Billjames.Org: Charlotte's 1997 arts war

June 26, 1998
Section: MAIN NEWS
Edition: ONE-2
Page: 4A
Memo: Shorter version ran in edition 3.

ARTS FUNDING DECENCY STANDARD REINSTATED
CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press * Contributor(s): Staff
writer TONY BROWN and The Observer's Washington Bureau contributed to
this article.

The government need not subsidize art it considers indecent, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, restoring a law that requires public values to be considered when handing out grants.

The 8-1 decision was praised as a blow for decency by some who had criticized the National Endowment for the Arts for giving money to several high-profile artists whose work was considered offensive. Others said the ruling could chill creativity on the edges of the cultural mainstream.

The decision is reverberating in Charlotte, where public funding for arts has been at the center of local government debate for the past two years.

The law using a decency standard as one criterion for grants ``neither inherently interferes with First Amendment rights nor violates constitutional vagueness principles,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

``So long as legislation does not infringe on other constitutionally protected rights, Congress has wide latitude to set spending priorities,'' she said. ``Congress may selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest.''

The endowment welcomed the ruling while saying it will have no practical effect on daily operations. The NEA has been largely prohibited from giving grants to individual artists except in music. It was allotted $81 million this year to use as grants for projects and organizations.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., was less circumspect. ``Today the Supreme Court validated the right of the American people to not pay for art that offends their sensibilities,'' he said.

David Cole, lawyer for the artists who challenged the NEA, said the justices were wrong in ``closing their eyes to the real-world chilling effect'' of the law.

But he took some comfort in O'Connor's suggestion that if the endowment used its discretion to penalize ``disfavored viewpoints,'' that would be a different case.

Lower courts had struck down the law, saying it was too vague and violated artists' free-speech rights. Justice David Souter, the only dissenter, agreed the law is ``substantially overbroad and carries with it a significant power to chill artistic production and display.''

The majority said the grants process is not so heavy-handed as to be unconstitutional and does not forbid public financing of controversial art. Instead, O'Connor wrote, it ``admonishes the NEA merely to take decency and respect' into consideration.''

In Charlotte, both sides of a debate about public funding for the arts found elements of the decision to cheer.

On April 1, 1997, a five-member majority of the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners voted to withhold $2.5 million in annual funds to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council because one of the council's grant recipients, Charlotte Repertory Theatre, staged a play the commissioners objected to. The play, the Pulitzer Prize-winning ``Angels in America,'' dealt openly with gay themes and issues.

``I just feel like it just totally vindicates the "gang of five",'' said Republican county commissioner Bill James, who voted not to fund the arts council. ``This is a slap in the face of the Arts & Science Council, the arts community and liberals.''

James said he hopes to use the court's decision to enhance his arguments if another controversial work - or ``smutty art'' - is performed in Charlotte.

Those on the other side of the local debate, however, said the majority opinion emphasized that the federal law in question does not use decency as a litmus test for grants to artists and arts organizations, and that a decency test might be unconstitutional if it precludes funding for art of a particular point of view.

Instead, the federal law uses decency as ``a consideration'' along with many others, including artistic merit. Supporters of Charlotte's arts council says the council already applies a consideration about whether a work of art might violate decency laws.

They also said that the local arts council applies the decency consideration in the same way the NEA does. In both cases, there is no definition of what is decent. Instead, diverse panels of citizens and artists consider grant requests on a case-by-case basis.

``A full reading of the Supreme Court decision supports the volunteer-citizen grant-making processes, procedures and principles of the Arts & Science Council,'' arts council President Michael Marsicano said.

On the next-to-last day of their term, the justices also:

* Ruled that people who have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but do not exhibit symptoms, are protected by federal law barring discrimination against people with disabilities. The 5-4 decision, hailed by gay rights groups and advocates for the disabled, brings hundreds of thousands more people under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

* Voted 7-2 that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply if a person fears prosecution in a foreign country. The case involves a suspected World War II Nazi collaborator.

May 6, 1998
Section: MAIN NEWS
Edition: THREE
Page: 1A
Memo: Your Vote '98 * A shornter version of this story also ran on page 1A in editions 1-2.

ONLY ONE ON MECKLENBURG BOARD LOSES SEAT
MARY ELIZABETH DeANGELIS and DAN CHAPMAN, Staff Writers *
Contributor(s): Staff Writers TONY BROWN, LEIGH DYER, ANNA GRIFFIN and
BRUCE HENDERSON contributed to this article.

One of Mecklenburg County's most expensive and bitterly contested races ended with a low-turnout whimper Tuesday when only one conservative Republican incumbent, George Higgins, was defeated.

A voter turnout of 16 percent decided key races in Districts 1 and 6, where incumbents Joel Carter and Bill James held on to their seats by just a few hundred votes each.

But Higgins' loss to former City Council member Tom Cox adds a more moderate political tone to the county board. Cox's primary victory in the heavily Republican district gives him the advantage in November.

And incumbent Hoyle Martin's uphill battle to win as an independent means the board will likely dwell less on the morality issues that preoccupied them last year.

They'll likely stick to schools, transportation and growth issues.

``The first issue, assuming I am elected in November, is to build a board that works together,'' said Cox, who faces Democrat Andrew Reyes in the Nov. 3 election. ``We can disagree, but let's not be personal about it.''

