I sure didn't mean to imply that everyone who doesn't agree with the more controversial shows are sticks in the mud, just that the few who had content issues have historically been that way.

I likely would never support this exact set of productions as a part of our season or even as a Footlighters production. This specific scenario is one of hosting only. The VDay group is doing all of the work, and they are keeping all of the proceeds. We're in the same boat as most small community theatres, in that our membership is down and our budget is suffering. We had enough money in our budget 2 years ago to finally move forward with a second stage in our building, and then our boiler blew and we spent every reserve cent we had. So, now we're back to producing the "butts-in-the-seats" shows and trying to rebuild our reserve. Very depressing!

Thank you for your feedback!

Originally posted by pdavis69 1) We have done shows of questionable appeal and taste.  Not everyone likes, agrees with or even supports these shows.  I personally do not like these controversial shows so I am not involved in them.  I vote no when the board vote comes along then if I am on the losing end of the vote I step back and stay out of the way.  I might say "I told you so when we don't break even but that's about it.   2 and 3) You have a majority vote from the board and so you have every right to go forward.  A board can not be held hostage by some individuals who are in the minority (even if it's me).   4) Our theatre does 5 regular shows as part of the patron season.  These are usually shows we feel will please our regular parton base.  We have space in our year to do up to three other shows which are separate from the patron season.  These shows can be edgy/controversial or also could be used as a chance of trying out a new director.  These second stage shows are typically done with a smaller budget.     On a personal note, not everyone who does not support these types of shows being done in a community theatre is a close minded stick in the mud.  I regularly vote against this type of programming at our theatre because our audience has again and again voted against these shows by not attending.  It was always my opinion we should provide shows the audience wants to see and also at the very least break even on a budget.

Originally posted by Nikki Adams Bear with me here, ... [snip] 1) Have any other community theatres done or hosted these productions, and if so, have they had this kind of stuff happen?   2) For those of you who are officers on a board, what would you have done differently than what I did?   3) I'd be interested in opinions about whether you think it's appropriate to move forward based on a wide-margin majority vote, even with the sort of fallout I experienced?   4) And, finally, overall, how does your theatre company handle the more controversial plays out there? Not just TVM, but controversial material in general. (I should mention, also, that we are not typically a vanilla material theatre company - we've done plays with drug abuse, incest, pregnancy resulting from incest, "foul" language, use of the N word, homosexuality, etc.)   [snip]

Hello, Nikki

I feel your pain!  I have just completed 13 years on the volunteer board of directors for my CT, 7 of those years as president.  I'm happy to respond to your posting.

(1) No, our CT has not done those plays nor hosted productions of them.
Our CT tends to do the “vanilla material” and has avoided Controversial Material as part of our main stage season, except on rare occasions.  We've had plays with strong language, we've had plays with mature situations & subject matter, heck we've even had a play brief mild nudity (TV grade "NYPD Blue" level nudity).  Our audiences have given us feedback when they dislike the controversial elements, and for the most part we've listened.

(2) If I handle a big/serious issue (like Controversial Material) with my CT board, I try to (A) make sure I give them all of the information they need for the discussion well in advance, so they can read it and consider it before the meeting, (B) if possible, outline clear options and alternatives to decide between, again as far in advance as possible, and (3) state explicitly my expectation that I am seeking a "not the usual everybody-votes-yes" discussion on the issue.

Why?  

I have often been reminded explicitly by my fellow CT board members that:  people who volunteer their time and effort to be a volunteer member of a CT's board of directors are doing so (1) in their spare time, (2) as a hobby, for fun.  It follows that everyone wants to “play nice”, get along, and do what the group wants; after all, no one wants to get all serious about it because that could make it “not fun”, and people are unlikely to volunteer to be board members if the process is “not fun” (after all, who wants to do something “not fun” for fun?).

Given this, when the CT's board meets and a motion is proposed it is nearly always unanimously passed or defeated.  [Every once in a very long while we have an abstention or two.  Even less often (WAY less) we have someone vote opposite to everyone else, but that is very rare.]

For a big/serious issue (such as Controversial Material), if you provide enough advance notice you can discuss the Hell out of the issue at your meeting, then table the motion until the next meeting.  That gives everyone a chance to further consider the discussion, ask further questions, respond to the discussion, etc., so that by the next meeting they are better prepared to complete the discussion and vote on the motion.
(3)  Once the board of directors passes a motion (properly, according to the organization’s constitution, bylaws, rules of order, policies & procedures, etc.), then it is up to ALL board members to support the actions of any board member (executive or otherwise) toward fulfilling that motion.  Those who voted “yes” will probably provide active support; those who abstained from voting or who voted “no” can be forgiven for providing only passive support.  At the very least, no board member should hinder or undermine the actions of other board members toward fulfilling the motion.
The challenge with Controversial Material is that it stirs passionate emotions, the kind that might lead voters in the minority of the vote to react strongly (such as you described, with the insulting email, the not-speaking-to-you, etc.).

If I vote “no” against something, and it nonetheless is passed by the majority, IMHO it is immature and rude of me to openly undermine it, or to lash out at others who supported it by voting “yes”.  If I choose to be governed by my strong and passionate feelings on the matter, perhaps I will resign from the board; that is my right and my choice to make at all times.

(4) When our CT produces plays containing Controversial Material, we try to "soften the blow" by providing appropriate warnings in the program and (if appropriate) on ads & posters; if the director of the play can gently explain or justify the Controversial Material in the Director's Notes in the program, that can also be helpful.  It is important for the audience to know what the CT's reasons are and the Director's reasons are for choosing to present this particular Controversial Material.  Once you've done that, then it's up to the audience to accept your presentation of the Controversial Material ... or not, as is their choice.

That's my 2-cents' worth.

It sounds like things are the same all over.  "I don't mind it happening, as long as it doesn't happen here." 

I think a group that did only those type of shows would do very well in Columbus.  My big problem is that your Assassins runs the same dates as my Urinetown.  I love Assassins and we are just up the road in Findlay.