All our staff positions are strictly volunteer with the exception of a music director. We don't do musicals very often (our summer fundraiser is the only thing regularly on the schedule), and therefore don't have those skills within the group. However, we have been very successful otherwise with using (qualified) volunteers for directing shows.

God, I wish we could say that we don't pay, but we do.

Musical:  Director $400, Music Director $400, Producer $400, Choreographer $200, Rehearsal Pianist $ 250, Orchestra $175 each (limit 10)

Straight Show: Director $300, Producer $300

We are even having talks about starting to give a stipend to the primary set builder and set dresser.

It never ends...

In our summer rep we pay almost all the back stage and house staff.  It's an honorarium and we consider it "contracted services" so we are not an "employer."  Our annual budget for a musical, a senior citizen dinner theater and a ballet is about 30 grand a year.  We are 501 c 3 and make enoungh now that we have to file a tax return. 

I think there are some quality issues that make it worth our while to "pay" the key people.   Musicians especially are worth paying a bit for.

I am certainly doing theatre in the wrong place! 

I applaud the groups that can pay their production staff.  We don't get paid stipends here due to budget restrictions.  We do occasionally budget in some money for ochestra members, but that is rare.  Usually everyone is volunteer.  It makes it really tough to get really good musicians as they are able to get paying gigs and can't committ for 2-3 weeks worth of performances. 

I belong to the same theatre as MartyW, and I think there's a lesson to be learned from our experience.  You may have noted that he said "we are even having talks about starting to give a stipend to the primary set builder and set dresser". 

THESE ARE VOLUNTEER THEATRES, FOLKS!!!!

30 years ago, our theatre was bullied into giving a director's stipend in order to "attract better directors".  Well, the directors that we attracted were the same people that had been directing for free all along (with a few minor and fleeting exceptions throughout the years.).  My objection to doing so at that time was this:  where will it all stop?  I think that if you look at Marty's listing of all who are "paid" now (or want to be paid in the near future), you'll see that it doesn't stop!!  And, in the minds of the other people that give an equal amount of time and effort to the productions, why should it stop?  Why shouldn't they be paid, too? 

At the risk of being boring and repetitive, THIS IS VOLUNTEER THEATRE, FOLKS!  We are doing it, ostensibly, for the love of it and, frankly, all the bickering that seems to evolve over who is going to be paid and how much they are going to be paid really takes away from the pleasure of participating.

I know the question that is going to be asked by someone is "what if you can't get someone to do it without being paid?"  Well, how about taking some time and effort to train new people that could then take on the position?  How about sending people to workshops, or studying theatrecraft books?  How about reaching out to others in the community that have the necessary skills, but who might not be involved strictly (or at all) in theatre?  Local shop teachers, art teachers, artists, hairdressers - professionals, or even those that use those skills strictly as an avocation!  They might be tickled to be asked and, in fact, have been pleased in the instances that I have experienced!  They might even stick around and become valued members of your theatre! How about calling on people that used to be involved in your theatre in years past but, for whatever reason, have had to stop participating?  They might be available now and just need that little nudge to become active again.  How about calling on people that participate in other theatres in your area, if you are in a place that has a number of theatres in existance?

Don't let yourselves be bullied into paying just because "no-one else can do my job"....no-one is indispensible, even though they may try to make you think that they are.  Don't be snookered into believing that.  There are always other options. 

If you don't pay people now but are thinking about doing so, you might want to learn a lesson that we learned the hard way.....don't open Pandora's cash box.  There are other ways to have a successful theatre.  Think creatively.....after all, aren't us theatre folks supposed to be creative?

(Marty:  you knew this one would smoke me out of the woodwork, didn't you.)

Yes Red, I thought this one would have you out and about, but its an old revised one... But God, VPA seems to have it just as bad or even worse... (although the dollar amounts are smaller)

If only more people had a french to english dictionary and could look up the "meaning" of amateur.

For those stll lacking same, Amateur. For the love of..... to do something that you love....

Amateur Theater.... Hello... 

And I guess I want to p.s. my own post.... This stuff has gotten WAY out of hand.  At least thats the way I see it in our theater (and their are several posting members here from my home theater) I am doing a musical right now, and as always, mine are the big ones with 50 + cast and 25 to 30 supporting crew/etc.  It is "thought" that I get "paid" $400 for the duty... but it is a privilage... and this is totally by choice, I sink an average of two grand of unclaimed expences from my own pocket... And like I said, I'm ok with that because its my choice and my desire to pump a little extra into a show... As it is, its a 60 mile round trip to the theater.. sometimes for both my wifes car and mine.. but that too is ok... becuase I choose to do it. But in truth, my only pay that's worth anything at all is to be able to sit in our balcony and watch the faces of the audince and thier reactions..

It looks like I won't get that pay, because I have to step up to do the lights.  Apparently, the word is out amoung those who don't get paid, that there are no other positions than thiers which are getting paid...

Just for my friends from the home theater, be prepaired... This Will be a topic of discussion in the near future.  Other than the musicians that are not necessarily theater types anyway, I am moving for a ban on money!... It corupts the meaning and causes constant bickering...

Rant complete..

In our CT, the directors do not get paid. We do budget $500-1000 for music.  This can be divided between the music director, piano accompanist and pit orchestra, or not. We offer it and the director can choose to take it or not. More often than not they say no thanks, because they know that no one else gets paid, and divide it between the pit orchestra players for their time.  