But James and Carter weren't quite ready to put their bruising re-election battles behind them.

``People are sick and tired of the rich, uptown interests attempting to buy off what we're trying to do,'' said a defiant Joel Carter, who defeated Edna Chirico in District 1 by 523 votes. ``This election is about money and power. The arts were just a vehicle they used in a divisive manner.''

Chirico said low turnout caused her defeat.

``The economy is good, and I think people just weren't aware of what is going on,'' she said.

In District 6, James defeated David Misenheimer by 443 votes.

If voters were unhappy, ``they would've shown up, wouldn't they have?'' James asked. ``(NationsBank CEO) Hugh McColl and the elites have been thoroughly spanked on their bare behinds.''

Misenheimer had a different spin.

``We did every effort we could do, but we couldn't get the voters out,'' Misenheimer said. ``There is a lot of voter apathy, complacency. I guess we misjudged the mood.''

The story was different in the county's southeast Charlotte District 5, which is home to some of the area's wealthiest and its most powerful business leaders.

There, voter turnout was at its highest - 26 percent. It's also the district where candidates raised more than $125,000, and, in a rare move, turned to television to get their messages out.

Cox, recruited by moderate business leaders, defeated incumbent Higgins by more than 3,000 votes in District 5.

In the at-large Republican primary, commissioners Chairman Tom Bush racked up the most votes, followed by political newcomers Tom Vance and Steve P. Helms.

They face Democratic incumbents Becky Carney and Parks Helms as well as former commissioner Jim Richardson.

In District 2, political newcomer Norman Mitchell barely bested Richard McElrath in the Democratic primary. The winner faces C. Morgan Edwards in November.

Democrat Lloyd Scher held on to his seat in District 4, handily withstanding two challengers.

Most vulnerable this fall is Hoyle Martin, a former Democrat who angered many in his party last year with public statements decrying homosexuals. He then changed his registration to unaffiliated and now needs 16,000 signatures to get on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Tuesday's primary was one of the most high-stakes local races in recent history and became a measure of the split between the social conservative and moderate wings of the Republican Party.

Commissioners gained national attention last year after five of them voted to cut arts funding because of objections to gay characters and themes in the Charlotte Repertory Theatre's production of the Pulitzer Prize-winning play ``Angels In America: A Gay Fantasia.''

That led to one of the most bitter divides in county politics, pitting social conservatives opposed to homosexuality against moderates who said government should stay out of morality debates.

The arts controversy led leaders of some of the city's biggest businesses, including NationsBank and First Union, to pour thousands of dollars into unseating Carter, Higgins, James, Bush and Martin.

April 18, 1998
Section: METRO
Edition: ONE-3
Page: 1C
Memo: An info boxes appears at end of text. Info box, ``BIG CONTRIBUTORS,'' not in database; please see microfilm on page 4C..

PAC MONEY FLOWS IN COUNTY PRIMARY
MARY ELIZABETH DeANGELIS, Staff Writer * Staff writer JIM
MORRILL contributed to this article.

Two of Charlotte's biggest corporate political action committees and many leading executives are pouring money into defeating Mecklenburg County commissioners who cut arts funding and started a community debate about homosexuality.

NationsBank's PAC gave $12,000 to three Republicans challenging incumbents in district primaries. First Union's PAC and Chief Executive Ed Crutchfield gave $10,000 to those same challengers.

The bank PACs are supporting challengers Edna Chirico, Tom Cox and David Misenheimer.

Chirico is running against commissioner Joel Carter in north Mecklenburg's District 1. Cox is challenging George Higgins in southeast District 5. Misenheimer faces Bill James in southeast District 6.

NationsBank's PAC also gave money to three Republicans challenging commissioners Chairman Tom Bush.

``It tells everybody what we already know, which is that NationsBank is trying to buy elections,'' James said. ``I have no intention of letting Mecklenburg County become a wholly owned subsidiary of NationsBank - I think that's bad for democracy.'

This campaign represents one of the biggest efforts by corporate leaders to unseat elected officials in Mecklenburg history.

``The PAC's responsibility is to support candidates that we think are best for Mecklenburg County government,'' said Peter Keber, a NationsBank executive and former Republican commissioner.

The movement started last April when James, Higgins, Carter and Bush joined Democrat Hoyle Martin in voting to cut funding to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council.

The controversy stemmed from a Charlotte Repertory Theatre production of the Pulitzer Prize-winning ``Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.'' Charlotte Rep is partly funded by the arts council.

The funding cut and underlying morality debate about homosexuality angered many business and civic leaders, who said the vote tarnished Mecklenburg's image as a progressive community.

Commissioners who cut funding said they were looking out for residents who didn't want their tax money going toward art or plays they found offensive.

``Everyone makes a serious mistake if they're going to hold these commissioners - who have given a tremendous amount of their time - and go after them because of one vote,'' Bush said.

Bush said he's never received money from NationsBank's PAC.

``The NationsBank political PAC . . . has come to the conclusion that they want to support someone else,'' Bush said. ``That's their prerogative.''

Besides the banks, others seeking to change the board include developer Johnny Harris, who recently invited business leaders to oppose Carter, Higgins and James in the primary.

``We are writing to express our concern about the divisive actions and harsh rhetoric occurring on the Mecklenburg County Commission,'' Harris said in a letter. ``We feel this behavior, left unchallenged, could cause serious damage to the positive economic growth we all benefit from in this community.''

