Joe Patti

I have been writing Butts in the Seats (BitS) on topics of arts and cultural administration since 2004 (yikes!). Given the ever evolving concerns facing the sector, I have yet to exhaust the available subject matter. In addition to BitS, I am a founding contributor to the ArtsHacker (artshacker.com) website where I focus on topics related to boards, law, governance, policy and practice. I am also an evangelist for the effort to Build Public Will For Arts and Culture being helmed by Arts Midwest and the Metropolitan Group. (http://www.creatingconnection.org/about/) My most recent role was as Executive Director of the Grand Opera House in Macon, GA. Among the things I am most proud are having produced an opera in the Hawaiian language and a dance drama about Hawaii's snow goddess Poli'ahu while working as a Theater Manager in Hawaii. Though there are many more highlights than there is space here to list.

CONNECT WITH JOE

[novashare_follow button_size="medium" button_shape="square" networks="twitter=https://twitter.com/buttsintheseats,linkedin=https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-patti-14aa666/,subscribe=https://insidethearts.com/buttsintheseats/subscribe/"]

Advocate For The Real Artistic You

by

Many people I follow on Twitter made note of the flashmob activity that happened on Capitol Hill as part of Arts Advocacy Day. I clicked the link to see what interesting thing the arts people converging on the Capitol to talk to their representatives had done.

I have to say, I was pretty disappointed. I am generally not very critical here and rarely directly critical of a specific effort so I think this is saying something.

The whole idea, the thing that is exciting, about arts flash mobs is that they occur in places you don’t expect them providing an arts experience out of the context of the space. Singing a patriotic song like “America, The Beautiful” on Capitol Hill doesn’t really push that boundary and give the thrill of experience that makes you think about the value and place of the arts in your lives the way the Knight Foundation’s Random Acts of Culture program does.

It might not be entirely appropriate, but the first song that entered my mind as an alternative was Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill.” The title has the sense of converging on Capitol Hill and the lyrics talk about a man and woman switching places to gain an empathy for the other. That sort of understanding being a desired outcome for the day’s efforts.

Yeah, it is easy for me to criticize sitting at my computer 5,000 miles away rather than participating in the advocacy efforts. I just think something so safe does a disservice to all those artists who are walking into the offices of representatives who are hostile or indifferent to their cause. A flash mob of arts people should make a statement about all those things we say the arts do–bring change, push boundaries, make people think, excite, etc. At the very least, it should be a statement that the arts people are in Washington and be a source of morale and courage for those who have the face the steely gazes, dismissive smiles and condescending tones of various politicians.

It should be be manifestation of Amy Scheidegger’s Artistic Rebuttal Book which made the trip to D.C. There are a lot of disruptive pokes and prods in that book. But an artist walking into a representative’s office is a more disruptive presence than this flash mob was.

Perhaps the decision to do a flash mob thing was an actual flash effort organized at the last minute and wasn’t really thought out or organized. And granted, you can’t make a lot of sudden unexpected moves in the Capitol without making security very nervous. In the future maybe something more engaging can be planned and executed in another forum. To me it just kinda came off as an attempt to assure legislators that arts people are good patriotic Americans rather than subversive socialists as is widely believed and that they won’t do anything upsetting during their visits.

Arts people shouldn’t have to make any statements about their loyalty. While a legislative office visit isn’t the time to exhibit your “Musings on an Abattoir,” there is nothing to be lost by making people nervous that the work might appear. That is just an illustration of the power of the artist in society.

Info You Can Use: Good Governance Policies

by

There is an old adage about the cleanliness of a restaurant restroom being indicative of the care being used in the kitchen for food preparation. There really isn’t an actual relationship between these two facts, but a dirty restroom is enough to give one pause.

