Winters, R. Oakley

English

Walrond, Ribert G.

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIState Humanities Committees (1979-1982) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files II (1962-1996)1979State Humanities Committees (1979-1982):Correspondence 18Ribert G. WalrondFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files II(1962-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in State Humanities Committees (1979-1982) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationWalrond, Ribert G., "State Humanities Committees (1979-1982): Correspondence 18" (1979). State Humanities Committees(1979-1982). Paper 8.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68/8http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68/8the Missouri Committee for the Humanities. Inc. B~t~Y1<• -He Creight Vice Chcii.r Federation Executive Committee Federation of Public Program~ in the H1:!:"'c;ti.i 1:!es 15 south 5th Street, Suite 720 Minneapolis, Minn. 55402 Pec:ir Betsy, 6920 Millbrook Boulevard Saint Lou is, Missouri 63130 314-889-5940 . July 23, 1979 JUL 25 1979 The Missouri Committee for the Humanities is in fa:vor of the present funding formula based on population. We are opposed to any change w}i~ch woaj,c:J give ~ c:iuthority to judge the quality of state programs. This would in otir opinion be very-disruptive of the relationship between NEH and state humanities committees. Further it would work _to lessen the ___ _ freedom granted in the 1976 legislation. Thi;; woaj,~ be a step J;>o.cJcwO..z:d.s. We are also opposed to any formula ..ni;ch prov;de;; inc:regs~_s ti) statt?.S based upon the stc:it~ obtai~g funds from the state legislatiire or from any other source. Practically these states able to raise additional cash from non-federal sources should need less federal tax dollars not·more. We f~el that this.may also ~ea back door approa~h t~ -ttirn.ing.the committees into state agencies. On procedure, we would suggest that the Federation Executive Committee poll the membership by mail ballot before announcing a Federation position to Congress. Sincerely, /f?;.11· /({ . ..e,.iv.l!_ Robert G. Walrond 