Other business leaders giving money to one or all the Republican challengers include investor Charlie Shelton, University Research Park President Rusty Goode, attorney Russell Robinson, Coltec CEO John Guffey Jr., and former First Union CEO C.C. Cameron.

Keber says the effort wasn't coordinated.

``Our PAC acts independently of anybody else,'' he said.

The spending by business interests has helped raise the cost of some campaigns. In the District 5 Republican primary, for example, Tom Cox and George Higgins have raised a total of nearly $85,000.

Candidates don't have to report who gave contributions of less than $100. Chirico says some of her smaller contributors are small-business owners and residents of her district who work for big companies.

``If you take a look at other people who have contributed, it's pretty diverse,'' she said.

Reach Mary Elizabeth DeAngelis at (704) 358-5239 or marye1 at charlotte.com .

March 29, 1997
Section: MAIN NEWS
Edition: ONE-3
Page: 1A

ARTS FUNDING POLL: KEEP POLITICS OUT
TONY BROWN and JIM MORRILL, Staff Writers

Most Mecklenburg County residents believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but just as many say it's OK for plays depicting gays and lesbians to get public dollars.

And even more say citizen-review panels - not elected officials - should decide which arts groups get public money, according to an Observer poll of 404 county residents conducted this week.

Five of the nine Mecklenburg County commissioners have said they support a resolution taking $2.5 million of county money away from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council. Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the issue Tuesday.

If the resolution passes, commissioners would vote on annual funding requests from dozens of arts organizations. The resolution would deny county money to art agencies that ``promote, advocate or endorse behaviors, lifestyles and values that seek to undermine and deviate from the value and societal role of the traditional American family.''

IBM manager Phil Harmon believes homosexuality is morally wrong. But, like a majority of those polled, he doesn't want elected officials determining who gets public art money.

``I don't think that politicians should mandate morality,'' said Harmon, 50. ``It ought to be the people's choice. . . . You ought to get the politics out of selecting which art (group) to contribute to. Let the politicians decide whether you're going to contribute at all. And then let an art commission . . . receive the funds.''

Some citizens disagree.

``I'm for arts funding, if it's presentable,'' said Carrie Sloop, a retired homemaker in her 80s who has been married for 57 years. ``But we should have the right to draw the line. Homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe in it. The Bible teaches us that.''

Sloop - a Democrat and Baptist - said elected officials should control arts dollars.

The debate over arts funding arose last week when Democratic commissioner Hoyle Martin proposed cutting county money to arts groups that perform works depicting gays and lesbians. This week, Republican Tom Bush and Martin substituted the resolution that bypasses the arts council.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points, shows:

54 percent of citizens think homosexuality is ``morally wrong.''

53 percent say it is OK for arts groups to use public money to help pay for plays depicting gays and lesbians; 40 percent disagree.

If a play is clearly labeled as having homosexual content, 57 percent support public funding, while 36 percent object.

And 57 percent said publicly funded arts groups should be able to perform plays that some might find offensive, compared with 30 percent who said no.

Charlotte accountant Robert Roof, 37, said the controversy ``doesn't make sense.''

``There are many things in society today that offend me,'' said Roof, a Democrat. ``But just because they are portrayed in a play doesn't mean that we are promoting that. Homosexuality exists. AIDS exists. And I think the arts have a responsibility to portray society. . . . ``

Most support panels

Eighty-five percent of those polled think arts funding should be left up to panels of citizens and experts. (This question on the poll had a margin of error of 7.1 percentage points.) The arts council currently uses 12 grants panels made up of 122 citizens and arts experts. Of the poll respondents, 7 percent think elected officials ought to make case-by-case decisions.

That question was asked last October in a similar poll. Then, 77 percent said decisions should remain with citizen panels.

This week's poll also produced results similar to another poll conducted by The Observer last spring, during the controversy around the Pulitzer Prize-winning play ``Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.'' The play broke all local theater box office records and stirred anti-gay sentiments.

In addition to the $2.5 million from the county, the arts council also distributes $2.1 million from the City of Charlotte and $5.7 million from private sources.

One who supports arts funding is Lisa Schutt, a mother of two and part-time sales person.

``People should be able to have the choice about what they view and what they don't view,'' said Schutt, 34. The question of public funding ``is blown out of proportion.''

But the poll doesn't influence Republican county commissioner Bill James.

``It indicates to me . . . that the community is split 50-50 with a slight majority indicating that homosexuality is immoral,'' he said. ``What is more important to me is that homosexual conduct is illegal under North Carolina law. . . . And I do not believe that we should use public money to undermine the law.''

James wants to limit county funding not just to the Arts & Science Council but for other arts purposes as well.

``We need to redefine our arts mission,'' he said. ``It needs to be focusing on children's education and . . . we need to get out of the adult arts entertainment business.''

Bush: Seeking solution

The poll might influence Republican commissioner Tom Bush, who co-wrote the resolution with Martin.

``Your poll is probably accurate,'' said Bush. ``The community says that by allowing controversy to be portrayed in arts, it is kept off the streets. That's what has helped keep us able to survive 200 years.

``I have mixed emotions about what I have done. I would be more than happy to see this peacefully concluded.''

Martin could not be reached Friday for comment.

