Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
And what would really hurt more than anything, would be the loss of several hundred living-wage jobs currently under Intiman's roof - for the administrators, technicians, designers, front-of-house staff, actors (not to mention the hundreds of other businesses that provide ancillary goods and services), yours isn't just an esoteric, abstract question: it's quite literally the difference between maintaining ones livelihood versus being thrown out onto the street.
And I can pretty much guarantee, IF Intiman does go under, those employees aren't going to be handed anything in the way of severance, or golden parachutes or what-not. It'll be fast and brutal and it's going to negatively impact EVERYONE in the community.
Some of these people are my friends, dammit, and although I've never been shy about criticizing those running the show over there, the absolute LAST thing I would ever wish on anyone working there is to suddenly NOT be.
Plus, I'm on record as maintaining that the "We aren't rich enough big enough or cultured enough to maintain three LORTs" is a facile unfounded crock of shit.
http://www.paulmullin.org/just-wrought/2…
and, Intiman has a rich board to draw upon...hopefully they can reach out to other richies to save Intiman. Steve Ballmer and Friends defeated the Income Tax...they have a lot of money to burn. Hit them up.
But if I'm not mistaken these assets represent cash-on-hand, no? $80,000 in the bank for a company with an annual operational budget in excess of $5 mm doesn't seem like much to me, particularly when you consider they don't generate much in the way of revenue during the off-season, so that $80 K has to be able to cover rent, payroll, utilities and other expenses for the roughly three months they're presumably running their season subscription renewal campaign. But, as theatre administrators will tell you, subscription sales have plummeted for many non-profits in the past decade, as patrons shift more toward single-ticket purchases, which are generally made only a few weeks (at most) prior to performance dates, and which literally wreaks havoc on the org's cash-flow, budgeting projections, etc.
And the foundation asset balance represents the total amount available in the fund, which isn't anywhere close to the amount Intiman should be able to access. The foundation is there primarily to generate interest income from the principle, which is what Intiman SHOULD be drawing on, if needed. If they're withdrawing from the principle itself, which has been rumored, that would pretty much negate any benefit from having a stabilization fund in the first place.
The fact that they are still producing shows and that they have a foundation reserve means they are not going out of business right now. They likely need to slash staff and other expenses, but they don't look like they are on the brink of closing.
Additionally, while the Foundation took in three times the amount of contributions, grants & investment income in FY 2008 ($1,122,780 from May '08 through April '09, which is the period covered in the return I'm looking at) as they did in the previous FY ($347,308), they also withdrew from the fund nearly eight and a-half times as much as the previous FY ($573,000 versus $68,059 respectively). That CAN'T be good either, can it?
And I don't suppose it needs pointing out these numbers are now more than a year and a half old (hence it being filed as a 2008 return; which curiously Colburn apparently didn't submit until February 2010). Who knows what's occurred in the intervening 18 months? Do you?
So, unless you have access to information the rest of us don't, I don't think I'm going to be comforted - much as I wish I could be - by your assessment.