"art pharts" "art pharts" "art pharts"

Remember--THE ARTS COUNCIL OF GREATER KANSAS CITY- they are not elected by the people of Kansas City, the are just another non profit put together by "Key People" How do they get things on the ballot?? How do they get taxes worth millions of dollars on the ballot??

By twisting arms and making deals--not by using the petition process which is the way us non "key people" have to submit ideas to a vote of the people.

Remember-- when the next big deal shows up on the ballot. They are self appointed!! They vote themselves into a non profit, a non profit which they control.

Remember they are self appointed-- they are to be the recipents of the next Million dollar tax proposal.

Self appointed, self perpetuating, self serving, fur coat functionaries, who on occasion will stoup low enough to tell you what "you" need and then try to take your tax money.

Taxes they will use, to provide things for themselves, which we can not afford to participate in. That's the Arts Council of Greater Kansas City.

"arts pharts" "arts pharts" "arts pharts"

A little deeper look at the ARTS part of BI-STATE.
are they telling the truth or just ignoring some facts?

The Nelson Gallery last year had 38,792 contacts with students, 1077 teachers in classes and 6689 teacher contacts through seminars and conference services.


In Kansas City Missouri School District the Total number of Elementary students enrolled in Kindergarten thru the Grade 5 is 15,500 students.

They have art and music for an hour every week they are in school by state requirement

That is approximately 80 hrs. of arts encounters per year per elementary student


Mr. Carlsen of the Johnson County Community College at the Bi-State Kickoff Ralley said that 16,000 children attended a music event.at JCCC. He would like to see more of those things available.

The Kansas City Mo. School district has 31,000 student encounters with art EACH WEEK at just the elementary school level. That's 248,000 contacts per year just in the KCMO School District, just among elementary school students.

TheKansas City Missouri School District spent $11.6 Million on Visual Art, Music, and Theatre last fiscal year ending June 30 2004


Actual numbers from Municipal Art Commission Director Porter Arneill at 1% for Arts Program show amounts spent not just alloted would be 2.6Million in 2002, 1.4 in 2003, 2 in 2004

In 2003 the 1% for art alloted for just the airport was $2.5 Million that's $ 1.66 per person for one art project.


According to the Kansas City Business Journal there was $44 million spent in 2000 of "non govermental" money on art. That's $24.44 per person in the Metropolitian area from private sources. Kansas City has one of he best records in the United States for private, individual, corporate and foundation funding of the arts.



Reviewing the 2004-2005 budget for Kansas City, Missouri.

Some of the expenditures using the Denver Model for the arts and culture include:


Kansas City Museum $1,239,556 p.277

American Jazz Museum $625,000 p.117

American Royal $1.900,000 p.140

Cultural Facilities $2,568,627 p.328

Kansas City Zoo $4,000,000 p.327


1% for art program 2004 est. $2,000,000

$2,504,000 - 2002

$1,430,000 - 2003

TOTAL $12,333,183


KC Budget Per person

KC Population 12,333,183 divided by 445,836 equals $27.66 per person

Metro Population 12,333,183 divided by 1,564,676 equals $7.88 per person


So from just the information in items number 1,2,3, above I guess we can easily see that Kansas City alone spends more than $1 for each resident in the metropolitan for arts and culture. Kansas City has three or four times the money spent than St. Louis or Denver!!

We need a through review of the claims that proponents of Bi-State II make.

Proponents should be honest with voters and make public the following information about arts funds:


Statements from the Recommended Guidelines for the

Arts and Cultural Share of Bi-State II


"The commission should clearly articulate guidelines for activities that are not eligible for grants from the Metropolitian Cultural Fund."

What is and what isn't art??? Can they tell us that what we like isn't art??

The new Bi-State advisory committee will act as the new taste maker for arts events. The hierarchal structure of this tax proposal will place a new group at the top of the arts funding groups in Kansas City, whose monetary power will define what art is funded in Kansas City and thus what "art" is in Kansas City.


Why is there a specific statement that "proposals funded will develop and/or deliver regional arts and cultural programs for children, youth and families" one answer may be found in the present educational crisis in Kansas. The State of Missouri requires that every child from Kindergarden through the fifth grade receive instruction from a certified art and a certified music teacher each week that they are in school.

Kansas has no such requirement. The inclusion of the educational statement is there to deflect criticism when a huge amount of the arts money goes to Kansas to public schools ie. arts in the schools programs run by college or arts organizations.

How much is spent on just arts wages in the public schools?

In Jackson county--

In Johnson County?


The statement "Organizations do not have to be physically located in the county, but their programs and services must benefit the residents of the county." will preclude the very concept of county use-- it will actually mean that Clay County funds may be spent on Johnson County programs if they are open to Clay County citizens.

Using this guideline an educational program may be developed by a "regional" arts organization and instead of applying their regional fund monies, they will "extend" the private program to Clay County if a portion of their county funds are "given " to this out of county arts organization and then Clay County is allowed to let their citizens participate. Thus the county feature is in efect bypassed.


These proposals will in essence set up a patronage system that can not escape the inevitable politicalization, which results in favoritism, collusion and thus corruption.

