do you that the Council has millions stashed away in assets?
As far as I'm concerned, the Arts Council getting $1 million is $1 million too much. I want to see that money go to actual artists, not so Lawrence and others over at the Arts Council can live high on the hog while pretending to care about working artists.
The Arts Council is no different from virtually every other non-profit cultural organization in this city. They all pay outrageous salaries to their executives and take most of the money that should go to the cause they are supposed to serve.
The information came from the Art Institute's tax records which are available on-line since the the institute claims non-profit status. Please identify what in my post was inaccurate.
According to the Arts Council's 2007 tax return, administative costs total $2,784,836. This includes $1,038,608 spent on salaries and benefits for their 19 paid employees. The former President of the Arts Council, Greg Charleston alone pulled down $170,391 in compensation. David Lawrence, then a VP, made about $111K. The Arts Council showed $10 million in accumulated assets on its 2007 return.
The Arts Council spends most of the money it receives, including money from taxpayer, on paying the Council's own executives lavish salaries to its executives and banking most of the rest of the money.
Does the Arts Council really need 19 employees? It is tremendously foolish for the City to give money to the Arts Council is tremendously foolish. The money should be going to the artists themselves, not to some bureaucratic organziation which eats up most of the money.
I'm not sure where you researched to come up with your information, but it is 100% inaccurate. I find it troubling that the IBJ would let your comments remain given how inaccurate they are.
The Arts Council exists only to enrich the people that work there. Every artist in the agency should hate the group because they siphon off precious money with their bloated administrative costs, money that would otherwise be going to the artists.