Theater Boards

 

[In 1985, I conducted interviews with my father, Eugene K***** (1918-96), and Herbert Schmitz (b. 1933), members of the Folger Theatre Group’s Advisory Board, and Lee G. Rubenstein (b. 1934), President of Arena Stage’s Board of Trustees.  The interviews were for Cynthia (C. Lee) Jenner when she was trying to start Theatre Junction (see notes following the script evaluation for Primary Colors by Steve Carter on “More Script Reports II,” 29 November 2021 on Rick On Theater).

[Arena Stage is Washington, D.C.’s premier regional rep theater.  There is some history of the company in “Washington’s Arena Stage: Under Construction,” 26 November 2011.  The Folger Theatre Group, predecessor to today’s Shakespeare Theatre Company, is described briefly in the afterword to “Much Ado About Nothing: A ‘Recovered’ Report,” 20 March 2021.

[Though the Folger Theatre Group no longer exists and I’m sure many changes have occurred in the configuration and administration of Arena’s board since these interviews took place, theater boards have been more-or-less the same creatures since they were conceived.

[As it happens, now is a period of considerable upheaval in both the way theater boards work and who sits on them (read Jesse Green’s four essays on the “reformation” of theaters in the United States, published in the New York Times between 12 June and 4 September; I reran them on ROT from 23 September to 4 October.  Article 4, the last installment of the series, addresses boards.

[I think, as an entry in my occasional series about work in the theater that few theatergoers know about, posting the interview summaries—these were memos I sent to Cynthia for her reference a few days after conducting them—would be informative.

[The disguised name above, Herbert Schmitz’s Folger colleague, is my late father.  As regular ROTters will know, I don’t use my family name on the blog.]

INTERVIEW WITH LEE G. RUBENSTEIN
President, Board of Trustees
Arena Stage, Washington, D.C.
25 January 1985 

Rubenstein was fund-raising chairman of Arena Stage before he became president of the board.  It hadn’t been a requirement till then for board members to raise money or be active in any specific way.  The recommendation to raise money was not often followed.  When Rubenstein became president, he instituted the changes and laid out the requirements of the board before new members joined.  He made clear that each member would be responsible for three things: 

1. Get or give $10,000 in “pure fundraising,” not including benefits, raffles, in-kind donations (e.g.: props), ticket sales, etc.
2. Be active on at least one committee.
3. Support all the theater’s functions (e.g.: bring people to the theater, recruit new board members, promote the theater’s shows and activities, etc.)

(At the change-over, about half the existing board resigned as Rubenstein anticipated.  Of the remaining 20, 10 had been active for a very long time and had been long-time contributors.  These were exempted from the “give-or-get” requirement.  The other 10 were not, and new trustees were informed of the requirement at the outset.  The board now stands at about 62 members; only the remaining old-timers are exempt from the “get-or-give” policy.)

Another change instituted by Rubenstein was the establishment of several committees, including an Executive Committee which over­sees the board’s operation and the participation of the trustees, and a Finance Committee, separate from the Fundraising Committee, to deal with budgetary questions and project revenue figures each season. 

He renamed the Nomination Committee, the Evaluation Committee, tasking it not only with the responsibility of finding prospective new board members, but of evaluating the participa­tion of serving members within established policy.  At present Arena has 14 standing committees on which board members—and prospective board members—must serve.

Rubenstein established a new policy for the terms of board mem­bers.  Members are now only elected for one year their first term.  They may be reelected for four-year terms subsequently.  (There is no limit to reelections.)

The board’s responsibilities include approval for both the expense budget and, in a separate action, the revenue budget—the projection of expected income from tickets, grants, and fundraising set against the cost of getting that income.  It also approves ticket prices and the salary of the top two positions—the Artistic and Executive Directors.  The board has no direct artis­tic influence, though its fiduciary responsibility gives it con­siderable indirect influence.

In the area of personnel, the board has authority to hire and fire only the Artistic and Executive Directors.  All other posi­tions are the sole responsibility of those two Directors, who are of equal power in the organization and cannot fire each other.  Only the board can hire or fire one of these Directors.

Rubenstein stressed the importance of the equality of the Artistic and Executive Directors, and their vulnerability to board action.  On the other hand, he also emphasized that the board must be sensitive to the artistic needs of the theater, while the directorate and theater staff must be “fiscally minded.”  When questions of art conflict with questions of finance, the matter is resolved by discussion and compromise resulting in a consensus. 

The biggest problem a board and direc­torate must contend with, according to Rubenstein, is mutual communications.  If trustees are selected on the basis not only of their business success, fundraising abilities, or organiza­tional skills, but of their sincere interest in the company’s success and growth and their openness to new ideas and the staff seeks their advice and makes use of their expertise, lines of communication will be kept open and consensus will always be possible.

The openness to learning new things is a prime attribute for board members in Rubenstein’s estimation.  “Inquisitiveness” was a criterion for his board because “educating” the members is one of his three principles of keeping a board happy and active.  In his terms, trustees “must be told what’s expected of them from the very beginning, educated and motivated.”  Their education about the theater’s inner working gives them a sense of belonging to the organization. 

Toward this end, Arena holds orientation meetings for new members to meet the staff department heads and other key personnel, and tour the backstage work areas.  Arena also holds periodic dinner parties and Directors’ Luncheons where board members can meet the performers, directors, and other ar­tists the theater employs in its productions.

The inquisitive nature of board members also comes into play in the “motivation” principle in Rubenstein’s equation.  Board mem­bers must be motivated by feeling they are offering more than their money.  They must feel they are “learning something new” and “doing something useful.”  Both of these are accomplished by active work on committees.  Not only are trustees performing useful and important functions by serving on committees, but they are applying talents or expertise in ways their professions don’t demand. 

