I am impressed with the depth and thoroughness of this reporting, and I am glad this is coming to light, rather than just being silently ignored, as sexist exploitation too often is. But the intense focus on salacious stories about Profiles Theatre and Darrell Cox could lead one to the erroneous conclusion that this is an idiosyncratic problem with one theater, or even one actor, rather than a systemic problem not only in Chicago non-Equity theater, but in our wider culture. It seems clear that the Not In Our House organizers understand this, hence the "Our." We would be better served to confront more of Our connection to these issues, rather than keep them at arms length, as if we're merely watching the kind of play they might produce at Profiles.
Why is this published? To make an anonymous retiree and an anonymous entrepreneur look foolish? Have you nothing better to do?
Good post, but I wish you'd have gotten back to the Ravinia connection a little quicker.
And the fact that real wages have risen by 10% over 37 years for the bottom 90% of Americans shouldn't automatically be considered such a terrible thing. It the increasing income inequality that really irks those of us not at the top of the pyramid.
As a board member of a storefront theatre company in Chicago, I suggest to the Saints board (what is left of it) that your obligation is to serve the organization, not yourselves.
Perhaps Ms. Granite's suggestions were not supremely helpful. Perhaps she was even a "difficult" volunteer or board member; well-meaning but difficult volunteers exist, as I'm sure we all know. However, you have done your organization a disservice by acting in a heavy-handed manner that doesn't appear to have been in the service of your organization in the slightest. Even if you take the seemingly rational parts of Report Checker's comments at face-value (which would be foolish, given the personal attacks contained therein), there is no indication that Ms. Granite was harming the organization. At worst, she was annoying the other board members. And while it is too early to know if the board's response will cause lasting harm to the organization, it certainly seems quite possible.
Board members: a NFP organization is not your playground, nor your social club. It is your opportunity to lead through service.
What a tempest in a teapot.
TIF money is supposed to be for capital. It's simply not a good idea to blow capital dollars to fill an operating budget gap. A good capital investment provides value for years, while the operating budget gap would just be closed for just one year.
It would be better to re-evaluate some TIF's and determine that some no longer need to be TIF's (e.g. LaSalle St), and roll those particular tax revenues back into the operating budget.
Not that Chicago gets this right all the time, but capital dollars should be spent on things that increase revenue or decrease costs or increase service without increasing net operating losses.