The Non-Profit Law blog says the IRS takes a similar stance on whether you check Yes or No on your Form 990 about the presence of policies in the following areas:

* Conflict of Interest Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Executive compensation approval process (Part VI, Section B)
* Document Retention and Destruction Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Gift Acceptance Policy (Schedule M)
* Meeting minutes document practices (Part VI, Section A)
* Review process of Form 990 by the Board of Directors (Part VI, Section B)
* Whistleblower Policy (Part VI, Section B)
* Joint Venture Policy, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)
* Policies regarding chapters, affiliates, and branches, if applicable (Part VI, Section B)

It is not illegal to lack these policies, but their absence can be a sign of poor governance and therefore contribute to a decision by the IRS to subject an organization to greater scrutiny.

Emily Chan notes that just because you have policies in these areas doesn’t mean you are covered. It is important to evaluate the policies to ensure they are appropriate for your organization and its ability to adhere to them, comply with the law, are understood and actually practiced.

She supplies the following helpful info: “Note changes to policies are not required to be reported to the IRS unless such polices or procedures are contained within the organizing documents or bylaws and regarding certain subject matter such as conflicts of interests. See Form 990 Instructions.”

If an organization doesn’t have a policy, Chan advises not rushing to formulate them out of a desire to appear to be exercising good governance for public relations reasons (and to perhaps avoid the IRS’ steely gaze). Poor policy being nearly as bad as no policy. Proper policy takes time to formulate so give yourself the time to develop it. In her tips for evaluating existing policies there is an implication that one should avoid adopting the policies of other organizations in any significant degree.

The guidance she provides for creating new policies is:

Thoughtful considerations about how to get to “yes” can include questions such as:

* Which policies have a higher priority based on the circumstances of the organization? For example, an organization that frequently accepts non-cash gifts may have a more pressing urgency to adopt a useful gift acceptance policy as opposed to an organization that hardly, if ever, accepts donations from the public.
* What are anticipated governance issues or past governance issues that these policies should address?
* What kind of capacity limitations – staff, financial resources, or otherwise – should we be mindful of in drafting and adopting a new policy?
* What is the projected timeline for drafting such policy and presenting it to the board?
* If anticipating a prolonged delay (due to resources, time, etc.) before formally adopting such policies, what problems might this cause and what can the organization do to help mitigate these risks?
* Is the organization prepared to explain to the IRS, its constituents, or others why it currently does not have a certain policy and articulate its action plan moving forward to adopt one?

Additionally, it is important to note an organization lacking the recommended policies is not without any recourse on the Form 990. For example, Schedule O (2010) allows for supplemental narratives to further explain the policies or processes used at the organization to address these governance concerns.

What Makes Sense In Refund Policies?

by

Adam Natale writes about Fractured Atlas’ development process for the ticketing module of their ATHENA software. They are talking to different sized performing arts organizations at Community Design Sessions (CDS) to get feedback about the design and assemble a wish-list of features. His discussion of the software’s use for ticket exchanges caught my attention.

“So, in each CDS, I brought up the fact that the software should allow for patrons to easily exchange their tickets. Most people in the room freaked out — enabling patrons to do this would result in complete pandemonium! And then my dear friend at Theatre Bay Area, Jamye Divila, a box office administrator and guru, sided with me. She said something along the lines of, “We do over-the-phone exchanges for subscribers constantly and it takes a lot of staff time to do this. What if we could automate the process and simply build permissions and restrictions into the software so that it doesn’t allow the patrons to do things they shouldn’t be allowed to do?” Suddenly, the air cleared. There was a collective “Oh, software can do that?” sigh that filled the room. Yes, software can do that.”

This made me wonder what sort of criteria people were using to grant refunds that they felt they could provide good customer service via a set of programmed rules. Often the criteria I use is based on judgments that are very human. The death in the family/grave illness, you don’t really question much and given that people know this, it can easily used as an excuse. How can a computer program know that a rock slide was just reported and traffic can’t get through from one direction? Granted, if the program is designed well, the ticket office could reprogram the conditions to make it easy for anyone to request refunds in this case. There are many occasions when nuanced decisions need to be made and I suppose it will always have to be a human that makes them.