Arts council President Michael Marsicano said: ``The poll indicates that the Arts & Science Council is serving the large majority of our citizens as they would have us serve them. . . . Why are some of our elected officials continuing to ignore the voices of our citizens?''

How people look at arts funding and homosexuality often depends on whether they know gays.

One out of two people surveyed has a friend or family member who is gay.

Among that group, 44 percent believe homosexuality is morally wrong, compared with 65 percent for those who said they don't know a gay person.

And by 59 percent to 32 percent, those who know gays oppose efforts to cut funding to groups that mount productions with homosexual themes. By contrast, those who don't know any gay people are more likely to favor such funding cuts, 48 percent to 47 percent.

Opinions about public funding often vary by gender and age.

For example, 72 percent of women believe public money should be used to support the arts, compared with 59 percent of men.

And older residents are more likely to think homosexuality is morally wrong.

Both commissioners James and Joel Carter say their primary complaint against the arts council stems from last year's production of ``Angels in America'' and the upcoming ``Six Degrees of Separation.''

Carter, who backs the resolution, said he's unswayed by the poll or by letters running 20-1 against it.

``That doesn't mean squat to me,'' he said. ``That does not change my mind not one jot, not one tittle.''

Arts funding Graphic

A polling firm asked 404 adults in Mecklenburg County for their views on gays, lesbians and the arts.

Do you consider homosexuality morally wrong?

Yes 54 percent

No 34 percent

Undecided / didn't answer 12 percent

Would you end funding for arts groups that stage productions recognizing homosexuality in any manner or form?

Yes 40 percent

No 53 percent

Undecided / didn't answer 7 percent

Source: Charlotte Observer Poll March 24-26. Margin of error: 4.9 percentage points.

Public funding and the arts

Should public funds be used to help support arts and cultural organizations?

Yes 66 percent

No 23 percent

Undecided / didn't answer 11 percent

Who should decide how public money is divided among various arts groups?

Elected officials 7 percent

Arts experts and community volunteers 85 percent

Undecided / didn't answer 8 percent

(Margin of error on this question alone, 7.1 percentage points.)

If an arts presentation that gets public money is clearly labeled as having adult content, is it Ok to recognize homosexuality in some manner or form?

Parents of children under 18 Others

Yes 57 percent 61 percent 55 percent

No 36 percent 36 percent 35 percent

Undecided / didn't answer 7 percent 3 percent 10 percent

Should arts groups that receive any public funds be allowed to stage events that might be offensive to some people?

Ages 18-34 35-54 55-over

Yes 57 percent 61 58 46

No 30 percent 27 28 36

Undecided / didn't answer 13 percent 12 14 18

Do you have any friends or family members who are homosexual? Ages 18-34 35-54 55-over

Yes 50 percent 61 51 29

No 48 percent 39 45 71

Undecided / didn't answer 2 percent 0 4 0

Source: Charlotte Observer Poll March 24-26. Margin of error: 4.9 percentage points.

The poll was conducted by New Jersey-based TMR for KPC Research. It's based on 404 interviews between March 24-26. The margin of error for most questions is 4.9 percentage points. For the question about who should divide the money, the margin of error is 7.1 percentage points.

March 22, 1997
Section: MAIN NEWS
Edition: ONE-3
Page: 1A

ANTI-GAY RESOLUTION IS PROPOSED
TONY BROWN, Staff Writer * Staff writer JACK HORAN
contributed to this article.

Arts groups that perform works dealing with homosexuality and agencies that counsel students about sexual orientation could lose county money under a proposal that could divide Charlotte.

Written by Mecklenburg commissioner Hoyle Martin, the resolution accuses gays and lesbians of believing ``they have a right to recruit children for experimenting sexually.''

Martin said Friday: ``We have in this community some gay people who are taxpayers, solid American citizens, the only difference is a standard of morality. But there are some gays in the community who are over-assertive and are making unreasonable demands.''

Similar measures have caused divisiveness from Maine to Seattle. Locally, some community leaders said they fear just debating the resolution could tarnish Charlotte's image as a tolerant New South city.

Gays are angry.

``The gay and lesbian community of Charlotte is more organized than ever. We will not stand for it,'' said David Ferebee, co-chairman of N.C. Pride Political Action Committee for Lesbian and Gay Equality. ``And neither will a lot of straight Charlotteans.''

A group of five ministers has drafted a letter to other Charlotte clergy opposing the resolution. ``While there is a divergence of viewpoints concerning homosexuality, we do not support the cutting of funding,'' said the Rev. Claude Alexander, minister at University Park Baptist Church.

The resolution is expected to be on the commissioners' April 1 agenda. Passage will likely require a coalition between Martin, a Democrat, and the board's four Republicans. The proposal would cut funds for:

* ``Sponsorship, recognition, endorsement, or support of homosexuality, by private agencies . . . as expressed through the performing arts.''

* ``Counseling and advising school-age children . . . on . . . gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or trans-gender relations, by private agencies, without the written approval and presence of a parent or guardian.''

* ``Any and all activities by private agencies that promote, advocate, or endorse behaviors, lifestyles, and values that seek to undermine and deviate from the value and societal role of the traditional American family - a husband, wife, and possible off-springs.''

Martin's first target is the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council, which gets $2.5 million of its $11 million annual budget from the county.

The arts council funds Charlotte Repertory Theatre, which last spring produced the Pulitzer Prize-winning ``Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes.'' The same company will open ``Six Degrees of Separation,'' which has a gay character, April 9.

