Struggle Is Staged Over Control of Arts Plaza : Thousand Oaks: Community activists and donors vie for a voice in governing the soon-to-open auditorium and theater.

Thousand Oaks taxpayers bought the Civic Arts Plaza.

Wealthy donors will fund its operation.

But who’s going to control it?

That question, increasingly urgent as the building receives its finishing flourishes, has touched off an unusual power struggle among Thousand Oaks’ civic leaders.

On one side, skilled fund-raisers and rich donors lobby for a voice in governing the 1,800-seat auditorium and 400-seat forum theater.

They want to vote on policy issues, from serving liquor at intermission to presenting Native American dance troupes to spending money on newspaper ads. And they want to reel in new contributions by promising potential donors some clout.

Opposing them, community activists fight to keep the cultural center in the hands of politicians, or at least, political appointees. They want all decisions to be made by people accountable to voters. And they want local citizens, not out-of-town bigwigs, to set the policies.

*

In short, they want to retain the existing structure of the Civic Theaters Commission, with seven members appointed by the City Council for their fund-raising, business, or cultural expertise. Three of the current commissioners have turned out to be major donors: Larry Janss, whose family contributed $250,000; Harry Selvin, who gave $50,000; and Larry Sparrow, a regional president of GTE California, which kicked in $150,000.

Former Planning Commissioner Virginia Davis, professional fund-raiser Julian Macdonald, retired public relations director Mary Hekhuis, and retired GTE executive Gib Poiry also sit on the theater panel.

Both supporters and opponents of the existing commission structure plan to press their case before the Thousand Oaks City Council later this month. And both plan to press hard.

“This will be one of the most interesting and important decisions the council has to make,” predicted Tom Mitze, executive director of the theaters. “It will determine a lot about our future.”

The proposal before the council calls for expanding the existing Civic Theaters Commission by adding five seats for donors, two for local arts organizations, and one for the nonprofit Alliance for the Arts fund-raising cabinet.

Alliance members would select the five donors to serve on the governing board, giving preference to those who have contributed at least $50,000. The arts groups and the alliance would designate their own representatives.

In the past year, the Civic Theaters Commission has reached unanimous decisions on most issues, such as charging patrons for parking and sponsoring shows by magician David Copperfield. For such non-controversial items, the addition of donor votes would probably make little difference.

*

But as the Civic Arts Plaza gains regional prominence, the governing board will increasingly be called upon to make key decisions about programming, budgeting and staffing.

So the issue of control has taken on great weight.

Those in favor of expanding the Civic Theaters Commission contend that:

* Donors like to oversee their investments. Several potential contributors have been skittish about pouring money into an endowment fund controlled by political appointees. They would be more likely to open their wallets if donors were well represented on the theater commission.

* The current system is unstable. Each City Council member makes one appointment to the commission, and the entire council selects two at-large commissioners. The makeup of the theater commission could change with each election.

* Many theaters around the country operate under private, nonprofit boards composed mainly of fund-raisers or donors. These directors keep a sharp eye on the bottom line and reassure other contributors.

* Even with six seats controlled by the Alliance for the Arts, the City Council would appoint a majority of commissioners, and thus speak with the loudest voice.

* An expanded theater commission would still have to abide by open-meeting laws, posting agendas and inviting public comments.

Summing up these arguments, alliance Chairman Stephen Woodworth said: “The private sector is leery of investing dollars into an endowment governed wholly by the public, political sector. The only time we do that is when we pay taxes--and then, only with reluctance.”

In rebuttal, opponents offer their own series of reasons:

* Taxpayers poured $86 million into buying the land and building the Civic Arts Plaza. They deserve to control the cultural center, through their elected officials.

* The reorganization would grant undue power to the Alliance for the Arts, a private nonprofit group that does not have to hold open meetings or test its decisions at the ballot box.

* The current theater commission, although appointed by a bitterly divided council, does not appear to be swayed by city politics. Commissioners have not splintered into factions, disregarding the feuding among their political sponsors.

* Corporate donors, if given a chance to steer programming, might be unwilling to allow experimental shows into the Civic Arts Plaza, for fear of being linked to controversial or poorly received programs.

* The proposal smacks of elitism, of pandering to big money. Donors already enjoy perks, including a first crack at tickets.

As former Mayor Larry Horner explained: “People have seen so much negativism about this project that they’re suspicious. We don’t want to give the public the perception that they’re shut out.”

*

To dramatize their arguments, each faction has conjured up a rallying image.

