Last Saturday, the board of Intiman Theatre voted unanimously to shut down the organization just one show into its 2011 season. The theater, one of Seattle’s three largest, with an annual operating budget of $4.2 million, intends to open again in 2012, but it’s not making any promises. “Everything is a question mark right now—everything,” said Susan Trapnell, who was hired by Intiman as a consultant to help the theater negotiate its crippling financial and leadership problems, and who recommended that the board vote to cease operations. Intiman needed $3 million just to “meet zero” for this fiscal year, Trapnell said, and the theater’s endowment has been spent down. After the vote, Intiman’s 36 full-time employees learned that after two weeks, their jobs would be indefinitely suspended.
The theater has been living far beyond its means, Trapnell said. Responsibility stretches back to “an accumulation of poor judgments” made over the past seven years at all levels in the organization. The problems came to wide public notice in November, when managing director Brian Colburn abruptly resigned, and the theater announced that a lack of oversight and financial responsibility—on both the managerial and board level—had sent it into a tailspin. The theater had grown in prominence under the artistic leadership of Bartlett Sher and won a Tony Award in 2006; the current artistic director is Kate Whoriskey.
Until this point, Intiman’s staff and board largely blamed the mess on former managing director Colburn, but Trapnell disagrees. “No one can point a finger,” she said, “and no one is exonerated. People want a simple answer to this problem. It would be great if someone just stole the money, and we could follow that. But this is not a simple situation.”
Rumors have been circulating that Intiman was offered a large bailout grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and that Trapnell advised the board to turn it down because (a) the grant wasn’t enough to save the theater and (b) the board would lose long-term credibility with donors if it accepted a massive gift and still had to shutter its doors.
Trapnell would not comment on the rumor specifically, but said Intiman “could’ve had a whopping gift and still not made it to the end of the year. My recommendation was that we stop, cancel the rest of the season, and not incur any further obligations.”
Trapnell, who has been working in the nonprofit arts world for over three decades and is credited with saving ACT Theatre when it faced a similar crisis in 2003, says she could sense the panic at Intiman as soon as she walked in the door. “The desperate efforts that people were going to to make it work!” she said. “The staff had been cut down to four days a week, but none of the expectations of their jobs had changed—sure, that looks good on paper to save money here or save money there, but you can’t do that to people! You’ll kill them!”
If you’ve read this far and still don’t understand how this theater fell apart, we’re in the same position. We’re trying to figure it out. 
You can’t do basic math, Brendan?
Brendan, you too have obliquely placed blame on Brian Colburn for Intiman’s woes by (a) embolding his name in your article, (b) failing to mention to your readers that Mr. Colburn was only at the theatre for two years (while at the same time quoting Ms. Trapnell stating that the problem has been growing for seven years), and (c) avoiding any mention whatsoever of Laura Penn, Intiman’s managing director for the majority of those seven years. Why isn’t she being called on the carpet for this calamity?
What is most upsetting of all regarding the implosion at the Intiman Theatre Co. is the lack of accountability and the breach of faith of public trust by the institution’s Board. More than the jobs lost, more than the plays that won’t be produced is the very real slap in the face to the donors–foundations, corporations and individual contributors, especially the subscribers. The most important element in the theatre–our audiences–have been betrayed. The Intiman Board has created yet another reason in these troubled times why theatre in general, not to mention specifically at the Playhouse, perhaps shouldn’t be supported.
Fisher Howe, a prolific and insightful writer on nonprofit organizations, has stated on numerous occasions that accountability goes to the very heart of each board member’s duties. He is the first to point out that how this accountability operates “is by no means clear or simple. Yet your first job as a board member should be to explore this concept of public trust and how it relates to you.” This is a board member’s first duty.
If a board determines their hired Artistic Director is a spendthrift, or has insufficient experience to run your regional LORT theater, then replace them with someone who is thrifty or more knowledgeable. If the Managing Director can’t provide correct budgetary figures, hire someone who can do the arithmetic. Don’t rely on Happy Meals. “The board as a whole, and its individual members are answerable for all that the organization does, and how it does it. The board therefore is the locus of accountability.” This means paying serious attention.
