Thoughts on the Flat Rock Playhouse

First, my starting point:

• I’ve attended Flat Rock Playhouse productions and enjoyed them all, but I’m not a season ticket holder
• My knowledge on this issue comes only through what I’ve read and seen in the media and at public meetings
• I definitely think the Flat Rock Playhouse productions help Henderson County economically
• I’m not opposed to non-profits connected to the arts receiving taxpayer money, within parameters

And those parameters are, unless the art group is a bona fide department of a governmental body (say, a school art department as part of the county school system), there should be no guaranteed continuous taxpayer funding committed to that non-profit.

So there are two issues here that I see:

• Should taxpayer money of any kind go to the Playhouse?
• Should the Playhouse be guaranteed a continuous dedicated taxpayer revenue stream?

To the first issue, I would say yes—I think each governmental jurisdiction if they choose (and they may choose not to) should determine how much taxpayer money they will set aside each year for competitive grants. And then those desirous of getting grant money should apply, just as the Playhouse has done in the past. This ensures a review process so elected officials can be sure the funds are being used appropriately. It also allows for a quick response if funds aren't being handled efficiently.

To the second issue (and this relates to the county commissioners’ attempt to raise the accommodation tax and then send those monies directly to the Playhouse for a guaranteed income stream), I think not.

The Playhouse is not owned by the people of Henderson County and there are no elected officials that taxpayers can hold responsible for the use of that money. The Playhouse overspent the past several years and seems to me to be now looking for a way to get out of that hole without having to do the hard work of figuring out what happened and making any and all necessary changes.

Now, some areas of confusion:

*  Vincent Marini, Playhouse producing artistic director, keeps calling the Playhouse a “public charity” (You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.) as if that designation requires or mandates that the Playhouse request and/or receive taxpayer funds. It does not.

All “public charity” means (as opposed to “private foundation” since both receive the IRS designation of being 501(c)(3) entities) is that the charity, for revenue purposes, must be supported by the general public ["at least 33% of revenue must come from relatively small donors (those who give less than 2% of the organization’s income), from other public charities or the government"], not that funding must come from the government through taxpayer dollars. There is absolutely no obligation that the Playhouse, as a charity, must acquire or use taxpayer funds to operate.

So the Playhouse as a public charity exists to carry out direct, charitable activity, in this case offering quality productions at reasonable prices, maintaining a youth theater, and bringing the theater arts to students—all admirable goals.

*  Robert Danos, in his opinion column in the Times-News, says

Some ask, “Why can’t they stand on their own two feet?” The Playhouse is a nonprofit with an educational mission that was never designed to stand alone. There is not one professional nonprofit theater in the nation that does not operate with a mix of public, private, corporate and foundation sources.

Maybe the two issues I listed up top are being conflated or confused here. My understanding is that the Playhouse did primarily stand on its own for 50 some-odd years. And by “on its own,” I’m assuming they did apply for government grant money in the past as any non-profit may have. So is Mr. Danos referring to that idea (which I have no problem with) or to the request for ongoing taxpayer dollars through a tax increase? It seems as though the need for a guaranteed government revenue stream would only be dictated by a change in mission, since it wasn’t essential before. So has the mission of the Playhouse changed?

Final thoughts:

*  It is always so easy to be generous with money that isn't completely yours.

*  Penalizing one specific industry (accommodations) to benefit one specific non-governmental business (even if it does provide some benefit for the county as a whole) is not the way to fund the Playhouse. (And someone somewhere thought this was a great idea because they went to the trouble to get our state legislators involved; this didn’t just appear out of thin air—it took time and effort to get this through the N.C. Assembly.)

*  We would all love to not have to worry about the consequences of our decisions and have the government pick up the tab, but that’s not the best way for our community—and ultimately not the best way for the Playhouse. It seems as though this crisis has caused the Playhouse board and staff to take a hard look at their business, to reach out to their donors, audiences, the art community, and the community in general in ways they never have before, and hopefully to learn new ways to raise needed revenue.

[Note: this entry has been slightly edited since initial posting]