Monday, August 11, 2008

Indpls Arts Council releases their statement

2009 City Arts Funding Update

Mayor Ballard has proposed an allocation for arts funding of $1 million in the 2009 budget for the City of Indianapolis. This is a $543,500 reduction from the current 2008 city arts appropriation and represents a 35 percent reduction.

City funding supports arts outreach and education programs and many other community activities to 75 different arts organizations. Reductions in 2009 funding will directly affect, reduce, and potentially eliminate the number of arts programs for the community and will reduce the number of citizens reached with the arts - including those underserved by other programs.

While we understand the critical financial issues the city is facing, we are disappointed that the arts will face substantial cuts, more than other areas supported by the city. Public investment in the arts is critical to continuing not only the education and outreach programs supported with this funding, but also in leveraging private funding, generating economic activity and tourism, attracting and retaining younger people to our community, and providing a strong message that the arts are an important part of our city.

The Arts Council of Indianapolis is supportive of our elected officials' efforts to increase public safety and manage the city's financial challenges. However, with the discussion of the possible elimination of city arts funding, we are concerned and opposed to the elimination of public support of the arts for the future of our city. We will work to continue the city's critical investment in the arts.

What next?

Today's announcement is the starting point of the budget process. We will be sending communications to all of our elected officials and will let you know the dates and times of all budget hearings.

Over the next six weeks of the 2009 budget process, we will demonstrate how critical the arts are to the city and the importance of the city's support through budget presentations, meetings with the administration and elected officials, public hearings, and other information.

Now more than ever, your voice must be heard. To get the latest updates, find out more information, and how you can help, go to

27 Responses to “Indpls Arts Council releases their statement”

Anonymous said...
August 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM

I think this is a great time for the Arts Council to become transparent with its finances.

Before we go into battle how about having a complete list of salaries and other expenditures.

Are the employees at the Arts Council going to suffer with the rest of us, are do all the cuts come out of grants?

Anonymous said...
August 12, 2008 at 8:28 AM

I would like to see transparency with their budgets too. Including the receipts for every last dinner and glass of wine expensed to the taxpayer. I also want to know if these employees use the stadium at no cost.

ChristopherWestPresents said...
August 12, 2008 at 8:53 AM

Melyssa - how did you figure out our secret? Now all artists/arts professionals are going to have to turn in their secret passes that gave us unlimited to access to Lucas Oil Stadium and the Hoosier Dome! I can only hope no one finds out that we frolic in the State House when they're not in session!

Anonymous said...
August 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM

My point was that the Arts Council has traditioanlly not been very open with where its money is going. Their annual reports aren't very deep in detail.

You can go to and look at their annual report (Form 990). The last one available (unless you pay to join Guidestar) is 2006.

A couple of highlights:

Greg Charleston's Salary $143,096 plus $13,925 in benefits

David Lawrence's Salary $98,777 plus $9,991 in benefits

I believe the mayor makes $98,000.

Also, that's two years ago so their salaries are probably higher now.

A few of the grants made:

IMA $155,000
Symphony $265,000
Children's Museum $239,000

Do they really need more money? Most small arts groups only get a few thousand dollars

Also, the Arts Council spends/loses over $400,000 a year running the Arts Garden.

Does this give you an idea of where some of the cuts could be made with virtually no effect on the arts community?

M Theory said...
August 12, 2008 at 9:53 AM

I don't care if you frolic naked in the state house at night after it closes for the day. Go for it.

Just keep your hands off my money. I'll give to the arts as I see fit. And I give plenty and often. I see no need to pay arts professionals these kind of salaries. I'd rather put my money DIRECTLY into the hands of struggling artists...not fund high lifestyles of arts administrators.

M Theory said...
August 12, 2008 at 10:33 AM

I looked at their tax return and saw the $400k plus loss at the Arts Garden. What gives? That's a great facility. Back when I was a catering director, I would have been FIRED if I didn't book a facility enough to cover expenses. Funny how these government jobs don't have nearly as much oversight as private business does.

Scott said...
August 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM This comment has been removed by the author.

Scott said...
August 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM

"Also, the Arts Council spends/loses over $400,000 a year running the Arts Garden.

Does this give you an idea of where some of the cuts could be made with virtually no effect on the arts community?"