There was an odor of disingenuousness in some of Kim Anderson’s responses to Mr. Kiley’s questions in an interview back in February. Channeling Captain Louis Renault, Anderson came across as ‘shocked, shocked’ that the institution’s finances were in such disarray. If what the Seattle Times reported Saturday (16th) is accurate, Intiman was running deficits for the last eight years. My last contract with the Company was in 2007. Actor salaries were frozen from 2003 forward. I was specifically told by the Operating Manager each year this was due to financial issues. The production calendar shrank. “Financial issues.” Even something as mundane–yet telling–as janitorial and maintenance work languished. “Financial issues.” Yet a quick visit to Guidestar.org and a perusal of Intiman’s Form 990’s reveals a 9% raise in the salary of the Administrative Marketing Director from 2006 to 2007. (From just over $56,000 annually to just over $61,000.) I don’t begrudge anyone making a living, but I don’t appreciate being the Peter who pays Paula.
Anderson also said that an independent audit had been authorized following Colburn’s departure. Why wasn’t this action taken years before–particularly when Penn left the building? When one Managing Director leaves a nonprofit and it’s time to hire another, this is an excellent opportunity to authorize an independent audit. Finances are, after all, a basic task in any board’s responsibilities. Again, Howe: “Contracting for and approving an independent audit is a fundamental element of accountability for the board. While the staff will work closely with the auditors in making available all financial figures, the audit belongs to the board. Boards should recognize that audits are their strongest protection and most useful instrument in fulfilling their financial oversight responsibility.”
One more point.
I often mention to people that theatre artists routinely subsidize this profession through low wages. These same people often begin to roll their eyes back into their heads. Using Intiman’s Form 990 for 2007–the year of my last contract–here are some cold, hard, facts: My final contract was to perform in Wilder’s THE SKIN OF OUR TEETH. I grossed $5600 for that gig. During that same time, the aforementioned Director of Marketing grossed $9400, and the Managing Director $19,000. (No, that’s not a typo.) My salary the result of working for every Artistic Director and appearing in over 40 projects over a span of 28 years.
Which is why, in my business class at least, I tell my students if money is your primary concern and making a living is your main focus, then you need to think like Willie Sutton–don’t appear onstage at a LORT C theater such as the Intiman Theatre Co., but find work in the upper echelons of titled Administration–not all full-time employees, mind you. Just the upper levels. That’s where the money and the concerns of far too many Boards mainly reside.
Well said Larry.
During the time period described above, both the artistic director and managing directors were also making in excess of $120k each (990s, per Guidestar)
Larry, I think it needs to be know that the “Marketing Director” took over the position of “Development Director” in that time period. The Theatre, in order to cut costs, created 1 position out of 2. This is why you see a 9% increase in pay. This person was more than doubling their work load for a mere 9% increase in pay in order to help the Theatre (consider the cost of paying a new Devo director in contrast). Later, the position was returned to 2 separate positions. Please please please make sure you know all the facts before you post
@3 Not to disagree with you per se, but it’s only fair to note that the salaried, non-union marketing director you mentioned more than likely works/worked 60+ hour weeks and most definitely could have been making considerably more money doing the same work in the private sector, or even the non-profit sector outside of the arts. It’s not just the artists who are motivated by love of the arts.
Thank you, “The Unknown.”
We can only use the public information provided on Forms 990 can’t we?
2007 Form 990 (“for the 2006 calendar year, or tax year beginning 04-01-2006 and ending 03-31-2007”) clearly shows a “Director of Marketing” at $56,108
2008 Form 990 (“for the 2007 calendar year, or tax year beginning 04-01-2007 and ending 03-31-2008”) clearly shows a “Director of Marketing” at $61,221
Yet 2008 Form 990 also lists a “Director of Development”–a different person with a different name–drawing a $72,665 salary.
Further, both Forms 990 (2007 & 2008) list a “Dev Director”–a third salaried individual.
