The Great 1997 Arts War
By Bill James (August 18, 2001)
During 1996 the Charlotte Rep. Theatre decided to put on a play called "Angels in America, a gay fantasia on National Themes". The resulting debate and de-funding of Charlotte's local arts administration organization is now the most recognized and heated political event since the Schools Desegregation battles of the early 1970's. This summary is provided on-line along with a list of editorial cartoons from that period and a series of articles for those that wish to review this significant event in Charlotte's history.
THE CITY COUNCIL DEBATES FIRST
During 1996 various members of the Charlotte City Council objected to the taxpayer subsidy used to put this play on. Those objecting were Councilmember Tim Sellers and Councilmember Don Reid.
Since "Angels" was shown in a government owned and subsidized theatre and the production company's operations (The Charlotte Rep. Theatre) were subsidized significantly by tax dollars each year the central question was whether "taxpayers" should subsidize art that was offense to the majority. This particular play also created division in other communities as well but in Charlotte it reached mammoth proportions.
Charlotte City Council members objections to the play were numerous. Here are a few of the reasons provided at the time:
The play using the "F" word over 500 times,
Had the play been PRIVATELY funded at a private theatre, the controversy would have died there. Because the play was financed and subsidized by City and County money through a property tax contribution, everyone's tax dollars were being used to finance this pornography and this sparked and ignited the debate.
Copies of the play's dialog were passed around by the Charlotte City Council's members and also those that were running for County Commission in 1996 (There are copies in Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Public Library for people to inspect). During 1996 the City Council was asked to significantly reduce funding because of the Angels incident. This motion failed garnering only 2 votes. During the ASC's next grant allocation process (post-angels), all "affiliates" of the ASC received nice increases EXCEPT for the Charlotte Rep. Theatre - the offending "affiliate" that had caused the ruckus in the first place. This was corporate Charlotte's attempt to take the Charlotte Rep. Theatre to the woodshed for what had occured.
THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE WHITEWASH
Charlotte's local Arts and Science Council (ASC) set up a blue ribbon committee to evaluate how to avoid the public outcry raised by performing the play. The Committee's work product was essentially a corporate white-wash that said that the ASC would "follow the law" (the US and NC Constitutions) in determining how to spend the tax money it gets from the City and County. It was purposely vague on what that meant or how that would be enforced. At this time the US Supreme Court had not ruled in the Finley case (see below) and arts leaders were claiming that you couldn't establish "community standards".
Since nudity on a public stage was illegal under NC law (and still is) and since homosexual sex is a criminal act in NC and some 16 other states (NCGS 14-177) this provision in the report was seen as a way for "corporate Charlotte" to tell the public that "it would not happen again" while trying to appease national arts groups who objected to any controls. It was also designed to give cover to politicians who did not want to support "Angels" but did want to support the ASC.
In October 1996, just before the County elections and before the issuance of Blue Ribbon report, the Observer conducted a statistical poll and found that 70% of the public thought "community standards" were important. The public was unsure "how" this should be implemented and they were in favor of public funding of art but it was clear that "tolerance" for homosexuality was not favored by the public and that Angels was a bad place for arts liberals to take a stand regarding so called "censorship".
A number of the "liberal" members of this Blue Ribbon committee were upset by the references to homosexual acts as being "illegal". They attempted to waterdown the language. Even so, it was clear that the GOAL of the committee was to save the ASC not to promote or advocate for homosexual conduct (though that was the spark that started the initial Angels debate). This was the way corporate Charlotte dealt with the arts issue, talk soothingly of "diversity" and "tolerance" while quietly imposing under the table standards on arts groups who might "push the envelope".
THE 1996 COUNTY COMMISSION
During the 1996 elections very little was said about the "Angels" controversy because the report was being drafted and finalized during most of that year. At the end of the year, around the November elections, the report was presented to the Charlotte City Council and the County Commission and was accepted by both with some reservations from BOTH the left and right.
In December of 1996 the new County Commission was sworn in and included the following new members:
These three new members added to two existing conservatives, Tom Bush (r) and George Higgins (r). The Commission was controlled by the Democrat's 5 votes to 4 votes. One new Democrat (Becky Carney) was elected as well.
During the first month of office, Commissioner James introduced a proposal to insure that parents were notified before County counselors advised children on sexual matters. This proposal was initially supported by the Republicans and by Commissioner Martin who indicated he would vote for the proposal. After some arm twisting by then Chairman Parks Helms, Commissioner Martin backed down from the "Parents Rights" proposal saying that he would vote no because it "went to far". For more info on this see:
The Parents Right's proposal was the "start" of the County Commission's discussions about the issue of "Sexuality" and what was proper. The reason for Commissioner's "Parents rights" proposal was that a local taxpayer funded group MCAP (Mecklenburg Council on Adolescent Pregnancy) has issued a brochure supporting "Comprehensive Sexuality Education for Children regardless of whether their parents approved of the specifics. Since Commissioner James believes that PARENTS should made decisions about moral direction for children he asked MCAP to stop. They refused and the proposal was presented. While it was defeated on December 16, 1996 it was later incorporated into a separate Parents Rights set of rules that were adopted by the County Commission after refinement and was part of the April 1st arts resolution.
SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION AND HOYLE MARTIN
After voting down the initial "Parents Rights" proposal, Commissioner Martin promised to revisit the issue again. A Catalyst in bringing the issue of taxpayer funding for arts programs was the play "Six Degrees of Separation". Commissioner Martin (who is African-American) had discussed this play with arts and civic leaders in Charlotte expressing concerns about the portrayal of the Black lead as a homosexual. Discussions with him at the time indicated that he was offended by both the content of the play and what he viewed were "racist stereotypes" that perpetrated age-old views of Black males as sexual predators. There was one scene in which this character (in the movie played by Will Smith) had a bedroom scene with another man. This movie version of this play was passed around to various elected officials.
After repeated requests from Commissioner Martin for the ASC to fix the problem, the ASC agreed to delete the nude scene and clothe the actors.
This did not solve the problem from Commissioner Martins perspective and in March of 1997, he introduced a resolution calling for a cut off of funds to the ASC. This was the "official" start of the Great Arts War of 1997.
THE MINT MUSEUM AND THE GAY FILM FESTIVAL
At about that same time, Commissioner Martin and Commissioner James were debating the issue of the Mint Museum's sponsorship of the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. This festival took place on government subsidized property. One film "It's Elementary" was designed to indoctrinate young school children that homosexuality was "acceptable" regardless of whether their parents felt that way or not. This debate (including some letters between the CEO of the Mint and Commissioner James) was really a sub-debate on the subject of the "acceptability" of homosexuality in society and its "endorsement" by government.
LOOKING FOR COMPROMISE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES
The disclosure of Commissioner Martins resolution condemning homosexuals created a firestorm on the left and right. Pastors and business leaders picked sides. Political leaders mostly ran for cover. The debate moved to the County Commission chamber and the 5 members of the County Commission who had serious reservations about how the ASC handed out taxpayer money.
Because the Chair of the County Commission was Democrat Parks Helms - attempts at reconciliation fell to Commissioner Martin (d) and Commissioner Tom Bush (r).
Commissioner Bush called various meetings with arts and business leaders to see if a compromise could be worked out. Several of these meetings occurred and were documented in the media. Some of them were "secret" and were not documented at all. One was in Hugh McColl's office and was purported to squeeze Commissioner Bush by offering him campaign contributions if he would agree to vote NO. In that meeting were said to be Mr. McColl, Mr. Marsicano (head of the ASC), and various political types.
In the end, the business community would not agree (and they controlled the ASC through its board members) to any significant "public" changes. Privately, the business community was willing to agree that they would make sure "it didn't happen again".
At the time of the vote, the Republican Party of Mecklenburg County was meeting for its bi-annual 1997 convention. At that convention a resolution was introduced and passed overwhelmingly to support de-funding of the ASC. Here is the article from the Observer dated March 23, 1997:
The local paper (The Charlotte Observer) ran a series of stories on the issue of homosexuality. A number of the statistical polls asked about Charlotte's views of homosexuality (March & April 1997):
These were soft-ball questions but it reflected the "liberal" problem. The fact that polling data showed that Mecklenburg County did not want "tolerance" for homosexuals but did want "art" set the tone for how the rest of the debate would be handled. The head of the local arts organization was quoted in the Leader (a weekly paper) saying:
says Marsicano..... "They [the public] may be dead set against homosexuality, but 'no censorship' is of a higher value."
He was right that the public has no "tolerance" for homosexual behavior (even the Democrats on the County Commission acknowledged that - except Commissioner Scher). The public did not necessarily agree with Marsicano that controlling tax dollars was "censorship".
For a more complete discussion of "The homosexual question in public policy" clink on the link below and request the direct URL link via e-mail. (WARNING: the information on this page is NOT suitable for children and contains graphic medical data.):
Through March of 1997 the debate grew more intense. Christ Covenant Church's Senior Minister, Harry Reeder led the effort to ask that the ASC be "de-funded". He was backed by hundreds of evangelical churches representing over 50,000 people. Conversely, mainline churches in inner-city Charlotte joined with liberals to claim that the ASC should be allowed to keep their funding. Rev. Reeder's article on the subject can be found below:
At the time this was going on, NationsBank was discussing merger talks with Bank of America in San Francisco a hot-bed of liberalism and the west-coast center for homosexual activity. When the April 1, 1997 vote was taken, Charlotte's corporate community (sometimes referred to as the "uptown elite" in media articles) determined to remove those that voted to de-fund the ASC at any cost.