"I looked at their tax return and saw the $400k plus loss at the Arts Garden. What gives? That's a great facility."

Come on now... Is everyone serious about this. Yes, when looking at a number such as $400k looks massive to some, but I do not think you are seeing the whole picture. I just glanced at the calander listing for the month of August at the Arts Garden and just as I suspected, every event is free to the public. Yes FREE! This directly effects the arts community. Who do you think are exhibiting and performing at these events? The public can come in and see visual arts, musical performances from a borad range of styles and performing arts all in this space. To offer this to the general public week after week and rarely charging admission to any of these events is quite a public service. If the city tax payers have to pay a few cents a year in order for the Arts Garden to exist and offer free cultural entertainment to everyone, then I for one say so be it.

"I see no need to pay arts professionals these kind of salaries."

Why should "arts professionals" get paid any less for the work they do compared to similar positions at other non profits? Arts professionals do work hard and they have to have the big degrees to get their jobs. I find it sad, that people feel it is ok for arts professionals to be paid little for jobs that require a lot of work, dedication, expertise, and skill. I chatted once with an arts conservator who was making $18,000 per year, at a job where they are personally responsible for taking care of million dollar collections. That is terrible. This concept idea of the struggling artist should not translate to the arts professionals in general. Artists are responsible only for themselves and should be willing to sacrifice if need be, arts professionals have "jobs". They are in fact working and should be paid a fair wage on par with similar wages across the board.

And while I am rambling on, when discussing arts funding and city funding, where do we place the burden of construction and upkeep of the horde of Indianapolis war memorials? Are they public art? I highly doubt most of them earn enough money to pay for their own anual upkeep and expenses. Should the city not pay for these either? Should this be the responsability of corporations? How about the Kroger World War I Memorial or the DuPont Veitnam Memorial? As a city, we ALL have to pay for things, via taxes, that we may not agree with. How much of our tax dollars have gone on to support War or the construction of NASA probes and rockets? Many people feel they should not pay taxes to support a war they do not agree with, while some feel the entire NASA space exploration is simply a waste of tax payer money. I disagree. Arts, education and culture are all interwoven. I know Melyssa, that you have mentioned your show that you curated with out help from the city. That is fabulous, it can be done sometimes. But you did charge for tickets to the event. In all the shows that I have curated locally, they are all free. Everyone of these shows has been a financial loss as we are not into it for a profit. We are into it so that we can get the work out there and seen by the public. If the city tax payers can help releive some of these expenses, often for allowing a much better show, then again I am for it. In the end, if all arts is cut from the budget and not a single tax payer is helping out, well then, with all the money they saved on their annual taxes they just might be able to buy a soda or two. For the cost of a soda, how about we keep the arts funded.

Anonymous said...
August 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM

My prior comments were not meant to advocate the complete withdrawal of funds for the arts but to point out that the Arts Council has not been the proponent of the average artist or some kind of champion for arts access to the general public.

As we, the arts community fight for our small percentage of the Indianapolis City budget, perhaps we can demand accountability from the Arts Council and an end to high salaries and the fact that the majority of their grant money goes to the large institutions who are most capable of taking care of themselves.

When we lose arts funding and parks funding, we lose a lot of the activities that can keep at-risk citizens out of trouble, and we lose quality of life for the rest.

Also, let's face it, the Arts Garden has bad acoustics and bad lighting. Unfortunately, the Arts COuncil owns it.

Anonymous said...
August 12, 2008 at 8:40 PM

I charged $10 to $20 for tickets. If you volunteered for anything at all, you got a free ticket.

I always think there should be a way for people to get art for free. But I don't like hand outs.

And I don't want city money to do another art show. Not getting the grant made me work harder and get out there and sell sponsorships. Those business sponsorships helped to sell tickets and fed the event. Had I been given a handout, I would have slacked. I'm human.

Arts Garden does have bad lighting and acoustics. And it is always hot in there.

Maybe they should think of some other purpose for the arts garden.

Also Shiva, who did the mosaic on its counter, didn't have much notice to do the project so it isn't as tight as it could be. They really put her through it to get it done on time. Art should not be rushed because of schedules of arts funding organizations.

The arts garden is another example of politicians going to the bond bank to pay for whatever they want and charging it. I bet we have not paid down a penny of the principle.

That's partly why our finances are a mess. The arts needs to pitch in and help our city by being fiscally responsible and cutting back like the rest of us.

