Articulations

City arts funding has a way of bringing out the worst in some people. Maybe it's all the hoops through which the Cultural Contracts process requires applicants to jump; maybe it's the competition for so few bucks; maybe it's having one's work lined up and judged. Whatever it is, it routinely pushes some locals to ugly behavior. Last week saw another case: An anonymous note mailed to a handful of theatre companies and organizations accusing Teatro Humanidad Cansada (THC) of "violations of ethics and conflict of interest" in the 1997 Cultural Contract funding process and "cashing in at the expense of the rest of our Theater community." The note tries to link THC's top ranking by last year's theatre peer panel and funding increase from $9,800 to $27,000 to the presence of a THC board member on the peer panel. That panelist also comes under fire for being an employee of the City of Austin (CoA) and being married to a Cultural Contracts Division (CCD) employee, among other things. "How," the note asks, "can the theater community support and stand by this blatant abuse of conflict [of interest] and disregard for ethics for astronomical monetary gains for one organization."

The conflict of interest issue raised by the note is not without merit. THC board member Maria Rocha did serve as a peer panelist last year and did rank and recommend funding for theatre applicants. This prompted at least one group, The Public Domain, to file an appeal to the CCD. In doing so, however, what Public Domain artistic director (and sometime Chronicle critic) Robi Polgar learned is that Rocha herself took the conflict of interest issue to CoA legal staff and was advised that she need not recuse herself from the panel or any of its votes. Now, that doesn't mean city staff was right or that Rocha was right to vote, but it's hard to blame her for playing by the city's rules.

Perhaps Anonymous wasn't aware of this. Still, it doesn't excuse the racist tack that concludes the note: "Why is the Latin community allowed such impropriety? and at our expense! Double standards?" This is nothing but base bigotry, a desperate and despicable attempt to lay blame and inflame based on the color of a person's skin. To make such a charge publicly is obnoxious. To make it anonymously is doubly foul. It's chickenshit.

Naturally, THC is aware of the letter. Last Thursday, Board President Ruperto Reyes, Jr. released a statement which said in part: "Concerning the racist, cowardly, anonymous attacks on our company, we want to state that this is a distortion of the facts to create a negative impression of our company. It is a divisive tactic that is not representative of the Austin Theatre Community." Reyes believes the community to be much more supportive, and he offers thanks to the theatre community for its "wonderful, warm response" to this shameful attack. The note has done nothing to dampen THC's spirit; if anything, it has made the company feel more a part of the theatre scene than ever. The statement ends: "We look forward with excitement and enthusiasm to creating a bridge of unity with our first full season of productions...."