Refunding does take a lot of staff time so I can definitely see the benefit of having the computer handle refunds in the cases when snow storms or sick performers force a cancellation. In cases when you have multiple performances and can have the computer offer an exchange to another performance or show of equal value to avoid processing a refund, there also a benefit. It would certainly also be a boon in extending subscriber/donor exchange benefits to people on a 24 hour basis. Those organizations like my own that have single engagement events, might opt to create criteria where anyone who has purchased an average of X single tickets a year since 2005 will be allowed to exchange because they are clearly loyal.

That raises the question about the whys of exchange and refund policies. Why do we not allow refunds? I imagine commitment is probably one issue. We want people to follow through on their decision to attend, especially in these days when there are so many competing choices. For the record, I don’t think people are waiting until the last minute to buy tickets because of the no refund policy. They are generally uncertain about what to do in the face of so many choices.

It is certainly logical to resist granting refunds given that it is a time consuming process. Selling the tickets can be too, but paying employees to give money back has a certain sting to it. If a computer could process the refund for you, would you be more willing to grant a refund?

I also don’t utilize as monolithic a response to refund requests as I once did. I sense this is a better stance in the face of all the options people have. But is it diminishing the perceived value of what we offer to do so?

Is it time to reassess the practice of refusing refunds given that people seem to be waiting until they are absolutely sure they want to attend? Is there an opportunity to appear more customer friendly by having a more liberal policy given that 90% of your audience isn’t buying until the last three days? My suspicion is that most people won’t have any awareness of your policy until they want to use it so a change won’t generate general good will. If you really go out of your way to loudly publicize a very liberal policy, you may really undermine the perception of your product unless you do it very cleverly.

Limitations on refunds and exchanges are a part of everyday life so I am not suggesting that it should be scrapped for performances in order to meet changing expectations. I am just using the occasion of this post to suggest looking at policies to assess if they are still valid in the context of changing purchasing and attendance behaviors and how they play into your goals for community relations.

The Lens Through Which You View This Will Be Provided

by

Earlier this week I received an email inviting me to become the “Twitterer in Residence” for the Crossing Europe film festival in Linz, Austria.

Now, I am under no illusion that this was anything but a mass emailing to every blogger around with some connection to performing arts and cinema. Still the fact that the festival and its sponsor, Austrian eyeglass manufacturer, Silhouette, are offering to provide travel, lodging and pocket money for six days to have an English speaker write about the festival, is a testament to how important and influential social media is perceived.

They don’t try to hide the fact they expect you to write nice things in return, at least about their sponsor. Their eligibility requirements note that during the festival, “personal opinion and impressions are put in the foreground.”

However, in relation to the main sponsor, “I understand to be not only reporter at the festival, but within the project also a testimonial for the festival’s main sponsor Silhouette Eyewear (http://www.silhouette.com) and I’m looking forward to this.”

If you are a cinema blogger, this may not be too big a deal to you. You aren’t being asked to compromise your views about films and actors. No one looks to you as an authority about eyewear so you can gush until the cows come home. Of course, people may wonder if your perception of the festival may have been skewed by the complimentary rose colored glasses you were given.

Regardless of what you may feel about the attempt to conflate compensated bloggers with the role once held by professional critics, you have to admit that the sponsor hasn’t tried to hide that they will be influencing the opinion about themselves. The burden of defending impartiality falls squarely on those who take them up on their offer.

I can see this type of social media promotion appealing to businesses. They can offer benefits in return for a person saying whatever they truly think about the organizations the bank/law firm/store supports. In return, the person has to write testimonials about their company. The company provides more or less sincere exposure that causes it supports might not otherwise receive. It also “buys” advertising for themselves. I imagine accountants can tell them how much of the benefits the company is providing the social media creator is tax deductible as an in-kind donation.