The primary structure of 50% for regional art, immediately defines a second heiarchy. If we are to look at the Metro Area as regional in nature, (which is the position of the Bi-States proposal) then all arts groups and all art production should be treated as regional, not just the two or three that the fur coat crowd attend. Otherwise you get a second tier that will also futher determine what "art" is in Kansas City.

According to statements on the Arts Package handout The Metropolitian Commission will make decisions --the Regional Citizens Advisory Commission and The County Citizens Advisory Commission will as their titles say advise.


 The Arts Component
or Art Hogs are headed for the trough


To keep all the hogs wanting to get to the Bi-State money trough happy, an "Arts Component" was added to the Bi-State tax. In a March 31, 2004, article, the KC Star was able to provide some details on the composition of that element. They report, "On Tuesday, arts leaders met with The Kansas City Star's editorial board and outlined a funding formula for the arts and culture portion". The "arts and culture portion" means any money not given to the Chiefs and Royals.


A major concern with Bi-State has been the total lack of information on how the money was to be spent. With no list of prospective recipients or description of their projects, Bi-State was correctly viewed as a giant slush fund. Concerned citizens were asking where the money was going. Instead of answering these concerns by listing the projects they would like to see receive Bi-State money, the arts group defines organizational structures, reserves significant sums of money for their pet projects, and sets themselves up to pass judgment on all other arts projects. Their, "We'll decide who gets how much and under what conditions" attitude is not the attitude of an advisory committee making recommendations. It is the attitude of a group eager to assume a position of complete authority, leaving the Bi-State Commission as a rubber stamp committee.


The article goes on to detail how these self appointed individuals plan to create "oversight boards," a "regional bi-state arts advisory committee," and "county bi-state arts committees." They then empower themselves to set priorities and allocate Bi-State funds. Before Bi-State is even brought to a vote, they plan to usurp the authority of the Bi-State Commission by placing themselves squarely between the arts community and the Bi-State Commission. Instead of groups applying to the Commission for BI-State money, they will have to get through this self-appointed group of people.


Under the scenarios being proposed to the public, the new job of the Bi-State Commission would be to hand half the money to the sports teams and let the arts group decide how to spend the other half. This is not how Bi-State was intended to work. By law, the power to decide where and by whom Bi-State tax money is to be spent, lies in the Bi-State Commission and that is where it should stay. No group or person should be able to control access to the Bi-State Commission. Anyone who wants to request funds should be able to apply straight to the Bi-State Commission, no matter what anyone else thinks.


from the website WWW.BI-STATE.INFO

A Strange Turn of Events, A Little History

They're singing a different song.

Initial news reports about Bi-State II used the figures of $40 million per year for a total income of $1 billion from the tax. (They apparently used the four counties of Jackson, Platte, & Clay in Missouri and Johnson County in Kansas.)


On March 25, 2004, KC Star reporter Jeffrey Spivak, was asked how he arrived at a total Bi-State II tax income of $3 billion. He replied, "The one-eighth cent original bi-state raised about $25 million a year from four counties. If the second bi-state is voted in, organizers expect the quarter-cent sales tax would raise $56 million a year initially. Projecting a 2 percent to 5 percent rate of growth, that $56 million a year would grow past $70 million a year after a dozen years, and past $100 million a year by the 25th year. That's how it had gotten to "upwards of $3 billion," which is what I reported."


After promoters of the Bi-State tax tried to sell it as a 25 year, $1 billion tax, we learn that anticipated revenues would have been three times that much. Even if the promoters made a case for $1 billion (which they haven't), failing to disclose the real estimate leaves people wondering about the motivation of the proponents. To ask for $1 billion while knowing that the expected revenue will most likely exceed $3 billion doesn't look like a small miscalculation. The public is not being told the truth about Bi-State II.


We've heard that before.

In a January 8-14, 2004 article in The Pitch, Tony Ortega reported, "And as recently as six years ago, Jackson County officials trumpeted that a $40 million bond issue &endash; pursued partly to fund new seats for Arrowhead &endash; would ensure that the county could keep up with the improvements called for in the leases." That bond now costs $3.5 million per year to service, and Jackson County executive, Katheryn Shields, indicated, "… the county simply doesn't have the cash to meet the most expensive upgrades, such as new press boxes, security offices, and locker rooms, which are due in 2007."


What's the bottom line?

Even with the state of Missouri paying $3 million/year, Jackson County paying $3.5 million/year, Kansas City paying $2 million /year, a debt service (on the $40 million bond) of $3.5 million/year, Jackson County Financial Advisor, Jack Holland, estimates a yearly shortfall of $6 million for stadium maintenance and improvements. That means taxpayers are spending $18 million per year on two stadiums that earn a total of $2.2 million/year in rent. In a move guaranteed to compound the financial problems of Jackson County, Katheryn Shields, through a "Document of Understanding", gave the team owners stadium naming rights worth over $100 million.


The bottom line is that Jackson County does not want the Bi-State II tax to bring all the surrounding counties into a regional community. They desperately need the Bi-State II tax to pay for previous financial obligations they can no longer afford.


from the website WWW.BI-STATE.INFO