Alliance members speak longingly of raising enough money to sponsor a full schedule of children’s programs. They envision a flotilla of yellow school buses outside the Civic Arts Plaza, unloading joyful children for a free puppet show or interactive theater.

Their opponents hint darkly at a coterie of ultra-rich moguls stomping into town to dictate how the theater should be run. They suggest that such a move would alienate many residents and cement the long-running rift between foes and fans of the Civic Arts Plaza.

Both of these images have sparked angry, emotional rebuttals.

Alliance consultant Esther Wachtell dismisses the view of donors as out-of-town elite. Although the city has pushed the Civic Arts Plaza as a regional cultural center, the premiere theater between Los Angeles and San Francisco, most of the donors have come from the Conejo Valley or the northern San Fernando Valley.

What’s more, Wachtell says: “I wouldn’t call them corporate-executive types. They’re just community guys.”

Meanwhile, theater commissioner Macdonald brushes off the alliance sound-bites: “They talk of wondrous things, of yellow school buses and all, but that’s just rhetoric.”

In fighting the proposal, Macdonald and others have urged the alliance to focus on raising funds, rather than winning power.

After years of work, the alliance has gathered $4.8 million in cash, pledges and in-kind contributions. But so far, the group has collected only about $1 million for deposit in interest-bearing accounts. The rest will trickle in over the next five to 10 years, or be paid with in-kind services like free advertising.

*

Boosting the endowment is critical, because the fund is supposed to pay for the hefty day-to-day costs of running the theater. From the stage hands’ salaries to the dressing-room toilet paper, every operating expense will come from either ticket sales or private donations.

If the endowment falls short, the cultural center could go broke--or the council could be forced to bail it out with taxpayer money.

Unwilling to put up city funds, council members have urged the alliance to continue aggressively seeking endowment funds. If adding donor seats would help, several said they are willing to consider the proposal.

On the other hand, the council members are equally sensitive to voters. They want to be sure the theaters are run by people accountable to the City Council and the public at large.

“I really have mixed emotions,” Councilwoman Elois Zeanah said. “I don’t know how I’m going to vote.”

As they lobby the undecided politicians, both factions have sought support from theater directors in other California cities.

Perhaps one likely place to look is the California Center for the Arts in Escondido, which includes a 1,500-seat auditorium and 400-seat theater.

As in Thousand Oaks, the city of Escondido built the cultural center with taxpayer money. But the City Council will subsidize only part of the operating costs, relying on ticket sales and private donations to plug the gaps.

To manage the cultural center, which will open in the fall, politicians and fund-raisers have compromised by creating a 40-member nonprofit board. Escondido council members can appoint about one-third of the members, and the board itself can select another third. The final group will be elected from the performing arts center’s general membership--open to anyone who contributes $50 or more.

*

Although the public-private structure is as yet untested, the Escondido center’s vice president, Robert Freedman, said he expects political appointees and wealthy donors to share a “joint vision” for the theaters. “I think it will work,” he said.

Freedman advised Thousand Oaks council members to follow the same route--or, even better, to cede total control of the theaters to a private, nonprofit foundation. If the city doesn’t contribute operating money, he said, council members don’t deserve to manage the cultural center.

“If you want to govern it, you have to supply the funds,” Freedman said.

Further bolstering the alliance proposal, the executive director of the McCallum Theater in Palm Desert said she believes that key fund-raisers and major donors should be allowed to govern--if only because they will keep the cash flowing.

“Money begets money,” Nancy Dolensek said. “We need people who travel in the right circles (to generate operating funds), and that’s generally not politicians.”

But at the Orange County Center for the Performing Arts, which is funded exclusively by private donations, spokesman Greg Patterson disagreed. His theater relies entirely on the private sector, but he has seen various organizational structures at work. And he’s convinced that keeping a theater under political control does not hamstring fund raising.

“Absolutely not--that’s a complete fallacy,” Patterson said. “Most often, the reason (donors) give is purely philanthropic or (because) the company gets a spin-off benefit from marketing or investing in the community.”

*

Even one of the Civic Arts Plaza’s biggest donors, GTE California, rejected the notion that contributors should take a major role in running the center.

Although GTE California gave $150,000, company executives did not expect to steer policy-making at the Civic Arts Plaza, according to Anthony Hurtado, the local director for external programs.

The president of GTE West won a political appointment to the Civic Theaters Commission, but he is being transferred to Texas this summer and will soon resign. Even without representation, company officials trust the commission, Hurtado said.

“We rely on and respect the judgment of the council,” Hurtado said, “to appoint responsible people to control the endowment.”