Some people believe that NationsBank's push to publicly repudiate the vote (and buy the 1998 elections) was a ploy to avoid having the issue damage the on-going merger discussions. A day after the vote Mr. McColl was on the front of the Observer consoling a homosexual employee who had hung his US Flag "upside down" in protest. While no one knows NationsBank's true motives, it is reasonable to conclude that their concern over San Francisco and the Bank of America deal was a factor in their public positions. What better way to defuse a situation than to promise to buy the next round of political elections?
THE VOTE
On April 1, 1997 the meeting was called to order by Parks Helms. Homosexual activists had come in the back way to the meeting chamber and taken most of the prime TV seats. There was an overflow crowd and spilled into the central atrium and even onto the 2nd floor meeting rooms. The vote was taken in the early morning hours of April 2, 1997 and was (as predicted) 5 -4.
The text of the adopted resolution is as follows (from the Charlotte Observer):
In the audience were a variety of individuals. A drag queen in a long formal dress and gloves, a lesbian and her "friend" who held her on a dog leash and others expressing their "individuality" in unique ways.
To see the Leader's paper of April 4, 1997 that outlined the vote, see:
To read Commissioner James' speech (published 2 days later in the Observer, click here:
As a result of the vote, several communities passed resolutions and debated the same issues. See article in the Leader by clicking here:
THE "PLAN" TO BUY ELECTIONS
Several days after the April 1st arts vote, NationsBank's executives and other business leaders announced that they would raise huge sums of money to insure that the 5 were removed from office. The announcement was with the "big 3" (NationsBank, First Union, Duke) and the Urban League added in for good measure to insure that the Black community didn't think that they were ganging up on a district African-American representative (Hoyle Martin).
The urban league's involvement quickly evaporated because they were a tax-exempt organization precluded from participating in political activities.
Commissioner James said to the Observer at that time (April 9, 1997):
``It will be interesting to see if in the name of democracy, the NationsBank et al contingent tries to buy elections,'' said Republican commissioner Bill James, who voted for the resolution.
As a result of over-reaction by these business leaders and their brazen attempt to buy political seats, NationsBank lost several significant depositors who objected to their involvement in the political process (Reported in the Business Journal and by Commissioner James in discussions with Joe Martin). News of the event (and of the plan to buy elections) reverberated around the Country and was in every significant media outlet. Commissioner James was interviewed on National Public Radio, The Los Angles Times and others. In San Francisco, some writers wondered if this was really a good idea, having wealthy individuals dictate who leads a democratic society.
THE COUP THAT ROCKED UPTOWN CHARLOTTE
As 1997 wore on, Charlotte's business and elite went into a frenzy calling the County Commissioners names (they were the "Gang of 5") and vowing revenge at all cost.
Since filing for County Commission seats did not open until January 1998 they were busy making plans for their victory celebration.
In December of 1997, Hugh McColl the chairman of NationsBank attended the County Commission meeting to watch his associate, Joe Martin (brother of the former Governor of North Carolina) receive the "Order of the Hornet".
Unknown to these business titans, Commissioner Joel Carter had previously visited the home of Commissioner Martin to discuss replacing Parks Helms as Chairman. An election is routinely held each year at their first meeting in December.
Chairman Helms had further angered Commissioner Martin (a fellow Democrat) by encouraging a homosexual activist (Andrew Reyes) to run against him in his planned at-large bid on the Democratic ticket. Helms was also said to be behind the abortive attempt to get the Urban League involved to take "race" out of the equation in kicking Commissioner Martin out of office. When Commissioner Martin heard about this plot and attempts by Mr. Helms to discredit him within the Black community he determined to support Tom Bush as Chairman.
The entire process was keep "secret". No one said a thing. The stage was set. Hugh McColl was in the audience. Joe Martin near the dais to give his speech and to "thank Chairman Helms".
The vote was taken and - BAMMM! - Helms was out - Bush was in - a recess was called and the Democrats were hot-hot-hot. It was hilarious.
At this meeting, Hugh McColl left mad and was overheard saying:
"Stiffens my resolve" (December 4, 1997 Observer)
Stiff or not - his resolve was just another profound embarrassment that Charlotte's elite did not "totally" control the political landscape as they once had. They days where a few "white guys from Myers Park Presbyterian" ran Charlotte were over.