The implication of this is clear: if the trustees are expected to be motivated by useful committee work, the theater must put real responsibility in the board and its committees.  A board with no real power or responsibility will be unlikely to attract active members.  Rubenstein was skeptical about the chances of success for a theater whose board is only expected to raise or give money and takes no active role in the theater’s development. 

In this sense, he insists that there be only one board of trustees, one with both responsibilities to the theater and authority within it.  Any other advisory bodies should not bear the name “board” to reserve that title for the people most involved in supporting the theater.  If other people are enlisted to advise or lend their names, but are not expected to participate actively or regularly, they should be designated an “Advisory Council” or “Artistic Consultants.”         

*  *  *  *
INTERVIEW WITH HERBERT SCHMITZ AND EUGENE K*****
Members, Advisory Board
Folger Theatre Group, Washington, D.C.
25 January 1985 

The Folger board is without power or authority and has no way of influencing the running of the theater other than persuasion and force of will.  There is no communication between the board members (or the board as a whole) and the staff either of the theater or the Folger Shakespeare Library, its parent organiza­tion.  (The Library is governed by the Amherst College Board of Trustees who hire the Library director.  He in turn has authority over the operation of the theater.) 

Furthermore, the responsi­bilities of the Advisory Board were never spelled out, and there is no defined term length or number of members.  There is no prescribed method of election to the board, and members are usually just invited to join by the Artistic Director or another board member.

Schmitz concluded that a board “cannot have responsibility without authority.”  He specifically called for the board to “have authority over the directorate with power to hire and fire” at the directorial level.  He felt that competent Artistic and Executive Directors would be able to hire competent professional staffs without interference. 

The current situation at Folger provides no oversight of the Artistic Director or The Executive Director (who is considered incompetent by both Schmitz and K*****).  As a result several staffers hired on the authority of the Directors are not capable of doing their jobs.  A considerable number of incidents of high-handedness on the part of the Artistic Director led to actions the board only learned of by hearsay or even in the newspaper after the fact.

The lack of communication, either by statute or mutual respect, has also caused several occasions where board members and staff took conflicting actions due to ignorance and lack of coordina­tion.  Frequently these bodies found themselves working at cross purposes inadvertently—often in the areas as serious as fund­raising and community relations. 

On a recent occasion when Schmitz and a committee tasked with approaching some prospective contributors attempted to coordinate his efforts with the staffs of both the theater and the library (which does its own fund­raising and Schmitz did not want to approach the same prospects on behalf of the theater), communications broke down, and the coordination never occurred. 

(The proposed solicitation was therefore never mailed, which turned out to be fortunate because of another communication failure.  The letter would have been in the mail when the recent announcement by the Amherst Board to close the theater was published [see the explanation in the afterword, below].  No one on the Advisory Board knew of this impending action before the publication.  Indeed, the action had even not been recommended shortly before by an ad hoc committee formed by the director of the Library to consider the matter.)

Both men said they would serve on a new Folger board, should the closing be averted or the theater be reformed later, only if the board were given clear statutory authority and control.  Addi­tionally, they agreed that their interest in serving on a theater board came from a desire to make a contribution and to be actively involved in the operation of the theater.  Aside from some individual, private benefits, both men have a general interest in the cultural life of their community. 

Other incen­tives for serving on a board included the perquisites accorded members, such as free tickets (particularly to opening nights), inclusion in theater receptions and the availability of the theater facilities for entertainment in conjunction with a pro­duction.  (The Folger Theatre, because it is part of the Folger Library, has extensive facilities for receptions and parties. 

Several years ago, for instance, K***** held a celebration of his wife’s birthday at the Folger, with dinner served in the library before the show and a reception in the Great Hall after it.  Guests were personal friends, but also potential contributors and subscribers.)  Schmitz, who serves on several non-theater boards as well, added that he always appreciates little amenities at board meetings, such as nice surroundings, wine, or even lunch served to the members.  This adds, he said, to the feeling of substance to the board’s work.

Both K***** and Schmitz advised that careful attention be paid to selecting the skills of board members.  They recommended not concentrating solely on lawyers and businessmen, but examining what expertise the board could use to help in its work.  The Folger board has a banker, for instance, and another of Schmitz’s boards always has an architect as a member to advise on building maintenance and repairs.  Such considerations as public rela­tions, accountancy, or fundraising would be useful to a newly formed theater.

In some general advice not directly pertinent to the conduct, assembly, or motivation of a board, Schmitz and K***** both pointed out that the most important new staff member for a de­veloping theater is a strong development officer.  In both their cases, it was the development officer who was instrumental in recruiting them for the board.  Apropos of this, the men made a suggestion regarding seeking corporate funding.  (Schmitz is the head of the Washington office of a large national corporation.) 

They explained that recently most corporations have begun chan­neling their funding through corporate foundations.  These foun­dations rely on the head of the local office to recommend funding.  Anyone seeking funding from a major corporation should cultivate the local top man who has a small discretionary budget for local contributions, because the home office will not fund an applicant that has not been “sanctioned” by the local office.

[In 1986, as the consequence of a financial shake-up, Amherst College, the administering body of the Folger Shakespeare Library, withdrew financial support for the Folger Theatre Group.  To save the company, concerned D.C. citizens reincorporated it as the Shakespeare Theatre at the Folger.  

[In 1992, the troupe moved into the newly-built Lansburgh Theatre (renamed the Michael R. Klein Theatre at the Lansburgh in 2019) in the former Landsburgh’s Department Store in the revitalized shopping area in the city’s downtown.  It changed its name again and is now called the Shakespeare Theatre Company.]