Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, NEW MEXICO HUMANITIES COUNCIL, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Committee of Labor and Public Welfare, Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: At its meeting on September 20, 1975 the New Mexico Humanities Council voted unanimously to express to the New Mexico Congressional delegation its views regarding certain changes and amendments in Bills reauthorizing the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities (S. 1800 introduced by Senators Javits and Pell; H.R. 7216 introduced by Representatives Brademas and Bell). The New Mexico Humanities Council is a voluntary, non-paid group of citizens working in the State-Based Program in the Humanities under the auspices of the National Endowment for the Humanities. We have been in existence since July, 1972, and we feel that we have gained enough experience in the StateBased Program to speak with some insight and relevance on the issues raised by the proposed amendments. One proposed change would, if adopted, require that the National Endowment for the humanities financial support go to a designated state agency only. We strongly feel that this would substitute a bureaucracy for an excellent voluntary, grass-roots, thoroughly representatives citizens' effort. Another change would require the filing by a designated state agency of a state plan. We believe that this requirement would result in a less imaginative effort and one less responsive to the views of New Mexico citizens regarding public policy issues and the perspectives and insights that the humanities can bring to bear upon these. The present plans, aims, and procedures that the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and its many voluntary state councils or committees have worked out over a long period would be disrupted and possibly disregarded. The momentum gained in the numerous state programs would be slowed down and valuable experience wasted. Another change sets a basic grant maximum of $100,000 per state. Although this amount could be exceeded under the proposed change, the conditions for allowing grants in excess of that amount are extremely complicated and timeconsuming. The proposed change to a politically-appointed specific state agency to receive grants from NEH and make re-grants might be thought to promise improved accountability. In our opinion, this is probably a false promise. Indeed, accountability might well be lessened or diluted. State councils, as presently constituted, are very precisely accountable to NEH, and NEH is accountable in turn to Congress. NEH has guidelines that implement the original and basic Congressional intention. NEH has done a magnificent job in applying the guidelines, in educating state councils or committees in the specifics of the guidelines after getting feedback from the grass-roots through the state councils. Voluntary state councils can more easily and more effectively insist on keeping strong humanistic and general public representation and at the same time remain more amenable to the expert and experienced guidance of NEH. Why change a good procedure that is working well and constantly improving? Retaining the voluntary state council or committee in State-Based Humanities programs broadens and deepens a valuable experimental control. Official state agencies make re-grants under the program of the National Endowment for the Arts. The opportunity of comparison is kept alive, all under the aegis of the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities. Comparisons as to effectiveness, economy, adherence to guidelines, and level and degree of public participation and involvement could be continued. Let us not throw away this opportunity of continuing constant comparison and evaluation of procedures in Arts programs and Humanities programs, keeping in mind, however, that these are not rival programs but two parallel programs, each seeking to find the structures and procedures most appropriate to its particular aims. What it all boils down to is that the changes move in a direction that is quite contrary to what we think is the present mood of the American public. These changes would replace voluntary effort and decision-making one more official governmental agency, with all the accompanying dangers of increased bureaucracy. We urge that no such changes be made without thorough study of and full hearings into the present aims, procedures, and constantly improving results of tions tends to make donations close to home, and home for most of them is on the eastern seaboard or in the midwest. It is definitely not in Alaska. The potential for oil wealth is still just that "potential," but our needs are immediate. Increased funding in periods of high unemployment is obvious. We have discovered that in periods of unemployment the demand for arts programs risesperhaps as a way to escape from problems, perhaps as an outlet for frustrations. But with the increased demand, there certainly aren't increased dollars When, as is the instance in so many of our Native villages, existence is at a subsistence level, there aren't dollars to spend for the arts, but there are desires. Our Alaska delegation is aware of our needs and have consistently supported the Endowment. However. as our Senator Stevens is fond of saying, each of them is "only one vote." We in Alaska and others like us in the less populous areas need your support if the arts are to be as much a part of our lives as they are for those in the larger cities and more populous states. We would appreciate your support. Sincerely, JAN CRADDICK, Executive Director. Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, OTTO LUENING, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Thank you very much for your recent letter in answer to mine in support of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. Please feel free to include my comments in the printed hearing record. With best wishes for a successful development of this legislation, and congratulations on your substantial contributions in the Senate, Sincerely, OTTO LUENING. FREDONIA ARTS COUNCIL, Fredonia, Kans., October 22, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Attached is a list of activities we sponsored last year with the help of the Kansas Arts Commission and the National Endowment for the Arts. Included are the numbers of people that participated out of Fredonia's 3800 people. Please understand that the arts are at the core of quality of life, and do all things possible to bring about thorough funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Thank you very much. REBECCA T. BLUNK, Administrator. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, MEADOWS SCHOOL OF THE ARTS, Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I do not need to tell you how important it is to maintain as high a level as possible of federal assistance to the arts in this country. While as citizens we do give a great deal privately to the arts in contrast to other countries, we have perhaps the most ambitious and most rewarding arts programs in the world, and we have managed through congressional action to give a new sense of vitality and importance to arts education in recent years. I join with thousands of others in urging you to stand behind the anchoring of additional funds for the arts. We are not speaking here of some kind of dessert in human life, but a matter of human necessity. With kindest regards, KERMIT H. HUNTER, Dean. CITY OF PALO ALTO, Palo Alto, Calif., October 22, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I understand that the special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities is currently discussing the recommendations for the amount of money to be authorized for the National Endowment for the Arts for the coming period. I urge you to support the proposal which recommends $180,000,000 for 1977, and $210,000,000 for 1978, and $250,000,00 for 1979. I also heartily endorse the recommendation for additional funds to be made available to the National Endowment when the national unemployment level exceeds 6.5%. In Palo Alto we have greatly benefited from a public artist working for the city through funds made available through CETA. Thank you for your consideration and support of this issue. Sincerely, ALLAN LONGACRE, Director of Arts. STATE OF ALASKA, Juneau, October 23, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, 325 Russell Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: It has come to my attention that your Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities is holding hearings soon on legislation affecting the National Endownment for the Humanities. My special concern is for that section of the legislation which relates to the State-Based programs of the Endowment. The Alaska Humanities Forum is one such program and its impact upon Alaska has been significant. It has funded over ninety programs touching on important policy issues from a humanistic perspective in over 150 towns and villages of our State. It has also succeeded in crossing the cultural barriers that exist between our varied Alaskan Native groups and the non-Native culture. We feel strongly that the effectivness of the organization would be seriously jeopardized if it were to become another state agency. The state, presently facing severe economic difficulty until the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is completed, simply cannot undertake financial support on a large enough scale to maintain the program at its present level. However, the finances are perhaps less important than some other considerations. One is the integrity the program has achieved because of its independent nature. It has been described as having "the only honest money around"; a comment which indicates that other funds provided by state, federal, and private sources all represent some vested interest. The forum is recognized as having no purpose except to provide insights from the humanities to the general public. It hopes in such fashion to help people explore the wide variety of alternative policies available. If it is seen as just another state agency, then that independent perspective is certain to be compromised. Another feature of the program, perhaps unrecognized except by members of the program's State Committee and staff, is the freedom from red tape, constraints and paperwork which is possible because it is independent of the state. To add the state's requirements for reports, travel requests, vouchers, and purchase orders to the administrative work already required by the Endowment seems unnecessary and restrictive. As a former member of the Alaska Humanities Forum State Committee, I am sure I speak not only for the concern expressed by them, but for the state government as well, when I urge you not to pass legislation which will make the state-based program a state agency. Its present freedom and integrity are too important to us all. Sincerely, JAY S. HAMMOND, Governor. [Mailgram] THE MERI MINI PLAYERS CHILDRENS REPERTORY THEATER Co., New York, N.Y., October 23, 1975. Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. It is imperative that you vote to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Arts. The importance of this legislation and indeed the need for increased appropriations cannot be overemphasized. We urge you to remember that groups like ours who work with and for children in theater depend enormously on these Government funds. MERIDEE STEIN, Artistic Director and Founder. ST. CLEMENT'S, New York, October 23, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: St. Clement's is one of many performing arts organizations dependent on government funding for its ability to reach a growing audience with innovative, professional work. The reauthorization of a well-funded National Endowment for the Arts is crucial to the life of this theatre. We urge you to vote in favor of the reauthorization, and increased appropriations, to insure the continued advance of the arts in America. Sincerely, LAWRENCE GOOSSEN, Executive Producer. THEATRE FOR THE