State Humanities Committees (1979-1982): Correspondence 18

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIState Humanities Committees (1979-1982) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files II (1962-1996)1979State Humanities Committees (1979-1982):Correspondence 20R. Oakley WintersFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68This Correspondence is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files II(1962-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in State Humanities Committees (1979-1982) by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationWinters, R. Oakley, "State Humanities Committees (1979-1982): Correspondence 20" (1979). State Humanities Committees(1979-1982). Paper 6.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68/6http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_68/6---,; · .... JUL 2 6 1979 Nortlt Caroli"a Humanities Committee 1209 West Market Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27~12 • (919) 379-5325 CAoir..aft jf'an ban As..0.tant Vice Chancellor Ae;adrmic Arlain UNCGrrl"rulxrrD EIR- Mania.rd Acbni.1 Krnan ProJruor of Philo'°J>hy UNC-Chapcl Hill S,..dnry &rnwt!J Ph~~n. !"Jirw~ lamr• D .. BrrwinRtt1n, Ch~iiman Coh.uic Tribal Ikvclopml"nl Aun. Clinton Lindlf!l S. Butler HDtnrian-irt--Roidcncr Rocliiilgham Coommunity College l•\Pcntwon.h 1.A-rnr·B. FrmPer R"ir'PCI lnnil'iincc E~ccuthic n. .. ham Shirl"" T. F~ Ani.unt-to Vier CtunccllM S .C. A .t. T Stale linivcniry Amriri Hyde PhY,,icU.n, RutMrford.1on H:t.r'll"'1 E. Jolll"'1 Ot-pan.mcn1 Or HD1orr M 11n Hill . Colh-~ ll. G. Jonr•. Cu.!'DIOT !'Oonh C;:r,rolina Collrciii:rn U:'li"C Librarr, Ch.apd Hill Hrath"" Rass Millo-DiVi~iOn of Humaili1ia PlriHr-r Coll~ ~lrmory F .. Mitchrll ArchivrJo and HU.tor,. Drp:u-tn1cnt of Cv.hura.I Rrsourcn luhn F. Oa1ir•, Ch•irman brl'inm'cnt of _Oassicd Snidia Dul" Univrnirr Addison W. Rr-rd Drpanmelu nl Mwic SL A-ug\iitinr\ c.ollqi! Ronald 0. :Smilh Ac..drn1ic Dr:.n F ;lylonrvillr -S~tll' UniwnitJ V.'illi.:i.m Snidrr . .Edi1or Grtnuboro Doil7 Nrw1 MartrC" 5-nik Bruadci:&tirr, WWuin...SaJirm Alu .. Spc'an Sr. \"itt Pmidm1, Lorillard Gicin•bon>" William H .. Wqonrr Chanallflr. UNC-V."ilminwtnn Cr.a1U WiUianu Rt-1irrd, Boane Ed•·in C. Y.'i1um. Pr"vm1 Y."!llir Fornt Ul'li"'.mitT John J. Yount: DrpartJnrnt ol Philosophy Davidsori Collric Atlmi11Urrari1.11 Anisl-1: Dais-y S. B....Wnittin Wrll1r11 Pro~ra"' k1otialr: Charionr T. Ross E.ai1ir. Pra1-r4r7i A1u.ti.rdr; Allred E; Y."c-nosq Spttial Co.iu11an1: John T. Ca.ld"'·c-n £.uitari1.1• Dirrnor: R. Q.U.lry Win~n " •J'!lY 23, 1979 Mr. Steve Weiland, Executive Director Fajeration of Public Programs in the Humanities 15 South 5th Street - Suite 7 ~-0 Minneapolis,. Minnesota 55402 Dear Steve: In response to Betsy·Mccreight's memo of July 6 wliich asked for opinions concerning OMB's proposed funding fonlmuia, we in North Carolina are favorable to it--based on what we kiiow of it• Vagilar:!.!'~ in !mPleJllentation and our failure to grasp all its implications cciUld c_ance.l thi~ endorsement, of course, but we like its intent to introduce a more equitaple bt!lance between population and program funds allocated. In the absence of more objef t~ve measures of quality, a per-capita funding .ratio with lower min:i,m\Jm grants is most equitable. The resources at NEH committe_i;I to relatively _large minimum .grants serve to penalize states with large but ru;-a:i, populations, as these states not only fail to receive aii equitable share of state progr~ f!'.'om NEH, they also do not have extensive private resources (miiseinns, ga;!,_leries, universities and the like) to pull up the so-called c~ltural slack. Whereas state.program resources, regardless of ~heir size, may be negligible when compared to other ctilturai programs e:x~ant in such urban states as New York, Massachusetts, and Califoriiiii., state programs in t;h_e sout;_h~~t and the m:id~le west reflect cultural. dowries of con5iderable size. I should also l_ik_!! to the policies affecting the moni~s at NEH. -suggest two addit:l.onal changes ~ - " . in distrib\ltJon of state program l. There ·is no policy so corrupting to the image and pur-PO?e of state programs as the ''hustle factor" in the current gifts~and'-matching procedure. Limited by the restrictive $85,000 lid on their administrative budgets, iarge. states r~ceiving grants of less than $425,000 are forced to siphon off a percentage of their pr~vate gif~s to meet administrative costs. When faced with this t!'"'ptation,. few among us can resist favoring sponsors who may come bearing cash gifts for NEB-match-ing. ~~y ~~ates have invested large amounts of staff time in fund raising; this is f!-.1).e if it is consistent -... ~ Mr. Steve Weiland, Executive Di_rector July 23, 1979 --Page Two ---- ------wi.th the improvement of public programming. in the humanities. To help insure the programmatic integrity of our Committees' -fund raising efforts, -we would propose a stipulation that 100% of all gifts .presented for NEB matching be utilized as regrant monies; in turn, we propose that gifts (or portions of g:l,ft;,;) raised for unrestricted use by state committees not be eli_gible for matching by NEI:I. - - - - -2. As companion to the above, we propose that the Endowment lift the cu_rrent lim.:its on. agministratives expenses to be paid by grant. p10ni1?S· - In its place a proportional scale could be adopted to ref_lect .more a~curately .varying administrative needs of the state programs. For example: (a) States receiving $500,000 or more. !ro~ the Endowment would be held to administrative budgets of no more than 20%; (b) States receiving -$400,000 - $499,000 would have a. maximum limit of $100,000 imposed upon them for administration; (c) States receiving $300,000 or less would adhere to $85,000 maxi_DDJm for ad_ministration. We believe the above suggestions1 if implemented as policy, would help to ~liminate a potential conflict,-of-interest. evident in current G & M policies. ROW:lf cc: Maynard Adams, Chairman Sincerely yours, R. Oakley Winters Executive Director 

State Humanities Committees (1979-1982): Correspondence 20

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&amp;context=pell_neh_II_68

State Humanities Committees (1979-1982): Correspondence 20

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI

DigitalCommons@URI