Dammit! So arts organizations across the country are tanking due to their endowments disappearing, donors hesitating to contribute until the economy improves, and slowing ticket sales. But word on the street was that well-run orgs could weather this as long as things didn't get too much worse. However, I've learned that even my "well-run, well-respected" org is looking at taking serious measures too.
In short, senior staff may have to choose between their programs and their staff. If they want to keep their programs, then they have to look at which staff members to cut. If they want to keep their staff, they have to choose which programs to cut back on. This isn't happening just yet, but it's on everyone's minds in case things don't improve.
It's a terrible choice (and admittedly not as black-and-white as I'm making it sound). It was interesting to observe that my knee-jerk reaction is to save programs first and foremost, because those programs are serving thousands of people. The programs are having the greatest impact, and that's why we all go into the arts, isn't it? But that would mean having to select which positions to eliminate or staff to lay off. How can you do that when you really like everyone you're working with and the work they do? We don't really have any slackers on staff -- most everyone is working full steam and with efficiency.
In reality, it'll probably be a combination of the two. Hopefully we can cut back on programs so that their essence is still there but enough that we save a good chunk of funds. And if someone leaves, then we just don't rehire right away. That's most likely what's going to happen, but it's still startling to hear the phrase "Your Programs or Your Staff." Oy.