FORGOTTEN, INC., Senator PELL, Chairman, Senate Special Subcommittee on Arts and Humanities, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: We from the Theatre For The Forgotten would like to express our views concerning the Congressional hearings currently being held regarding the reauthorization of The National Endowment for the Arts. We feel that The National Endowment has been an essential ingredient, as well as warm experience in the maintenance and development of our drama workshops. Because government funds represent an increasing part of the budgets of nonprofit professional theatres, we feel Congress should know the urgency of our plight. We have every confidence that you will voice our views and so support our concerns as you have done in the past. Enclosed is a brief history of Theatre For Forgotten's achievements. BEVERLY RICH, Artistic Director and staff. INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing to you in regard to $1800 and specifically Section 102 which proposes amendments to Section 7 of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 as amended. I have read the Bill and your remarks upon its introduction on May 21st. In those remarks you note that one purpose of introducing the amendments at that time was to encourage discussion. I salute the spirit in which the amendments were offered and should like to convey to you in this letter my reaction to your tentative proposals. Your remarks on the Senate floor indicate you seek autonomy and permanence for Humanities programs conducted at the state level. Several paragraphs of the Bill itself identify three general goals: the sharing of funding between federal and state governments, reasonably equitable distribution of federal funds amongst the states and in the requirement for state plans-the bill seeks program coherence. In my view, these purposes will not be insured by the amendments. As well, unlooked for and unwanted consequences would flow from the provisions of the Bill. Regarding autonomy or the self-governing capacity of the proposed State Humanities Councils, I can see no respect in which the proposed program's autonomy usefully exceeds that of the present state committees. The proposed State Plans would require the concurrence of the Endowment, the circumstance which presently prevails. Should the proposed State agencies or the present State Humanities Committees seek permanence? As a former federal employee I question the merit of permanence per se in federal legislation. An assurance of permanence, it seems to me, would do just the opposite of what is needed. What is needed are vital and creative programs which respond to perceived needs of the several states' citizens. The present committees which seek to respond to these needs should exist just as long as they fulfill this function. Let the tenure of State level humanities programs be determined by their relevance and citizen acceptance. I can't imagine anything more deadening to creative and intelligent programming than the assurance beforehand that however minimally one carried out the mandate, the agency would have permanent life. The proposed Bill seeks a sharing of funding between federal and state sources. I've not seen recent figures but for the first several years of the State Humanities Committee Program, funds from a variety of sources, not only the state government but individuals, corporations and institutions well exceeded the federal share of the committee's resources. The proposed Bill carries the threat of limiting non-federal funds to those of the State only and would not, I feel increase the percentage of funds coming from non-federal sources. The proposed Bill seeks a reasonably equitably distribution amongst the states. I believe a review of the funds going to the 50 states presently would reflect distribution that is highly equitable. The present arrangement does not allocate funds on an inflexible formula but seeks to relate funding in a sensitive and coherent way to the needs and resources of the states. I have reservations about the drawing of state plans and their acceptance by the Endowment. One has only to peer into the enumerable file drawers at the U.S. Office of Education—where a multitude of State plans are interred-to be struck by their formalistic and superficial character. The State Humanities Committees, however, represent a new idea in government and I think an exciting one. The broad themes along which the Committees' programs are organized are those derived from the living texture of the lives of the citizens of each state. Their concerns and their enthusiasms-on which humanistic knowledge may usefully bear-animates the entire program of State Committees and represents a vital. living impetus which grows out of its unique voluntary participation, its emphasis on current important issues and its focus on public education of the informed citizen. There is another aspect of the proposed state plan mechanism which strikes me as potentially harmful. As I read the proposed language, it would authorize each state to conduct every activity presently conducted by the National Endowment for the Humanities, including the funding of research and fellowship programs and the support of educational institutions and programs. The present state humanities committees are restricted to public education programs for the out-of-school adult. To encourage state agencies to engage in the full range of support of the humanities which the Endowment presently undertakes, would be to encourage a spate of mediocre research proposals which are now rightfully turned aside by the Endowment. It could establish a “second best" fellowship mechanism in each state. Those applicants who lose out in present fellowship competitions would be funded by the mix of federal and state monies. It is my sense that thoughful reflection on this provision of the proposed Bill is particularly important. I know of your personal concern to support work of quality and excellence and I think you would be appalled at the kind of work which would in due |