I Publius
Is counseling necessary to get grants?
By Alan Chartock
Article Last Updated: 10/08/2007 11:30:06 AM EDT
Saturday, October 06
Last week I wrote a column inquiring why the Guthrie Center in Great Barrington didn't get any money from the Mass Council Cultural Facilities fund. I didn't say anything bad about anyone. The underlying theme of the column, however, was that while some of the region's largest cultural institutions, such as the well-endowed Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, received grant money, others that needed the money the most were shut out.
I suggested that the Mass Cultural Council do a more efficient job of helping the have-nots. To wit: Let the Council provide intake staff members who might prepare applications for the have-nots.
I never expected much to come of it, but I was wrong. I heard from several sources in government, and from representatives from the Council itself, that the law needs tweaking in order to give the little guys a better shot. I also heard from a confidential source who said some applicants had gone big-time and hired lobbyist Peter Larkin, a former legislator and former member of the Mass Cultural Council.
So we have a situation where there may be a perception that the way to get the money is to hire a connected lobbyist.
Larkin
insists he never acted in the role of lobbyist for the arts organizations. He says he served as more of a counselor and never approached anyone on the Arts Council or the Facilities Fund on behalf of his clients. We have learned that some of the clients received assurances from the beginning of the process that their applications "looked good." Larkin tells us he just guided the applicants through the process and explained the law to them.
But questions remain. Under the law, legislators have a cooling-off period before they are permitted to lobby. Larkin is through that period, but there also is the question of the perception when one accepts arts clients after serving on the Mass Cultural Council Board.
Larkin told me he had received a clean bill of health from the ethics people at the Mass Cultural Council. According to Larkin, his resignation from the board was totally his decision, although one board member said he was under the impression that Larkin had been "counseled off" the board because of potential conflicts of interest.
Finally, at least one source close to the situation says Larkin may have been put onto the Cultural Council Board by then-Gov. Mitt Romney since the conservative-leaning Larkin had enjoyed a reputation as a "thorn in the side of the arts council." It would be ironic if he is now making a living as a lobbyist because of his presence on that board.
In the course of pursuing this story, I also have learned there is a good deal of unhappiness about the way the law is structured. Board members and some legislators believe the formula determining who gets funding should be restructured.
The way it works now, some "biggies" who raise the most money and have the biggest audiences get funds from the state. A lot of people believe that the people who need the money the most are those who have good ideas but are still growing. These are groups like The Guthrie Center, which plans to expand in order to serve larger audiences. After all, both Woody and Arlo Guthrie are known worldwide and attract a lot of visitors to the Berkshires.
It turns out that, according to required state filings, the wonderful Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center, a not-for-profit that certainly deserved the state money, paid $20,000 to hire Larkin. The Berkshire Museum paid him $12,000 to assist them in getting their well-earned grant.
The question now is whether the word should be out on the street that if you want the money, you should go to Larkin, an ex-Mass Council board member. The $20,000 from one organization and $12,000 from another is a lot of money that might have been better spent on the wonderful programs these two organizations offer.
If members of the Mass Cultural Council staff are available to guide organizations through the grant process, why would they need Peter Larkin, who says he didn't lobby but only counseled his clients on the law and the process?
The facilities fund, which disburses the money to help these organizations and is not a part of the Mass Council, has its own panels to decide who gets the funding. The question remains: What did Larkin do for his money? I suspect you'd have to go a long way to convince the folks at the Museum and the Mahaiwe that they didn't get their money's worth.
So that's this week's column. I suspect there is more to come.
Alan Chartock, a Great Barrington resident, is president and CEO of WAMC Northeast Public Radio and a professor emeritus of communications at SUNY-Albany.
This article was taken from The Berkshire Eagle and I will give my thoughts about it in tomorrows Blog, if you have any comments about it or your thoughts please email me at joanne@fundingthearts.org. I was blown away after reading this article and would love to add your comments to my blog.