It's going to be bad PR if the arts doesn't pitch in and help the city through this mess. Whining about funding isn't going to look good to taxpayers who are losing their homes when they catch on.

Be nice to see some volunteerism and a real effort to be patriotic and GIVE BACK to the city that has given so much to the arts.

They say there is this new "entitlement" culture in America.

I think the arts people should muck up with the tax activists and TOGETHER we go after the corporate sports welfare people that are REALLY draining our resources.

I know most of you hate that sports funding.

Oh, once I had the "honor" of delivering a painting that an artist did of a song writer that Jim Irsay loves. She did it to get attention from Irsay thinking he would give attention to the arts. It was a cool 4ft x 4ft framed painting. It was wrapped in white paper and had a gift card.

When I went into the sports complex with this huge painting as a gift, they barely acknowledged me. They took the present and I was on my way.

Jim Ir$ay did not call the thank her.

The Urbanophile said...
August 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM

In fairness, wasn't the concept of an "arts garden" just tacked onto the design of the original wintergarden concept as a fig leaf so that the Lilly Endowment would fund the construction? IIRC it was never designed with art in mind, which is probably why it isn't the greatest venue.

Anonymous said...
August 13, 2008 at 1:57 PM


What the ramblin' are you talking about? Are you high right now?

Scott said...
August 13, 2008 at 4:56 PM

To start, I never claimed that the Arts Garden was a particularly good venue for art or performances. Melyssa's on the other hand stated, "That's a great facility." But that is beside the point, since that is not what we are discussing here. Anyway, most venues in town that are not instituitionally owned have poor lighting and acoustics. That is sadly par for the course.

As far as the mosaic and the time constraints placed upon the artist, I can not speak of specifics as I do not know the whole story, but for the sake of discussion, deadlines are a fact of life even when it comes to commissioned art. If the artist at all felt that the time constraints were too limiting and not substanitial enoughto complete the job satisfactorily, then they could have turned down the job. Commission work as an artist, in short, SUCKS! You are not free, typically, to do what you want and at your own pace. You are making a product, often to someone else's specifications and with in a set timeframe. These additional restrictions often throw an artist out of sorts. I can only imagine that the artist you are talking about knew this when taking on the job, so in this regard is not a problem with the Arts Council.

"It's going to be bad PR if the arts doesn't pitch in and help the city through this mess."

Let's clear this up. We are not being asked to take a simple cut in funding to "help" the city in this "mess". We are talking about a COMPLETE cut of ANY and ALL funding, period. How can compltely wiping out all arts funding possibly be benificial to the public, artists and arts organizations in Indy?

Finally, in response to your next parable concerning the artist and Jim Irsay, well... Seems a bit odd to me. And I think you may have the stated the answer in your telling of the story. Simply, "She did it to get attention... thinking he would give attention to the arts." From the start, giving someone a gift with hopeful strings attached may have been misguided. If he wasn't expecting anything and was not given the painting in person, then I do not see any requisit for him to make a reply. It would have been nice if he did or at least had an assistant do so but seriously, what if he did not like the painting?

If nothing else, I do enjoy these debates. Until the next round...

Anonymous said...
August 13, 2008 at 6:35 PM

When art is perpetually given to this city for free (on view for free, etc.) then the value of all art is lowered in comparison to anything else that costs something to see or watch (i.e. sports, races, etc.). Therefore, free art = worthless art, especially in the eyes of those who make decisions about these kind of things. Sports? Brings money into hotels, bars, restaurants. Races? Same. Art? Well... not so much. I realize the situations are different from sports to art, but as an entity, art gets nowhere near the respect.

I was one of the most vocal about having the IMA charge SOMETHING at the door, so that the chance to view art would have SOME value monetarily and hopefully start changing attitudes toward art as "something pretty to look at for free." When you see how little money is actually made at art fairs in this state, you can begin to see how they are viewed as "Free entertainment" instead of having value beyond that in the eyes of a great majority of the population here. Same for gallery openings.

I was recently contacted and asked to hang art in the new home for the city's office of Community Affairs (specifically compliance office on Morris) in return for the ability to sell it. I asked the person responsible if I could possibly do so, but in exchange IF they would be so kind as to purchase ONE piece of my art (any size, any price, their choice) as a permanent part of their decor. After all, I was spending my gas money and time schlepping it down there, hanging it, framing it, etc., and it would be decorating their spaces for months, all for free.