On the other hand, our CT offers a children's drama workshop each summer.  It is a part of, but run separate from, the CT. Different board, not all CT members, I am the director.  All the adult staff get paid the same amount.  Now it is a little different from a regular show.  The workshops are 2 weeks long, from 9 am to 3 pm for staff, and then 6 shows total. So, those of us who work have to take time off work, or work our vacation time.  Most of my staff are teachers, so they are off anyway. We get paid $700.00 per workshop.  I kept track of my hours the first year I was director. It figured to be about $1 and hour. But it is better than a stick in the eye.

We are even having talks about starting to give a stipend to the primary set builder and set dresser.

It never ends...

I'm all about stipends, but with the theatre just breaking even, it becomes increaseingly difficult to justify that expense (considering how had it is for some people to even make budgeting shows a priority, how would you even get to the point of stipend expenses).

An idea might be to take each show's net income and allocate a percentage to cover gas expenses.  It's an incentive for producers to not use their entire budget on things (i.e. crack down on directors who spend without much thought).

Well, I apologize ahead of time:  this topic presses a couple of my buttons, so here’s another Kibitzer Dissertation! 

As the variety of responses to this topic suggests, there may be as many precedents in paying for services as there are community theatres.  I have developed an enormously ambivalent position on the issue of paid positions in community theatres.  Having been a paid, full-time managing director of two community theatres, part of my ambivalence has to do with my own personal guilty feelings about getting paid to do those jobs.  But that aside, I believe the fundamental nature of community theatre is inextricably linked to its volunteer-based roots. 

The essence of community theatre is captured in the idealism of the rallying cry, “Hey kids, let’s do a show!” The very spirit of that exclamation is antithetical to a professional settting.  It’s all about the love of the art.  A love so deep and so committed that just doing it is its own reward.  Ask almost anyone who started in community theatre and successfully crossed over to the professional side.  It became a job.  The spirit was lost – or at least transformed into something altogether different.  

I take exception to the myth that money buys quality.  I have seen shows directed by “professional” directors that were just horrible and I have seen shows directed by “amateur” directors that reached impeccable artistic achievement and I have seen everything in between.  I think the trap we get into is confusing the word “amateur” with the word “amateurish”.  A few years ago I wasted over $255 for tickets so my family and I could see a “professional” production of “A Chorus Line” at a major professional theatre in Philadelphia.  It was one of the most amateurish productions I have ever seen.  I sat there and KNEW that we had far more talented “amateur” performers at our community theatre.  So much for stereotypes. 

When I hear the term “professional” in association with community theatre, it cues a rant on one of my most emotional pet peeves.  One of the things that completely undermines the entire intent and spirit of community theatre is the desire to be “professional”.  (Quite frankly, as much as I love the originators and coordinators of this site, I am deeply offended by their tag line at the opening of the site:  “The Home Of Professional Amateurs”.)  I saw an old display once that referred to that community theatre as a “professional community theatre.”  That is a contradiction in terms and spelled out very clearly to me why that theatre had been having so many artistic as well as participation problems.  Let me make no bones about this:  We ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL and our intention is NOT to create a PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT.  That doesn’t mean that at times our audiences experience what they consider a professional result.  I would never argue this point when an audience member would liken a show to a professional version they had seen.  It’s the old adage that you can argue facts, not perceptions.  But I also understood that what they were really saying is they had an artistic experience that significantly surpassed their expectations.  The audience can call it anything they want; as participants and managers (paid or volunteer), however, we need to know who and what we are if we are to be successful.  Mission contradiction can be deadly. 

At a Pennsylvania Association of Community Theatres conference a few years ago, Gary Cohen was brought in as a keynote speaker.  Mr. Cohen is (or was at that time – I don’t know if he still is or not!) producing director for Plays-in-the-Park in Edison, New Jersey.  He described his theatre and its incredible budget.  It seemed to me that the only people NOT paid were the actors.  Although his talk was enormously entertaining, I was disturbed to think of his theatre as a real community theatre.  This is one extreme.  Then there are theatres that pay no one, never have, and never will.  I don’t know that there is a pat answer to this issue except to say that if a theatre is thinking about paying people, know two things:

1.       Pay one person once, you are setting a precedent and will very likely be paying people to do this (these) job(s) forever.

2.      Know precisely what you expect to accomplish by having a paid person do whatever it was (a) volunteer(s) were (was) previously doing.

The second of these is too often a knee-jerk solution to the problem of not having enough volunteers.  I’m now going to insult a lot of people.  The reason why there aren’t enough volunteers is because there has not been enough commitment to a system of ongoing volunteer recruitment and/or training. 

I’ll put this provocative statement into a broader context.  It reflects what I deeply believe is the most basic vision/mission/purpose of community theatre: 

We provide a comprehensive, soup-to-nuts experience in all phases of the production and presentation of theatrical entertainment for members of the community. 

And I mean ALL.  There is no job that cannot be done by a volunteer.  Some community theatres have chosen to pay people to do certain things, while others remain fully volunteer.  I have seen exceptional productions under both systems.  But no matter where a community theatre falls in its scope of paid vs. volunteer participants, without volunteers you are not a community theatre.  That means you must always be in a recruitment mode.  

With this in mind, here’s my last thought on this rant:  when you pay someone to do something, you are taking that opportunity away from a volunteer.  In other words, as soon as you write the check, you’re undermining community theatre’s most basic function!