A DRAMATIC DISAGREEMENT: DID THE REP HAVE TO DIE?

BY BARRY JOHNSON

Most of the facts involved in the decision to close the doors at Portland Repertory Theatre on Jan. 22 aren't in dispute.

The company was carrying a sizable debt, and cash-flow problems were so acute that it was going to miss at least one payroll.

But did the theater need to die? On that crucial point, the staff and board of Portland's second-largest theater company are completely at odds. And local actors who have been part of artistic director Dennis Bigelow's splendid unofficial company are outraged at the board's decision.

``I think that these people just plain wanted out,'' said David Meyers, one of the actors in the Rep's production of ``Old Wicked Songs'' that was closed down by the board in the middle of its run.

``They were just tired of playing with it and decided to kill it,'' he continued. ``They killed a vital organization for their convenience.''

Board members such as Bill Coniff have a different view: ``We had no choice,'' Conniff said. ``We held it off as long as we could.''

The Rep's death leaves a gaping hole in Portland's arts scene. During the past three years under Bigelow, the Rep has been the home of some of the best theater in town -- such productions as ``Three Tall Women,'' ``Two Trains Running'' and ``Arcadia.'' And it's been an important home for many of the city's best actors, many of whom may not be able to stay here without the work the Rep provided.

But no matter who is right, the essential fact is that Portland Repertory Theatre is gone.

What went wrong behind the scenes while the company was moving from success to success onstage?

The Rep's troubles didn't start yesterday. It had been struggling with a large deficit long before Bigelow was named artistic director three years ago -- nearly $500,000 for a theater that brought in a little more than $1 million in its best years.

And the deficit had grown in the two years before Bigelow arrived while the company, under Geoffrey Sherman's leadership, had attempted to upgrade itself and become a player in the regional theater world. When Sherman left to become artistic director of Meadow Brook Theatre in Michigan, the board had serious discussions about closing the theater.

But it decided to carry on, naming Bigelow to help it put its financial and artistic house in order.

Bigelow actually began to shrink the deficit. But a double whammy brought his financial juggling to a halt in October. The company owed significant sums of money to both its bank, U.S. Bank, and to its landlord, the World Trade Center. It was broke, it couldn't borrow money, and the new season's expenses were about to pile up in earnest.

Bigelow went public with his plight, telling The Oregonian that if a significant rescue attempt wasn't mounted the theater would have to close.

The Regional Arts and Culture Council and the Northwest Business Committee for the Arts responded by hiring well-regarded arts consultant George Thorn.

Thorn's conclusions were surprisingly optimistic. The company had already taken major steps to cut its expenses, trimming staff and moving to smaller, cheaper quarters. It had just finished its fiscal year with a small surplus. Its artistic achievements had just been recognized with the local Drammy Award for best show of the year for its production of ``Arcadia.'' Thorn thought that if the company could start an aggressive campaign to help it through its cash-flow difficulties, its long-term prospects were good.

Good signs

Sure enough, when the staff went to its subscribers with a plea for money, they responded surprisingly well. Since October, the Rep had raised more than $170,000, much of it in small contributions from subscribers.

``I think it's significant that our community stepped forward for us, and for the first time we didn't borrow money in October, November or December,'' Bigelow said. The Rep had frequently used its line of credit with U.S. Bank to get through those high-expense, low-income months. Traditionally, the company was flush with cash in the spring, when its subscribers signed on for the next year. Last year's receipts for those months were more than $280,000, Bigelow said.

So, the game was to get through the lean months until the spring's cash infusion.

Living today on tomorrow's receipts can be a dangerous sport. The subscribers, after all, were paying for shows they wouldn't see until next year. Allen Nause, artistic director of Artists Repertory Theatre, the city's third-largest theater, said his company tries never to use its subscription income on anything but expenses for the upcoming season. But it's still a common practice. Artists Rep, known for its conservative financial philosophy, has done it in bad years. And it's simply a fact of life for many other arts organizations with subscription seasons to sell.

``In this day and age, when arts organizations aren't carrying huge cash reserves, there's always the need to finance your work from a cash-flow standpoint,'' said Cynthia M. Fuhrman, director of public relations and marketing at the city's biggest theater, Portland Center Stage. ``It's not just theaters; it's symphonies, operas and ballets, too.''

That's why subscription renewal campaigns for the next season start so early.

January slump

Money from the Rep's contributors dried up in January. And although both ``Molly Sweeney'' and ``Putting It Together,'' the company's fall and Christmas shows, were critical hits and did reasonably well at the box office, they didn't meet the Rep's projections. Bigelow and board members say the box office was hurt because the company didn't have enough money to advertise them well.

Last season, the company used a Meyer Memorial Trust grant quite successfully to boost single-ticket sales. Its ``Arcadia'' did about $70,000 worth of single-ticket sales. That advertising money wasn't available for this season.