``The so-called community task force that the arts council put together over the Gays in America' controversy was a sham,'' Martin said. ``They talked about community standards but concluded in one paragraph that we don't need to write specific standards, we can go by U.S. and North Carolina constitutions.''

Michael Marsicano, president of the arts council, said: ``The Arts & Science Council supports quality performing arts programs. Some of these programs reflect current discussions in American society. It is our belief that government should support public discussion through arts programs, not seek to prevent it.''

Martin would also target such groups as Planned Parenthood and the Council on Adolescent Pregnancy. ``I don't think that government or private agencies should be taking on roles parents should be taking on.''

Directors of those agencies couldn't be reached Friday.

In December, Martin cast the swing vote that killed a proposal by Republican Bill James to eliminate funding to agencies providing information about homosexuality and other ``crimes of nature.''

He said he agreed with much of the proposal, but it went too far.

This time around, Republican commissioner Tom Bush will likely cast the deciding vote. Observers say Bush voted for James' resolution only because he knew it would not pass.

``I am an evangelical Christian, and I find no obligation in Scripture to support homosexuality by government funding,'' said Bush. ``But I can think of nothing more reprehensible to this free society than government telling its people and artists what they can or cannot place into a drama.''

Bush is also uncomfortable with the prospect of potential lawsuits. Martin admits that County Attorney Marvin Bethune advised him that much of the resolution would fall if challenged in court. Gay leaders say that's where they'll head if the resolution is adopted.

``If made into law, this resolution would create lawsuit after lawsuit,'' said Tracey Conaty of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington.

Conaty called Martin's resolution ``the most blatantly bigoted and hate-filled'' document of its kind in the country.

Charlotte Chamber President Carroll Gray declined Friday to comment on how passage could affect recruiting of industry.

He did say ``it would create a perception of our community that we are intolerant of others that have different values.''

``Charlotte has worked hard to have a progressive image,'' Gray said. ``I think this would be a negative in that regard.''

``This is a principle of having a standard of morality, particularly as relates to children,'' Martin said. ``That has to take precedence over whether we are going to lose economic business.''

Some say the resolution has already caused insult.

``I've been gay for 26 years, and I've never seen the homosexual agenda,'' Ferebee said.

``My mother, father, sister, brother-in-law, two nieces, my partner of 17 years and I - we're all going to Disney World in January . . . If Hoyle Martin would like to come along and see just how traditional we are, he's welcome.''

Martin says he did not write his proposal out of fear.

``I have studied this thing closely. I am not a homophobic. I am tired of suggestions that I am homophobic or stupid. I am not.''

Full text of the proposed resolution page 23A.

March 11, 1997
Section: METRO
Edition: THREE
Page: 1C

MEETING SEEKS ACCORD ON ARTS, HOMOSEXUALITY
TAYLOR BATTEN, Staff Writer

Mecklenburg County commissioner Tom Bush has called together some fellow commissioners and arts community leaders for a meeting this morning aimed at defusing a potentially bitter battle next month over homosexuality and public funding of the arts.

About eight community leaders will meet today seeking common ground on the tug-of-war between taxpayer accountability and freedom of expression.

``We're looking for ways to resolve this without a confrontation and without disintegrating any capability to resolve it,'' Bush said Monday.

Commissioner Hoyle Martin plans to bring a proposal to fellow commissioners on April 1 that would bar groups receiving county tax dollars from distributing or presenting information on homosexuality.

Martin has not yet revealed the exact wording of the proposal, but it could have far-reaching consequences for the Arts & Science Council and local arts groups. The council receives about 22 percent of its budget from the county. Among its affiliates is Charlotte Repertory Theater, which produced ``Angels in America'' a year ago and will open on April 9 ``Six Degrees of Separation,'' a play that portrays a homosexual character.

Bush, a Republican, is expected to be the swing vote on Hoyle's proposal. Four Democrats are expected to oppose the plan; three Republicans and Martin, a Democrat, are expected to support it. Bush has not said how he would vote, and he is being lobbied intensely by both sides.

Bush hopes today's private meeting will help all sides avoid a polarizing public debate when Martin's proposal comes up for a vote. He declined to name the participants.

``It's a meeting between key players to see if there's some way to balance that government will not provide taxpayer dollars to promote promiscuity, and at the same time not letting government interfere with free speech . . . and to allow the arts to reflect what's going on in society,'' Bush said.

At least one participant, Republican commissioner Bill James, expects little progress.

``I don't think Tom or me or Hoyle is going to be changing their mind about what we feel is right,'' said James, an outspoken opponent of county funding for any group that provides information about homosexuality. ``What we would like is to give the Arts & Science Council one last opportunity before we end up doing what we're going to do.''

Arts & Science Council President Michael Marsicano said he plans to attend today's meeting.

``It's clear there are pretty wide differences of opinion on the subject,'' he said, ``but it's encouraging that people want to talk.''

March 2, 1997
Section: ART
Edition: ONE-3
Page: 5F
Column: COMMENTARY

ARTS FUNDING COULD HANG BY A COMMISSIONER'S VOTE
TONY BROWN, Staff Writer

In the next few weeks, the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners could set into motion a chain reaction that might undermine one of Charlotte's most enviable ways of getting things done:

Our delicately balanced, public-private partnership that funds the arts and sciences, a system that has given us facilities and organizations that are far more professional than you might expect to find in a city of our size and history.

