Nonprofit Arts and Sin Sources: What’s Your Tolerance Limit for Evil?

There has been some discussion already about the wholesale energy it takes to placate some donors to your nonprofit organization. As a constant reminder about who has money and who needs money, some donors take it upon themselves to dominate the development machine in your midst. In arts organizations, it creates an environment that excavates Grand Canyon-esque cultural chasms among all departments: marketing, artistic production, education, etc.

When a contribution arrives without expectation of anything (except effective, impactful work, of course), that donor provides positive energy to the organization, giving it confidence that it is performing its intended duties. These donors are gladly stewarded toward higher levels of participation, but not with pressure or conditions.

But when donors require stewardship – due to insistent input on the inner workings of the organization, unspoken (or sometimes, spoken) threats of withholding financial support, or continual adamant requirements to be thanked or recognized at every possible opportunity – the organization is drained of its energy.

Now, add to that extortion plot a series of donations that fall into the murky area of “sin sources.” Sin sources, for these purposes, refers to people or companies that use donations to clean their poor public image. Much energy is expended by nonprofits – especially arts organizations with no real societal impact aside from the production of art and the employment of artists – on which contributions are unacceptable. At any price, of course.

Who knows? Maybe there are arts organizations willing to change the name of their venue to the Adolf Hitler Theatre Center for the right price. Unlikely, but never underestimate greed borne of scarcity.

Chances are, of course, that there are not. For the purposes of the argument, let’s assume that there is no arts organization in the United States that would change its venue’s name to the Adolf Hitler Theatre Center.

What about the Harvey Weinstein Theatre Center? Given all of his work toward the creation of great cinematic art, that might be considered acceptable, right? After all, he produced the Best Picture winning Shakespeare in Love. And culturally iconic movies Good Will Hunting, Pulp Fiction, and The Lord of the Rings. Does it matter that he is a sexual predator convicted in New York of rape and is serving 23 years in prison? Or that he’s about to be extradited to California to face more sexual assault charges – 4 counts of forcible rape, 4 counts of forcible oral copulation, 2 counts of sexual battery by restraint, and 1 count of sexual penetration by use of force? Maybe it does. But if his estate managed to send you a hundred-million-dollar check on the condition of renaming your venue, would you cash it? Is that your price?

Would your nonprofit arts organization would change its venue’s name to the Jeff Bezos Theatre Center? After all, he has donated a goodly amount of his wealth to his foundation. And the foundation has given some of his money to schools and colleges across the country. But would you celebrate the man himself? Regardless of the fact that Bezos has paid little to no taxes for years? Regardless of the brutal working conditions to which he subjects his warehouse employees? He’s not a criminal, as far as we know. He’s merely a horrible person. His company, like Walmart, has doomed thousands of small brick-and-mortar businesses to failure, causing downtown streets across the country to be filled with FOR LEASE signs. Only those who choose to sell their products as third-party sellers on Amazon – often in competition with the price dumping practices of Amazon itself – are still in business. But if he (not his foundation) gave you the same hundred-million-dollar check, would you cash it? Is that your price?

What if your newly-minted social justice program is there to expose, attack, and fight bad acts caused by companies like Amazon? Or that your #metoo art on stage or on the walls would be ideologically discordant with a gift from Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Gaetz, or any of Jeffrey Epstein’s clientele (such as, reportedly, Bill Gates)?

Executive directors, influenced heavily (and with spoken or unspoken ultimatums by) board chairs, development officers, and a rising stack of bills, stand as the arbiter of tolerance in donor influence. It falls on those ED shoulders to listen to all parties involved with potential gifts and draw a line in the murky swamp of sin sources.

But where is the line between principle and pragmatism? Australian publication ArtsHub recently tackled the subject:

Being pragmatic — and accepting the money for immediate benefit — may not be wise in the long term. The brand of the arts organisation could from thereon be associated with the sponsor, which can cause long-term damage to the arts organisation — especially when there is a belief (founded or not) the sponsor can compromise the integrity of the arts organisation. The size of the sponsorship can also often be relatively small in comparison to the overall cost of mounting the event. The price of turning off artists and audiences may be a poor exchange. (Richard Watts, July 2, 2021)

Major offenders are easy targets as sin sources. Your own current donors are quite another.

Do you have a board member or donor (or both) who exacts an extraordinary amount of your energy? Whether they feel entitled, they’ve been treated as royalty in the past (and now expect it), or are just plain bullies, you know which donors require stewardship. They make organizational decisions unilaterally, simply because they have succeeded in cowing the other board members into submission. Or they blackmail your organization into spending time, money, and resources on activities that have nothing to do with your mission, using their own donation as that money on a fishhook.

But they love your organization, or so they say. Perhaps they love the adulation. Perhaps they would love that adulation regardless of its source. Perhaps they love the power.

Let’s say they have a meaningful relationship with opera and your company is the local opera company. They love and want to support the continued production of opera. They may feel as though they are allowed to be a flea in the ear of the general director, making sure their favorites are always on the schedule, regardless of their relationship with the opera company’s social mission. And finally, let’s say those favorites always include a white cast, supers, musicians, and artistic team (even if – and often, especially if – that team is from another country). What’s the harm in doing another production of Madame Butterfly with another terrific white soprano in yellowface?

See where this is going? Now, let’s make their bad behavior less obvious. What if their named room at the opera house only admits those in their club? What if other paying customers are kept out, treated condescendingly as unwashed riff-raff? At what point does an exclusive perk that your organization allowed to happen become antithetical to a charitable institution?

Obviously, in the hypothetical, answers are clearer than in real life. But those sin source donors exist within your organization. They’re likely on your board. They’re killing your operation with dirty money. And you have to choose what to do about that, not only for your organization’s good works (if there are any), but for you.

There are no showers long enough or effective enough to clean the stench of dirty money from a sin source. Step in that muck once and it will stick to your reputation forever.

=============================================================

Alan Harrison has worked for arts organizations for over 25 years. Email him at [email protected].