Strangely, despite what you’ve anonymously posted, the Forms 990 received from the IRS, listed on Guidestar.org and “open to public inspection” for 2007 and 2008 show three (3) separate individuals receiving salaries–a “Director of Marketing,” a “Director of Development,” and a “Dev Director”–during the period of time we’re discussing. Not one. Not two. Three.
You tell us: If the Director of Marketing saw a 9% raise in lieu of hiring a “Development Director” (to use your turn of phrase) is the information provided on Form(s) 990 incorrect?
@7 No doubt. Remember though, that $19,00 figure for the Intiman Managing Director was the gross amount made in an eight week period–the duration of my actor’s contract. Annually, that’s a salary of $123,000.
($123, 980 to be precise, according to 2008 Form 990)
I’ll leave it to others to decide if that’s fair remuneration for a 60+ hour work week.
Furthermore, I know for a fact that the Managing Director was/is a tremendous lover and supporter of the arts. This is not the issue.
@7 addendum. As for the marketing director, that individual most certainly would have earned a higher salary in the for-profit arena. Their sacrifice is not in question. While upper-level admin jobs in 501 (c) (3)’s have to compete with the for-profit world, the funds to afford this competition–and approved by the boards of these institutions come at a tremendous cost to the artists. Just as acting is meaningless without audiences, a live theater without actors is a non-sequitur.
I think that Larry has hit a good deal of the nail on the head. There is really only one way to look at this. It is an utter and complete failure at the governance level, plain and simple. Yes, Laura and Brian and Bart and Kate all have to own part of the problem, but the long-term financial stewardship (and that is the right word) of the Intiman as a public asset is THE direct responsibility of each and every board member at Intiman. Each and every board member there has the direct responsibility to know the books and demand answers because the artistic and management staff work for the board.
Judging from some of the truly idiotic statements that have come from their leadership over the past 10 months, I have to question if anyone there can use the work leadership to describe anything that the board has done.
Brendan can highlight anyone he wants to (and other commenters can speak to specific salaries all they want) but every single person named is in the direct line of sight of Intiman’s board. The board sets the pay. The board approves the budget. The board agrees to fundraise. And at the end of the day, the board is legally the only entity that bears direct blame.
Until recently, my partner was a board member of a large arts organization in town. That board spends hours and hours each month (and I am not exaggerating) working through financial forecasts, ticketing trends, market analysis, and planning meetings. There are two committees that review finances and assets, and they make MONTHLY reports to the rest of the board.
They treat the assets with the same care and concern as any business owner would because each board member saw themselves as the community’s steward of a community asset. My partner ultimately left because the bar for participation was too high, and it wasn’t solely measured by the board member’s checkbook. If you don’t know how to read a forecast or a report, you go to class with another board member or you ask a ton of questions in a staff meeting, or you should fully expect your board peers to call you out on your responsibility. If you have nothing to offer the organization, you are asked to move on.
This board simply did not know what it was doing on a very basic level of financial management. Frankly, not accepting money from the Gates foundation was the smartest thing this group has ever done, short of resigning en masse.
I’d like to ask Brendan. Who is actually still in the building if all of the staff has been let go?
Is there anyone there to complete any of the basic functions of the business? I know that they were broke, but who is actually running the place, day to day, as they try to move forward? What does that actually look like?
Candidly, I know that I am not alone among my friends who have called their credit card companies and asked for a charge reversal. I told Visa to reverse the charges and, if they follow their normal process, they’ll mail off a notice to Intiman. If no one answers it in 20 days, Visa will wipe the charges.
I don’t know how they move out of this. I’m taking my money to the ballet and to the other well established theaters in town. At least I know that they aren’t going anywhere.
Seattle as well as the State of Washington has a Management problem? I feel it may stem from wide spread rampant computer hacking to designer drugs to just too many lazy slobs who wish to fart and tell jokes.
From our Governor Sea Hag to the Columbia Tower to Microsoft to The police to the FBI the fact is “Managers” as in REAL Managers are just few and far far far far between.
Seems all that George W Bush goodness has just clotted in the nations arteries and we don’t have a drug to get that crap out?
If your a manager then fricking manage?