In December, commissioner Bill James introduced a proposal to eliminate county funding to any agency that provides information about homosexuality and other ``crimes of nature.''

The measure failed, with four Republicans voting for and five Democrats against. The swing vote was cast by Democrat Hoyle Martin, who said he agreed with much in the proposal but voted against it because he thought it went too far.

James vowed to come back with another, more tightly focused proposal.

Now Martin, who served for four years as a member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council board, says he is ready to introduce a new proposal that deals with homosexuality and the arts.

Martin has not said in detail what his proposal might say, but he clearly does not think that the $2.5 million the county gives to the arts council each year should be used to fund groups that ``sponsor, sanction, endorse, homosexuality.''

If Martin introduces the resolution, it is guaranteed four votes: his and those of three Republicans. The swing vote would become Tom Bush, a Republican who has begun to take more moderate positions but is still being pressured by his political allies to vote along party lines. He voted for the December resolution, but only because he knew it wouldn't pass without Martin's vote, political observers speculate.

Martin has repeatedly delayed the introduction of his resolution. But it is widely expected before April 9, when Charlotte Repertory Theatre opens ``Six Degrees of Separation,'' a play that portrays a homosexual character, based on a real incident in the 1980s.

Perhaps Martin - who obviously has deep feelings and convictions about homosexuality - is hesitating as he ponders the effects such a law could have on Charlotte.

If its effects snowballed, the resolution could cripple the corporate-government-citizen funding system that built the North Carolina Blumenthal Performing Arts Center and Discovery Place, established a $36 million arts endowment and attracted New York City Ballet stars Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux and Patricia McBride to head up N.C. Dance Theatre.

Even some arts leaders do not grasp how damaging such a law would be. Here are some examples of current shaky logic among arts and political leaders.

* Assumption: The arts council or arts group could sue the county over the law, get a temporary injunction and possibly have the law declared unconstitutional because it seeks to restrict the First Amendment rights of a certain group.

Even if such a tactic worked, the commissioners could simply cut all funding to the arts without mention of homosexuality, rendering the judicial venue moot.

* Assumption: The law would affect only groups such as Charlotte Rep and Actor's Theatre of Charlotte, groups that dare to present works with overt homosexual characters or themes. The way around the resolution would be to throw those ``cutting edge'' groups out of the arts council.

If the law uses words like ``sponsor, sanction, endorse,'' it could apply to works by homosexuals, which would make it far wider in scope.

Even if the proposal does not punish all the arts groups for the actions of one or two, the law would be open to interpretation that could affect most if not all the arts groups that receive public funds.

Take, for instance, the ballet ``The Nutcracker.'' The music was written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, a gay man. Playing the music of a homosexual, legitimizing it by performance, could be construed by some as sanctioning or endorsing the composer's lifestyle. That would endanger such ``safe'' groups as the Charlotte Symphony.

Gay artists (or artists who were believed to be gay or to have had homosexual tendencies) are legion: Aaron Copland, Michelangelo and Tennessee Williams. Would displaying or performing any of their works mean funds would be cut off?

No one has yet considered what this proposed law might mean to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library (which is funded directly by the county, not through the arts council). Its shelves are crammed with books, periodicals and historical documents that touch in one way or another on homosexuality.

* Assumption: The county's $2.5 million is less than a quarter of the arts council's funds and only a drop in the $43 million combined budgets of the organizations that receive arts council funding. Even if the county cut the entire appropriation, the arts would survive the hit.

The arts would indeed survive the initial hit, although the quality that has slowly been increasing would be affected.

More important, one of the building blocks in Charlotte's funding system would be gone, weakening the whole structure.

It is no secret that several Charlotte City Council members who want to end the $2.1 million city appropriation to the arts council are watching the county's actions closely. If the county pulls out of the arts funding business, it would make it easier for the city to justify doing so, too.

``The county's not doing its part, so why should we?''

Likewise, the corporate community - which has made public-private partnerships a way of life in Charlotte, and not just in the arts - could balk at holding up the private end of the equation if the public partners duck out.

Arts council president Michael Marsicano, who has as many sticks thrown at him by the arts groups as by city council and county commissioners, likes to compare his organization to a ship.

It has to steer a careful course, with the souls of artists to port and the money from government and corporate donors to starboard. The arts council cannot sell out the souls of the artists it supports to keep the money. But it also cannot continue to feed the souls without the money.

The proposal that may come before county commissioners in the coming weeks would force that no-win choice. Either way, the arts would lose. So would we all.

Tony Brown, The Observer's theater critic, has covered cultural affairs in Charlotte for 8-1/2 years.

December 3, 1996
Section: METRO
Edition: THREE
Page: 1C

COUNCIL STILL SPLIT OVER ARTS FUNDING
TONY BROWN, Staff Writer

The debate over city funding for the arts is likely to be heard again some time in the future, if Monday night's Charlotte City Council meeting is any barometer.

The politicians who voted to try to cut arts funding after last spring's production of ``Angels in America'' said they were disappointed that a report from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council task force doesn't guarantee that another play won't excite the same kind of debate ``Angels'' did.

