New Rules Could Undermine Integrity of Arts Endowment, Critics Say

The National Endowment for the Arts apparently has survived another brush with extinction — but leaders of arts groups and many grant makers are troubled by the new terms under which it may have to exist.

After a largely symbolic vote by the House of Representatives to scrap the arts fund, the U.S. Congress hammered out an agreement that would provide the N.E.A. with approximately the same amount of money it received in 1997. But the legislation also contains two controversial provisions that would significantly alter the way the agency operates:

* For the first time, the arts endowment would be authorized to solicit private contributions.

* The National Council on the Arts, the agency’s governing board, would be reduced from 26 members to 20, with nearly a third of them — six — drawn from the ranks of Congress itself. Currently, no member of Congress sits on its board.

The provisions could upend the rationale of having a federal arts agency, critics worry. What was intended to serve as a way for private citizens to dispense public funds could eventually become a group of politicians spending private funds, they say.

Roberto Bedoya, executive director of the National Association of Artists’ Organizations, says the new rules are “gilded chains” that will further undermine the integrity of the endowment’s decisions. For years, he says, conservative critics have assailed the endowment for politicizing the grant-making process. “Now it will truly be political,” he says.

But of even more concern to leaders of arts charities and grant makers is the provision to allow the endowment to raise private funds. “We don’t like it,” says John Sparks, director of government affairs for the American Symphony Orchestra League, noting that it will put the endowment into competition with arts groups in seeking private donations. “It makes no sense at all.”

Mr. Sparks adds that he is doubtful that the endowment will be able to uncover any hidden pockets of private support. “The development directors and governing boards of orchestras and other organizations are all competing as best they can for philanthropic resources,” he says. “And foundations and corporations interested in supporting the arts are all getting the message.”

More than simply putting the arts endowment in competition with the groups it is intended to support, some grant makers question why they would want to give money to the government in the first place. “It would just add federal strings to a relatively free and autonomous arena,” says Bruce R. Sievers, executive director of the Walter and Elise Haas Fund, in San Francisco.

Besides, he says, “I am worried that it would be using private money to bail out the public responsibility.”

That view is echoed by many who felt that in saving the arts endowment from being shut down, they had won the argument over the role of the federal government in supporting the arts. “The basic issue we had to deal with was the idea that there was no role for the federal government,” says Mr. Sparks. “This is a back-door way to avoid the basic issue — that the National Endowment for the Arts is about a federal commitment to the arts.”

The survival deal is part of a spending bill for the Department of the Interior, which also provides funds for the National Endowment for the Humanities, along with many other government programs. Details of the endowment’s budget were included in a compromise bill that was agreed to by a committee of representatives from the House and Senate.

The legislation — which would provide a fiscal-year 1998 budget of $98-million, down from $99.5-million in 1997 — also would require the agency to change the formulas used to funnel money to arts groups around the country. For example, the endowment would be required to raise the percentage that it must allocate directly to state arts agencies to 40 per cent from the current 35 per cent.

The endowment would also have to limit how much it spends on grant distributions to any one state. Under the legislation, no state would be able to receive more than 15 per cent of all grants distributed by the endowment. An exemption is provided for grants that are designed to benefit people beyond the boundaries of the state where a group is located. For example, in grants made in fiscal 1997, arts groups in New York received $15.7-million — nearly 16 per cent of the total budget — but of that amount, $5.8-million went to support programs that benefited people outside of New York.

While controversial, the provision to put lawmakers on the arts council is not without precedent and may be a good thing, officials at state and local arts councils say.

For example, the 15-member board that oversees the Ohio Arts Council includes four state legislators — two Republicans and two Democrats — who serve as non-voting members of the council. Wayne Lawson, executive director of the council, says that legislators often become advocates for the council when they learn what his agency accomplishes with state funds. “That has been very useful in getting our message out,” says Mr. Lawson.

Some arts supporters contend that the political dynamics at the state and local level are different from the struggles surrounding the arts at the national level. “Local politicians actually see the on-the-ground benefits for their communities,” says Penelope McPhee, vice-president for programs at the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation in Miami.

John Brademas, chairman of the President’s Commission on the Arts and Humanities and himself a former member of the House of Representatives, thinks that putting federal lawmakers on the national arts council is a bad idea. Mr. Brademas, a Democrat from Indiana who served in the House for 22 years, was a co-sponsor of the original legislation that created the arts endowment in 1965.

“We were concerned not to make these political instruments,” he says. “We did not want the government dictating what kind of art and humanities programs should be supported.”

The logic of placing lawmakers on the arts council may never be tested, however. Because the arts endowment is part of the executive branch of the government, the endowment’s general counsel has questioned whether it would be legal for members of Congress to be included in its deliberations.

Whatever happens to the arts endowment, non-profit arts organizations will continue to face great challenges in the coming years, according to a new report, “American Canvas,” published by the endowment. The report was the culmination of a set of six meetings held across the country.

The report says some people see the arts as an elite preserve of wealthy patrons, divorced from the needs and concerns of most Americans. But the report documents numerous examples of organizations that have developed innovative arts-education programs and community-based art projects to help solve intractable social and educational problems.

The report was issued just as Jane Alexander announced that she was stepping down after four years as head of the endowment. Many grant makers and arts officials regard the endowment’s budget allocations as a great victory for Ms. Alexander.

But some observers are more tempered in their enthusiasm over the endowment’s prospects, and critical of the concessions made. “It just keeps the endowment on life support,” says John Sullivan, executive director of the Theatre Communications Group in New York. “When death is the option, I guess life support is an overwhelming victory.”

* * *

For a free copy of the endowment’s report, “American Canvas,” contact the Office of Communications, Room 614, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington 20506; (202) 682-5570. A full text of the report is available on the endowment’s World-Wide Web site, http://arts.endow.gov/Community/AmCan/Contents.html