This was reflected in a Raleigh News and Observer article as well. See:
And it was also reflected in a April 23, 1997 Wall Street Journal article talking about how Charlotte's power brokers had lost their power. See
Hoyle received the lion's share of the "blame" from Democrats who were upset about the "coup" as can be seen in this cartoon. As a result of the Coup, Democrats met with the then elections Director Culp (a party loyalist) to plot their revenge. Part of that plot was to get Bill Culp to use the elections office as a tool of the Democratic Party which he did until challenged by Commissioner Carter and myself. Later Culp was found to be a crook and was sent to "club fed" in disgrace. One of Culp's accomplishments was to set up the process of stopping Hoyle Martin's independent write-in campaign. Culp succeeded in disallowing the signatures of thousands of voters who had signed Martin's petition drive to appear on the 1998 ballot as a independent. See the following link for this part of the scandal:
.
THE ELITE ATTEMPT TO BUY THE 1998 ELECTIONS
After the vote and the "Coup", leaders of NationsBank (now Bank of America), First Union (now Wachovia), and Duke Energy vowed to raise money and remove from office those voting for the motion. In total they raised over $350,000 to defeat the "Gang of 5". The money raised was funneled through a new political action committee called the ABC. It skirted campaign laws and stayed legal by laundering money between PAC's. For example, Commissioner James' opponent raised around $60,000. Of that, most were in the form of $4,000 checks (the maximum allowed by law). His opponent received a $4,000 check from the NationsBank PAC, a $4,000 check from the First Union PAC, a $4,000 check from Hugh McColl personally, a $4,000 check from Ed Crutchfield personally and a $4,000 check from the ABC (which got its money of course from the aforementioned companies as well). A nice tidy money laundering operation that was completely legitimate.
As in 1997, Commissioner James was asked about these large sums of money and money laundering two weeks before the May elections saying (April 18, 1998 Charlotte Observer):
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.'
THE ELECTIONS ARE NOT WHAT THEY HOPED FOR
The May 1998 Primaries were not what Charlotte's elite had hoped for. Only "one" of the individuals who voted against the ASC had lost, though all had been significantly targeted with large war-chests. James was challenged by a Democrat turn Republican liberal Lutheran ex-minister. Carter was challenged by a former County Commissioner from his area, Bush by an arts professor. Higgins (whose district included uptown) was the only one to actually "lose" and he lost to a guy who claimed he wasn't actually running "against Higgins" but said he was running because Higgins had said he wasn't going to run.
(Commissioner Joel Carter and Commissioner Bill James "slapping hands" after their primary victory in May of 1998 at the Grady Cole Center in Charlotte - On the cover of the Charlotte Observer)
Turnout was around 15% - average for a May primary but not explosively high and evidence that the public was not as worried about the issue as Mr. McColl and other business leaders had indicated.
THE US SUPREME COURT SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN USE DECENCY
One month
after the May 1998 Primary victories, the US Supreme Court ruled that
government did have the right to define decency standards. The case involved the
US Government's attempt to stop smut like the Mapplethorpe exhibits and
others. The arts community reacted with both dismay and alarm but some
(including the ASC's chief) said that it was "still unclear" whether
government can say what is done with taxpayer dollars. The following is directly
from Federal law regarding arts grants which was upheld by the US Supreme Court
in NEA V Finley (No. 97-371. Argued March 31, 1998 -
Decided June 25, 1998)
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 1, 1994]
[CITE: 20USC954]
TITLE 20--EDUCATIONCHAPTER 26--SUPPORT AND SCHOLARSHIP IN HUMANITIES AND ARTS; MUSEUM SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER I--NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Sec. 954. National Endowment for the Arts(d) Application for payment; regulations and procedures
No payment shall be made under this section except upon application
therefor which is submitted to the National Endowment for the Arts in
accordance with regulations issued and procedures established by the
Chairperson. In establishing such regulations and procedures, the
Chairperson shall ensure that--
(1) artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by
which applications are judged, taking into consideration general
standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values
of the American public; and
(2) applications are consistent with the purposes of this
section. Such regulations and procedures shall clearly indicate that
obscenity is without artistic merit, is not protected speech, and
shall not be funded. Projects, productions, workshops, and programs
that are determined to be obscene are prohibited from receiving
financial assistance under this subchapter from the National
Endowment for the Arts.
The disapproval or approval of an application by the Chairperson shall
not be construed to mean, and shall not be considered as evidence that,
the project, production, workshop, or program for which the applicant
requested financial assistance is or is not obscene.
THE ASC POLICE CLEAN UP THEIR OWN HOUSE
While the business community was relived that in the General election all but one of the former commissioners were gone (for reasons unrelated to arts or that vote), they took upon themselves to clean up their own house and in Charlotte fashion, do so, quietly. Of course, the ASC does not want to "admit" that it is self-censoring its productions or telling its "affiliates" what they can or can not do - they are. Their application forms REQUIRE that the affiliate notify the ASC regarding any violations of law or controversial matters (a slap at the Charlotte Rep. Theatre).
Over the last several years the ASC (Corporate Charlotte) has "self-censored" the art it produced in the following ways since the April 1st 1997 vote:
|
|