``We faced the immediate cash-flow crisis of not being able to meet payroll,'' Bigelow said. ``It caught the staff a little by surprise when we missed payroll, but to a person they were willing to work to make the season happen. Everyone knew we were about to mail next season's renewal form.''

After that, things moved fast. The board met Jan. 20 and 22 to deal with the problem of missing the payroll. At the first meeting, the board decided to consult a bankruptcy attorney. At the second, it voted to close the theater's doors.

Board President Avery Loschen said the board looked at the staff's projections of revenues and expenses as well as cash flow. Board members estimated the percentage of outstanding grants that were likely to come through. And they came to a stark conclusion: ``It was not prudent for us to accept donations or start a subscription campaign if we didn't believe we could mount a new season. And we don't believe we could have mounted a new season. Given the numbers we were given by the staff, anybody who would have made the decision to go forward would not have been making a prudent business decision.''

Another interpretation

The staff has a completely different assessment. It argued that the situation wasn't as dire as the board made it sound and that the board did a dismal job of raising money.

``They are confusing cash flow, the immediate problem, with end-of-the-year performance,'' said Michelle Schneiter, the company's director of development. ``Our projections all showed we were going to do $30,000 better than last year, which was our first season in the black.''

Schneiter said the company had received positive signals on two pending grants, one for $50,000 and one for $10,000. News from the foundations was expected by the end of January or early February, she said.

``I can tell you in the past we've been led to believe that we were going to get grants and they didn't come through,'' Loschen responded. ``Anyway, the money wasn't enough to solve the problems.''

The staff, Schneiter said, was hoping board members would solve the immediate cash-flow problem by lending the company money to meet payroll. Then the company would use income from season subscriptions to repay the board.

But Schneiter's critique of the board doesn't stop there. ``January was a challenge, and we really needed the board to step up. They just didn't,'' she said.

``Since we went public in mid-October, they raised very little money, less than 10 grand. That was pretty frustrating. I chalk that up to poor leadership on the board.''

Board President Loschen disagreed. ``Many, many of those checks were solicited by board members during that urgent campaign,'' he said.

Thorn's report on the company had suggested that expanding the company's circle of significant donors, traditionally a function of the board, was crucial to its success.

``Generally, we did not have enough contacts to broaden our base of funders,'' Bigelow said. ``That was going to be the key to the Rep's future.'' He said only one of the 19 board members was doing a good job in this area, though the board did raise $40,000, including one $10,000 gift, from among its members before the company went public with its problems in October.

Ask Schneiter, should the Rep have closed its doors, and her response is succinct. ``Yes, we did have to close, because the board didn't want to continue. Should it have closed? No.''

From the outside

It's difficult to sort out this profound disagreement between staff and board. Both sides agree that the company had a large deficit and severe cash-flow problems. They even agree that substantive steps had been taken to correct the problems. But the board decided those steps were not enough. ``We kept hoping an angel would appear, but it never happened,'' Coniff said.

Bill Bulick, executive director of the Regional Arts and Culture Council and a audience member of Portland Rep, followed the company closely the past few months.

``There was a rallying around the company,'' he said. ``Money came in, and it seemed there was a possibility to dig the company out of its cash-flow crisis and its deficit. The board had to be aware of the heavy lifting this would involve and didn't think it was up to it.''

But the larger community is also complicit, he said. ``It always seems like there should be more resources than there are out because this community says it cares about having these vital, creative people in its midst.''

Aftermath

For the actors who frequently worked at Portland Center Stage, the closing of the company is disastrous. As one of two full, Equity companies in town (Artists Repertory Theatre recently joined this small group, but it is operating under special rules for the next three years) Portland Rep was an important source of employment for the city's best actors.

Actors David Meyers and Sharonlee McLean are maintaining a wait-and-see attitude. McLean has started regular gatherings of actors to talk about what happened and begin to think about starting a new theater along the lines of Portland Rep. But just about everyone in the theater community worries about what might happen to the scene here.

During the past few years, the number of talented, accomplished actors in Portland has increased dramatically. Portland Rep, using locally based actors for nearly all its shows, was one of the major reasons for this growth. Without Rep, those actors have far fewer chances to work -- and actors from other cities one less reason for coming.

For audiences, the niche the Rep filled, bringing recent American plays to Portland for sharp, professional productions, is empty. It's difficult to imagine the fall season this year without the powerful performances of Gretchen Corbett, David Ivers and Wayne Ballantyne in Brian Friel's delicate ``Molly Sweeney.'' In thinking about theater in Portland without experiences like this one, the magnitude of the loss of Portland Repertory Theatre begins to sink home.

NOTE:

This story appeared in The Oregonian: Publication Date: February 1, 1998  Page: B01   ARTS &