You would have thought that I asked for a million dollar grant! No way! There was NO money in the budget for that!

Needless to say, I said "FORGET IT."

Therein lies the double standard. My art was valued as a necessary something they'd like to have hanging to fill up wall space and make it look good, but NOT valued when it came to actually purchasing it. They had budgeted for carpet, paint, window coverings, lamps, lighting, plumbing and electrical and all other things they needed to finish out the building. But art? No, that was not budgeted for whatsoever.

This is typical of how the city government views art from local artists. If they can get it for free, they certainly will from any artist dumb enough to be a sheep and hang it. If they have to pay for it, sorry, no dice. And this is the same type of thinking that has led to the budget being slashed. In their minds, art is not totally necessary going forward.

Think about this: What were my chances of actually selling something in an office full of city workers? It's not a public place, after all, and the only public coming in was going to be paying fees or fines.

It has totally changed my mind on where and how I will hang my art from now on. I refuse to hang my art for free unless it's a gallery situation. From now on, businesses will pay for the privilege to have my art around (and really it IS a privilege to have art from any one of us hanging). If ALL of the artists in Indy would do the same, attitudes would start change.


Art needs to be valued and as long as it's available for free, there is no perceived monetary value. As long as that's the case, the state and city governments will not attach much intrinsic value to it either. That's when arts budgets get cut.


Scott said...
August 13, 2008 at 9:04 PM


Perhaps I am misreading but,

Money can't buy you love.

I fully agree that artists should be fully conscious of where they hang their art and for what purpose. Artists are quite often being asked to hang work in alternative locations (offices, businesses, etc.) for free or to donate art work to raise money for some event or organization, with little to no gain for the artist. This is a practice that more artists should pay attention to and make smart decisions. I think the longer an artists deals with these scenarios the smarter they get about how to handle them.

But, as for charging people to view art in order to give art value, I find inaccurate. I LOVE art. When I can afford to buy art I buy it. (Good thing I can make it too.) But honestly, when visiting Chicago I would love to regularly visit the MCA but can not afford it. Once you take into the costs of driving to Chicago, food costs for the day, parking, and then entry fee into the museum, costs are simply more than I can usually afford. Does it make me value the art at the MCA "more" when I do decide to pay. No. It simply means I do not see their shows more often. I visit the IMA about once a month on average. During the period they were charging, that number went down significantly, possibly 2-3 times that year. A great part of a museums mission has to do with education and to charge people to learn about art is wrong. No one is charged to enter a library and read a book. Hell, these days you can spy several people at Border's reading a book (they have no plans on purchasing)in the store. But having access to literature for free does not make writers and books less valuable. Why then should showing art for free make art less valuable. Would anyone attend First Fridays if they had to pay a cover charge? I think not. We should keep in mind those kids and familys that can not afford to go to art museums. Keeping museums free is the most democratic thing we can do as a society.

The power in many respects comes in the hands of the artist. We as artists need to make smarter choices. We need to take it into our own hands the quality of an exhibition we are apart of. Help with the PR of a show. If we are lucky enough to find a dealer or curator who is able to do this well for us, fabulous. Let's keep viewing art for free and just better educate the public and other artists about the value art has.

Anonymous said...
August 13, 2008 at 9:44 PM

I hear you, Anon, and you have every right to decide where and when you'll exhibit. You're right, there does need to be more respect given.. but there is another side to public and freely accessible work, and rarely do blanket statements work for art...

You raise a good point, but business lobbies aside, should art be restricted to only those who can afford it? Thanks to the high-quality museums that I was able to enter for free on a regular basis as a child growing up in St. Louis, I was inspired to not only make art an important part of my life, but also to become a museum educator/administrator. I recently starting purchasing my first few works at prices that are a little uncomfortable for my meager "art professional" salary, but I am proud to be at that point, and I feel it is important to support artists and ideas that I respect. My career goal is to educate future/current business leaders, etc. to respect the work & the artists so that we might have less of what you describe... It's foolish to assume everyone comes out of birth canal understanding/respecting the arts the same way. For some low-income families, free art can be crucial.