``This was a missed opportunity,'' said Tim Sellers. He was one of two City Council members who voted in June to reduce city funding for the arts after Charlotte Repertory Theatre produced ``Angels,'' a Pulitzer Prize-winning play that contained a nude scene and dealt openly with homosexuality.

Many of the nine other council members who voted in June to keep arts funding at the same level hailed the task force document.

``I've seen none better'' that deals with this kind of issue, said City Council member Malachi Greene. ``I commend you.''

The report of the task force - which included artists, preachers, homemakers and corporate chiefs - does not define the ``community standards'' by which publicly funded art should be judged. Instead, it calls for the Arts Council's citizen grants panels to represent the community in the arts council's grants process.

Several members of the 27-member task force spoke to the council, most in favor of the consensus found by the task force on the complex issues of arts funding.

But two task force members used the meeting to denounce another play, ``Six Degrees of Separation,'' that will be performed in April by Charlotte Rep.

``They're doing it again,'' said Debbie Ware, a task force member who has said that public funding should be withheld from Charlotte Rep.

``Six Degrees,'' however, appears to have few of the polarizing elements of ``Angels.''

The one scene in ``Six Degrees'' that contained nudity on Broadway will be played in Charlotte with clothing, Charlotte Rep artistic director Steve Umberger has said. Unlike ``Angels,'' the script contains no on-stage simulation of sex.

And the main character's homosexuality is a side issue, not a central theme.

The film version of ``Six Degrees'' was shown in Charlotte without incident and is available at Blockbuster Video stores, a chain that does not carry X-rated videos.

October 27, 1996
Section: MAIN NEWS
Edition: ONE-3
Page: 1A
Memo: Arts polls not in data base; please see microfilm pages 1A and 10A.

WHEN IS NUDE LEWD?
TONY BROWN, Staff Writer

A majority of Mecklenburg County residents favor ``community standards'' for art that is partly funded by the public.

But they also think those standards should:

Allow nudity in publicly funded art as long as common-sense restrictions are used.

Be general guidelines to help make informed decisions instead of hard-and-fast rules.

And be acted on not by elected officials, but by panels of arts experts and community members.

These are the findings of a Charlotte Observer/WBTV poll of 609 randomly selected Mecklenburg County residents.

The questions in the poll take up the same issues now being wrestled with by a 28-member Task Force on Public Funding, put together by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council after some Charlotte City Council members tried unsuccessfully in June to cut public funding for the arts.

On Wednesday, the community-based task force is scheduled to draft the report it will make to City Council and Mecklenburg County commissioners.

The task force was assembled to address issues arising from Charlotte Repertory Theatre's production of ``Angels in America,'' which contained 10 seconds of nudity and dealt openly with homosexuality.

The poll suggests that despite the heated rhetoric surrounding ``Angels,'' most people think art that receives some public money should not be censored so long as common sense is used.

``What I'm saying is that I'm not interested in transferring some topless show to the stage and saying it is art,'' said Janet Monahan, a systems analyst who lives near SouthPark.

``But on plays like we've had recently in Charlotte, adults ought to be able to make that choice. I'm saying good taste and sensibility. The Arts & Science Council has done a good job encouraging arts groups to be more responsible.''

The poll found that an overwhelming majority - 77 percent - favors public funding for the arts. That's good news for those involved in the public-private partnership that has built cultural facilities such as the North Carolina Blumenthal Performing Arts Center and Discovery Place.

The combined budgets of Charlotte's biggest arts organizations - from the Charlotte Symphony Orchestra to the Light Factory photo gallery - is about $43 million. Approximately 82 cents of every dollar comes from private sources and ticket sales. The other 18 cents is public money. Much of the money is funneled through the arts council, which uses 150 arts experts and citizens on grants panels to decide who gets the funds.

Seventy percent of those polled said the government portion of that equation was about right or too little. An even higher percentage feels that the existing arts council grants process is preferable to having elected officials decide which arts groups get public money.

``What this survey reinforces is that people feel good about what we do,'' said Pat Phillips, a NationsBank executive who was a key architect of the plan that made the Arts & Science Council the clearinghouse for government and private donations to the arts.

``The arts council and its grants panels are already using a general set of guidelines to help determine what is appropriate for this community,'' Phillips said.

Most of the poll respondents who identified themselves as conservatives generally support arts funding and the current arts council system. But conservative politicians did not embrace the poll's findings.

The survey ``doesn't change the fact that any special-interest group that wants public funding has to be held accountable to the public,'' said City Council member Don Reid, an outspoken critic of ``Angels.'' ``If you don't want to do that, then raise your own money and do what you want to do.''

``Angels,'' a Pulitzer Prize-winning play, was produced in March and April after a judge issued an order barring police from using a state indecent-exposure law to close the play.

In June, Charlotte City Council voted 9-2 to continue public funding for the arts after some council members tried to cut the funding while citing ``Angels'' as unacceptable.

Poll results in detail

Respondents to the poll include 236 people who said they were conservative, 267 moderate and 79 liberal; 387 said they had been to an arts event in the past year and 218 had not; and 378 said they had been to a place of worship in the past week while 225 had not.

More than three-quarters of the respondents said they were in favor of government funds being spent on the arts and 17 percent objected.

Of those who opposed government involvement, many said it was a matter of priorities.

``With as many needs as we have, I think the arts could do without to help those who are truly in need,'' said Alan Fink, a retired service coordinator for AT&T who lives outside the city limits in the Newell section of northeastern Mecklenburg. ``There are other things that I think are far more essential.''

