Washington Pavilion

Okay, I was off by one month, so sue me

l3wis December 10, 2009 9Comments

As I predicted in April of 2008 when Pavilion CEO Gary Wood was hired I gave him 16 months to turn things around;

Once the new CEO, Gary Allan Wood takes over, give him 16 months to produce a 180 in the building, if he cannot acheive that, terminate the management company’s contract, and start over.

So what happened?

Wood confirms to STORMLAND News that he has resigned as the CEO of the Washington Pavilion. He said it was his own decision and that he is excited about a lot of new opportunities that have come his way.

And the fact that he got tired of the board of directors having him by the balls.

Wood declined to say what opportunities he has been offered, but he says he will talk about his decision in more detail Friday.

I guess it takes a day or so to come up with the proper lie to tell the public. As I have said in the past, I hear a lot of silly rumors that I never post about. Someone tipped me off about this about a month ago, they said, “From what I hear, Wood and the Board of Directors are not seeing eye to eye and it is causing major tension.” Which didn’t surprise me, but it really wasn’t something I could say much about until now.

Of course, the Board of Directors kind of candy coats the resignation by not answering why he left;

“Gary came with some wonderful experience and knowledge of the arts, and he’s done some good things for us, and we’ve been pleased,” Pay said Thursday night.

“But we’ve reached a point this year – a horrible year for all arts organizations – where we’re scrambling to find out what it is we need to be going to prepare ourselves for this economic climate in the new year,” she said.

Okay, so why did he leave? I hope Wood has the gonads to blow the roof off of that place once and for all and tell the public about the Board of Directors and how they run the place with an iron fist with the help of their puppet and spy, Director of Operations, Jon Loos.

And if you have to have a meeting about this blog post, you have identified one problem already.

If you didn’t like what you were hearing, why didn’t you just leave?

l3wis November 21, 2009 17Comments

Why is it when people subject themselves to something they don’t like, they complain about it later, instead of just leaving?

I attended the recent Joan Rivers performance, and the first word I heard from the stage caused me to wonder if I had gone to the wrong place. For two hours I and my fellow sufferers were subjected to what passes for humor on the Left Coast: a scathing commentary on the culture and the values that inform it that we “morons” in fly-over country have been reluctant to discard.

Yeah, it was so awful, I sat through the full TWO HOURS!

People my age sat in stony silence while the young, who have been conditioned by a culture on the skids to regard as funny any attack on the hypocrisies of their parents, responded with enthusiasm.

Because, IT IS FUNNY! It may not be what you like, but how in the Hell don’t you know what kind of humor Joan Rivers does ahead of time? I think you went on purpose so you could bitch about it later.

Listening to this crude, ignorant woman besmirch our magnificent Washington Pavilion caused me to contrast her performance with that of the Sioux Falls Symphony and being transported by the magic of Mozart or Mahler.

What’s next for the Pavilion? Mud wrestling or pole dancing? Would the place have to be fumigated after Rivers’ abuse of us innocents?

I’m disgusted, and so should you be.

I’m disgusted to, disgusted that you don’t know the purpose of a publicly funded entertainment facility – to entertain EVERYONE. I applaud the Pavilion for doing the show.

Just Curious about the goings on @ the big purple building

l3wis August 12, 2009 10Comments

I’m just posing the question, someone in the know emailed me this today;

Three Directors (at the Pavilion) have “moved on” and I think at least five or six key members of the staff have quit or been canned in just the past month.

Anybody heard deets about this? I was actually surprised that I had not heard anything in the media about it. Of course, layoffs these days are like trips to the bathroom in SF.

10th Anniversary of the Whitelephant Pavilion

l3wis June 23, 2009 8Comments

I was quoted in the article today;

Scott Ehrisman, a citizen advocate who attends city meetings and blogs about council discussion and decisions, said that in recent years, he has come around to supporting the subsidy.

However, he said the city should stop spending Capital Improvements Program money on the Pavilion.

 

“I have often called it City Hall’s dirty little secret that really didn’t come to light until the window funding debate,” Ehrisman said.

 

He is leery of the city backing other big projects such as an events center, using the Pavilion as a lesson in what it costs to build and maintain a center.

“The Pavilion teaches us that the city will use these projects as an excuse to raise our retail taxes, which is unfair,” he said. “Once we start charging people extra … to pay for Broadway plays and Elton John concerts, we send a message to the community that the city’s spending priorities are more about entertaining the minority then providing essential infrastructure for the majority.”

Here is the extended version of the quote I emailed, if you are curious;

“Should the Pavilion, at some point, support itself as opposed to getting a subsidy from the city?”

I have come around on supporting a subsidy in recent years. The problem isn’t that the Pavilion receives a subsidy from the entertainment tax it’s that the city also subsidizes the Pavilion through the CIP fund, in turn giving them a double subsidy. For example, the entertainment tax subsidy only is for operational costs, while the CIP subsidy is for building upgrades and maintenance. In essence the Pavilion has been double dipping on subsidies from the inception without the public’s knowledge. I have often called it city hall’s dirty little secret that really didn’t come to light until the window funding debate was brought before the council. I guess I would like to see the Pavilion stop taking CIP funding and only manage from the entertainment tax subsidy. I would also like to see them pay their management for performance instead just automatic pay increases from year to year. I think if the Pavilion got into a ‘money making’ philosophy it would be helpful to their endowment, which benefits us all. A lot needs to change though before that occurs, for instance, they need to start gearing the facility towards working families like having the Science Center, the Visual Arts Center and Cinedome open at night instead of the day. I also think that the conflicts of interest that exists with board members not only looks bad, it can also cost the Pavilion more in what they pay for outside services because a board member may pressure them to use a more expensive service.

“And, as the city looks for new projects, like a new event center, does the 10-year run of the Pavilion with the subsidy still necessary, teach us anything?”

 

It teaches us that the city will use these projects as an excuse to raise our (retail) taxes. Which is unfair. A special tax, like an entertainment tax, should only be used to subsidize the facility. Once we start charging people extra for food and utilities to pay for Broadway plays and Elton John concerts we send a message to the community that the city’s spending priorities are more about entertaining the minority then providing essential infrastructure for the majority. I would support a new event center if the city would guarantee it would ONLY be paid for through a bed and booze tax. I’m afraid though with the city’s track record on the double subsidy to the Pavilion, that the taxpayers of Sioux Falls will have to put forward a significant amount taxes on essential goods and services without their knowledge to fund the facility. And if that’s the case, how is taxing things we need for everyday living so a minority can be entertained good for the quality of life of the majority?