It's part of our job as artists & educators to educate clients, politicians, etc. in a way that makes them respect us and WANT to PAY. but that can't be done by hiding everything behind a ticket counter, being huffy, or treating the arts as exclusive privilege. "budgeters" who are under pressure may not understand your rants just as you don't understand the reality of the budget perspective of "gee, maybe we should just go Ikea, they have some cool wall stuff."

if we wait until all of our future clients can or will pay for a ticket to understand/get their attention, budgets might be moot for all of us. We need a balance, just like the arts need to be funded by a balance of sources if we are all going to benefit from them. Everyone is cutting back right now. This might mean we may have to work harder as Melyssa eluded to attract other funding sources, but calling for all or nothing hardly ever gains much ground in the real world.

Anonymous said...
August 13, 2008 at 10:40 PM

OK, please remember that I said galleries should remain no-charge. I will admit I'm on the fence about museums... but even a dollar is hardly anything and it would, IMO, cause a mental shift of some kind.

Secondly, I think you're opinion may be somewhat polarized as mine is, albeit in the opposite direction. But that's OK, differences are good and somewhere in the middle is the answer.

Money doesn't buy you love, but it can certainly buy you respect in many cases. Money talks and gets doors opened. Look at Jeremy Efroym., what his money does for the local art scene, what doors it opens for him, what kind of curatorial things he can do with it, grants his family can hand out.

But if artists are constantly viewed as the beggars (begging for venues, begging for grants, begging for buyers, begging for gallery representation, begging for support, begging for funding) then how do we get respect for our art, no matter what we are creating? It automatically puts us in a psychologically lower position, from our viewpoint and their's.

Only by demanding a situation where our art is not ALWAYS on view for free or "used" as a background for another event, will we ever gain the respect that will at some point (hopefully) put us in the same running locally as football players and race car drivers.

9:44 Anon, I agree with many points you raise, but if a city office has money for anything at Ikea, then they have the money for most art that's available locally as well. The prices for original art simply aren't that high here. Hey, at least give us a chance to give them a price!

Scott asked for more or less an "all or nothing" approach for the next big sporting event when he called for an art boycott for the day. How is that any different? It's a coalition of artists saying "enough is enough" and doing something that gets noticed and makes a statement about the state of arts here.

Everyone keeps talking about "educating the public" about the importance of art and how it should be valued. I'm still having a really hard time figuring out where and how this happens and IF the public will show up to be educated. In my scenario, ponying up some green to see art seems to send a real quick education to the masses: It ain't free any more, folks. Just like gasoline and food, colts games, movies, nintendo, I-pod, the internet and anything else they are currently paying for and seem to have no trouble doing so.

Why do we think so little of ourselves and what we produce that even we artists think our creations should be out in the public without any renumeration to the artist?


Anonymous said...
August 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM

As this discussion goes on, a thought occurred to me.

Here's my analogy-

If you're a baseball player, but you're not good enough to make it in the pros, it's just too bad.

You might have been good in high school and college, but you have to accept that your career is over, at least from a professional perspective. You don't automatically deserve to be paid for playing baseball.

Just because you're an artist or call yourself and artist doesn't mean that people have to support you or buy your art.

If you were a high school level baseball player, you could offer to play for the Cubs, even for free, but they still wouldn't take you.

Perhaps this whole beggar/ free art/not being appreciated thing is actually a form of natural selection.

One more bad baseball analogy- since we don't have a major league team in Idnaianapolis, maybe you need to move to Chicago or New York to find a place where they do.

Anonymous said...
August 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM

Hi I'm Artist Anonymous 10:00 PM... nobody wants to pay for my work... boo-hooo...

You're an artist your suppose to be hungry, if you do not want to be, you might want to read and understand the Sex and Cash Theory.

Stay with the topic of the post please...

Anonymous said...
August 16, 2008 at 3:01 PM

This isn't about selling or not, it's about having the opportunity to do so and being given a tiny amount of the same respect as other professionals that entertain, play, race or whatever for amounts of money much, much larger than pieces of my art sell for.

I've been a professional artist (which means I've been paid to create my art) for well over 20 years. I'm represented by three galleries presently and have my work in several corporate collections. I guess that means I'm good enough for the pros (and I have the awards to prove that.) People who look at my background and resume should at least give that some cred before they ask to have me show my work as an adjunct or background to some other event for zero fee.