Forty-eight percent think the current amount of government funds is about right, and 22 percent think it is too little. Seven percent think it is too much, and 17 percent think government should not fund the arts at all. These figures are generally consistent across the political spectrum.

Another 70 percent favored some kind of ``community standard'' for art that receives public funding, a key issue for the arts council task force.

``I write, and I don't think anybody's thoughts should be edited,'' said Robert Lewis, an office manager for an air-conditioning contractor who lives in the suburbs and said ``it depends'' when asked if he were a liberal, moderate or conservative.

``Just because somebody writes a song about, say, rape, doesn't mean he's going to do it. It's just written about that particular topic. It's because of nuts around here trying to edit people's thoughts that I'm moving to Atlanta.''

Eight percent thought elected officials, who decide how much public money goes to the arts as a whole, should also decide how that money is divided among arts organizations.

More than three-quarters of the respondents said that decision should be made by a panel of arts experts and community members, the method currently used by the Arts & Science Council. The numbers remained generally consistent regardless of political leanings.

When asked what kind of standards should be used for public funding, 55 percent favored general guidelines that would help decision-makers do their jobs vs. 41 percent who felt written, strictly enforced standards should be used. Conservatives, churchgoers and non-arts patrons were more likely to prefer the strict standards.

The poll found that nudity in art that receives some public funding - one of the hottest issues surrounding ``Angels'' - was deemed to be OK by 64 percent of the respondents, as long as some restrictions applied, and another 14 percent thought it was acceptable without any restrictions. A majority of conservatives and churchgoers also agreed that nudity in the arts is acceptable, with restrictions.

The biggest split between conservatives and the rest of the respondents came on a question about whether North Carolina's indecent exposure law should be enforced in the case of nudity in plays.

Half of the respondents as a group - including conservatives - said the law does not apply to plays. But by themselves, only 28 percent of conservatives agreed with that. Fifty-seven percent of moderates said they thought the law should not be enforced against plays.

HOW WE DID THIS POLL

This poll is based on telephone interviews with 609 randomly selected Mecklenburg County residents, conducted Oct. 16-21 by TMR Inc. of Parsippany, N.J. Poll takers used ``random digit dialing,'' which provides each household with a telephone an equal chance of being selected, even if the telephone number is new or unpublished. Interviewers alternately selected male or female heads of households for interviews.

The maximum sampling error is plus-or-minus 4.0 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. The sampling error for subgroups (such as the responses of men vs. the responses of women) is greater because the results are based on fewer interviews.

The poll was conducted for The Charlotte Observer and WBTV (Channel 3) by KPC Research, which is owned by Knight Publishing Co., publisher of The Observer. Reporters and editors at The Observer developed the questions asked. Funding for the poll was provided through the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

May 31, 1996
Section: METRO
Edition: THREE
Page: 1C

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS ARTS MONEY CUT
DAN CHAPMAN, Staff Writer * Staff writer TAYLOR BATTEN
contributed to this article.

Furor over nudity and homosexual themes in ``Angels in America'' prompted a council member Thursday to propose slashing the city's contribution to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Arts & Science Council.

During a workshop on the city's fiscal 1997 budget, Tim Sellers suggested the city's $2.18 million allocation to the arts council be cut by $217,458. Council members will vote Monday on Seller's request. Many doubt it will pass.

The proposal ``is an outgrowth of a concern over stewardship of the public funds we allocated to the arts in the past, and it specifically relates to the judgment and the decisions of Charlotte Rep . . . which brought Angels in America' to Charlotte,'' said Sellers, a first-term Republican.

``It calls into question the propriety of use of public funds (by) the Arts & Science Council.''

``Angels,'' which was staged by the Charlotte Repertory Theatre this spring, dealt openly with AIDS and other gay and political issues. Those opposed to the play have since tried to influence future arts council decisions over what should be allowed in a theater supported with public money.

Sellers is targeting the basic arts grant of roughly $218,000 Charlotte Rep received from the Arts Council. But only about $56,000 in city money was included in all of the council's grants - $246,000 - to Charlotte Rep.

``This is not a dollars issue,'' Sellers explained. ``It's a policy issue.''

Council member Malachi Greene dismissed Sellers' recommendation.

``The arts are already starved, and we would starve them more for some extremist agenda?'' Greene wondered.

Bill Simms, arts council chairman, and Michael Marsicano, the council's president, attended the workshop but declined comment. Both, though, have tried in recent weeks to lower the heat surrounding the art-versus-public-spending debate.

``I don't believe there are six votes on the council to cut the Arts & Science Council by any amount,'' said council member Lynn Wheeler, who has mediated the dispute. ``And the Arts & Science Council has agreed to include the Christian right in grants panels, as well as arts boards. I think they bent over backwards.''

Mecklenburg commissioners will discuss the county's proposed $2.53 million budget for the Arts Council next Wednesday, as part of the county's overall fiscal 1997 budget. A final decision is expected June 18.

Commissioners also held a budget workshop Thursday. They discussed, with little fanfare, funding for ambulance service, the sheriff's department, environmental protection and other issues.

Commissioners became a bit more animated while discussing the county manager's proposal to raise their salaries $10 a week. Several complained about their workload and suggested more staffing to ease administrative duties.