What’s the Matter with Kansas (Arts Commission)?


‘Tis the season to cut — or gut — arts funding. There’s simply no two ways about it. It’s in the air.

As the GOP House majority aims to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts (they may call it a cut, but the proposed cut is $167.5 million annually, which is the agency’s current budget), no doubt the next domino to fall will be arts appropriations as a concept, much less a budget line, in many of the individual states.

Story continues below.

The question is whether the field is ready for such an eventuality, and what the consequences, intended or otherwise, may be as a result of such actions.

Story continues below.

After all, most states have been in a belt-tightening mode for several years now. Per the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies in June 2010:

  • 31 state arts agencies predict decreases in legislative appropriations for fiscal year 2011.
  • 10 states expect appropriations to increase; 15 states expect flat funding in FY2011.
  • Total appropriations will likely decline another 12.9% between FY2010 and FY2011.
  • Appropriations have declined 34.7% in the last 10 years. Inflation-adjusted, that works out to just over 45%.

So, which state arts agency might be the first eliminated? Last year, it looked as if the winner would be Georgia. Only political action — a noisy march, with plenty of media — saved the Georgia Council on the Arts. At another juncture, it looked as if it would be the South Carolina Arts Commission on the chopping block. According to the state of the state address just delivered by its new governor, Nikki Haley, 2011 may be the year that the Palmetto State kicks its cultural commission to the curb.

Or it may very well be Kansas. If I were a betting man — and I’m not — I’d wager that Kansas is probably most likely to take the crown. The state’s new governor, Sam Brownback (formerly of the U.S Senate), appears to have the legal right to abolish the Kansas Arts Commission by executive order, or at least reorganize it so as to remove it from the budget and/or to privatize it. Hierarchical structure, services, revenues, disbursements — all these remain vast unknowns.

Two days ago, I had an off-the-record conversation with some Kansas cultural leaders who contacted the Clyde Fitch Report to see what support could be provided to either persuade Brownback to back off, or to persaude legislators to pursue some other tack.

I agreed to post some information on the situation and to publish a follow-up piece, with on-the-record quotes, in the next week or two.

But needless to say, for such a small state population — under 2.9 million people — the power of Kansas arts is without dispute. Per a press release provided to the CFR (you can see a version for yourself here), if Brownback goes forward, it will “jeopardize at least $778,300 in National Endowment for the Arts matching funds, contradicting the Governor’s statement that the state will save $574,642,” and will further jeopardize grants and services from such partners as the Mid-America Arts Alliance, “which provides more than $300,000 in grants and services to Kansas.”

However, let’s put that aside for a moment: If you don’t believe in public funding for the arts as a matter of ideology (and I am on the record as having mixed feelings about it myself), the numbers are irrelevant.

What should matter in politics is economic impact — and, therefore, jobs. According to the Kansas Arts Commission, the agency’s work helps to support “employment of over 37,000 people in the creative arts industry.” Put another way, the nonprofit arts and cultural sector in Kansas is “a $153.5 million industry…generating over $15 million in state and local government revenues.” A statistically significant sum.

On its website, the Kansas Arts Commission states that the legislature must approve Brownback’s budget. Kansas, of course, is one of the most conservative states in the union (it last elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 1932), so it isn’t a matter of playing partisan politics. What arts-supporters in Kansas need to do is to reach out to the sympathetic voices in the legislature (and they’re there) and make the economic case. Already the inevitable Facebook campaign is generating a lot of heat — nearly 5,800 people in six days.

Here, I should add, is a prime opportunity to make the conservative case for the arts. Perhaps I am not best equipped to make it, but it’s there and it should be made. It will be critical if Kansas isn’t to become the first state without a state-funded arts agency.

If you think America’s heartland should be a culture-empty wasteland, if you think thousands of jobs should perish on an ideological altar, call Gov. Brownback at 877-KSWORKS (877-579-6757) and tell him so.

If you think a loss of $153.5 million to the Kansas economy is unacceptable, call the same number and say as much.

If it can happen in Kansas, it can happen where you live, too.

  • Dan Knaup

    You would think that Mr Jacobs would do a bit of research to get his facts straight before pretending he knows something about the subject he is writing about. Governor Brownback is NOT eliminativg or even cutting funding of the Kansas Arts Commission. He is only proposing to shift the supervision of the agency from the government to private means- much the same as The Humanities Council was handled a while back.
    The matching funds to the KAC will NOT be affected.

    • You would think Mr. Knaup would click on the links provided in the post that show the information comes directly from the agency, not thin air.

      If Mr. Knaup wants to accuse the Kansas Arts Commission of lying, perhaps Mr. Knaup ought to have the guts, the decency, to do so.

  • mmf

    Unfortunately it is offcial, was made so on Tuesday, and the Governor should be fully aware of this despite his recent statements. Kansas will lose ALL OF ITS MATCHING FUNDS for the arts totaling 1.2 million dollars.

    If the Kansas Arts Commission becomes a non-profit – it will be competing for the same money that the organizations and people that is it trying to serve. While generous, the private donors in Kansas do not have deep enough pockets to serve the entire state. Currently they can’t even fully support the arts that are exist here – thus the value and need for the Kansas Arts Commission.

  • JLD

    That Governor Brownback and Kansas Republicans haven been so successful at quickly perpetuating this myth that there is a mechanism to receive federal arts funding WITHOUT A STATE-FUNDED MATCH is rather astonishing. There is no such mechanism. The National Endowment’s very enabling legislation would have to be revisited, which, in this political climate, ain’t likely to happen. I’d say there is about a one-hundredth of 1 percent chance that federal lawmakers would go into statutory surgery to make such a change given the politics of the moment. Brownback is mistaken, as are any Kansans carrying his message. And just for grins, they should all be keenly aware of what will happen to Kansas’ annual allocation of arts funds should the state choose to withdraw its matching funds: those funds will be redistributed to other state arts agencies, in states which have chosen to continue making investments in their creative economies.

  • Pingback: The Symbolic Capital of Arts Commissions | Creative Infrastructure()

  • Pingback: Arts Advocacy Update 160: Hampering New Hampshire? « Clyde Fitch Report()

  • Pingback: Kansas Gov. Abolishes Arts Commission; SC, TX Next on Chopping Block? « Clyde Fitch Report()

  • Pingback: Arts Advocacy Update 161, 162: Connecticut Killing One Percent for Art? « Clyde Fitch Report()