Simply put, City of Indy: be willing to pay professional artists SOMETHING or stop asking professionals and ask amateurs instead.

The topic is how the city's budget is getting cut and how artists and art budgets are not getting the same credence or respect that other types of entertainment and events are given. My post was written as an example of how one part of the city govt. views art (as a free item, not something you budget for).

Anon at 10:15:

I also don't subscribe to "if you're an artist you're supposed to be hungry" bullsh*t. I think if you're an artist you're supposed to be ambitious, but not necessarily hungry. I sell my work just fine to corporate customers in other cities, but not in Indy. And I eat very well, thanks.

If you don't like what I have to write, don't read it. Skip on to the next rant, er, post. :-)


Anonymous said...
August 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM

Anony-nony, Are you the "Painter of Light"? :-)

The topic has nothing to do with "artist" but outreach programs to the community being cut. We do not care how "commercial" your art is.
This post is about an IPS student who wont be introduced to anything "art" in school, you know the basic stuff - line, shape, color. Have you commented anything here about those kids? O yeah, you wanted them to pay to see "art" at IMA.

You said Indy "ask amateurs instead" Ummmm... Otterness, Ophie, and Booker, nuff' said. Indy does not care that you are represented by three galleries. You've proven here your cred - about YOU and MONEY, that's it.

Anonymous said...
August 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM

City funding supports arts outreach and education programs and many other community activities TO 75 DIFFERENT ARTS ORGANIZATIONS.

i thought this was about the citys arts budget being cut overall. anony-nony post seems relevant to me. last time i checked the city funds things for artists besides outreach stuff. and the city paid big time for the pros that you listed too.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Dear Hoosiers for Fair Tax,

Your enlightening comment set me free. Why have I willing paid taxes for all community-serving activities when I can simply pick and choose? So what if art programs(and parks) cut down on crime and bring people joy? You don't have to pay for it, right? So, I've decided to free myself from paying,too, for things I don't think I need. I never drive on I69- I don't want to pay for it. My house has never burned down, no thanks to the fire department. I think we have too many people in prison on minor drug infractions, so I guess I don't have pay for those prosecutorial expenses, much less the cost of housing said criminals. And don't even get me started on Iraq.

Part of living in a civilized, democratic country is sharing the burden for the general good, even when we don't think those things apply directly to our us.

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM

Hey guys,

That "Save Indy Arts" petition is hugely misleading- I'd suggest anyone who signed ask to have your name removed and go read what her position on arts funding ACTUALLY is. You just signed endorsing the Mayor's "support of the arts" and his current budget (no mention of the cuts). You also just agreed that the budget deficit left with this cut ($500,000) can and should be made up for by your efforts to attract individual donors. She's a proponent of privatized funding, people- The campaign name is just that and enough of us signed without even reading the content.

Shame on us...

Anonymous said...
August 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Oh, yeah- and if anyone actually looked at her site you'd have noticed her link to "Hoosiers for Fair Taxation" who on this very blog demanding cutting arts funding "at the knees".

We're bedding with snakes.

Scott said...
August 19, 2008 at 2:54 AM

I honesty do not understand what you are talking about. I have looked, read, and then reread the Save Indy Arts sites posts and its comments sections and no where do I get that they are for not for keeping arts funding.

Anonymous said...
August 19, 2008 at 11:43 AM


First, she's changed the wording on her website since I commented on this last night. Also, she deleted my comment raising questions about this which I posted on her own site. What it still now says is ""find out who your City County Councilor is and let him/her know of your support for Mayor Ballard's budget, which maintains art funding. Let your Councilor know that you are aware of the difficult budget year and that arts- like all other departments and programs- must share in the burden of cuts to achieve a balanced budget." I think it's more than slippery to call her advocacy program "save indy arts". That would imply that she's advocating to PRESERVE our current financial support, not what she's actually proposing, which is to support the mayor's budget cuts and applaud him for only cutting arts funding by a third. In an earlier post she indicated that the number of signatures she hoped to get would amount to $1500/person to make up the deficit and offered to volunteer her time to raise money from individuals to cover that loss. Though that's a necessity right now, she 's operating under the guise that the cut is appropriate and funding should be privatized. She intends for us and those who signed her petition to agree that we think it's our RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

All Rights Reserved | Blogger Template by Bloggermint