This is the first post in Generator’s ‘Governance Reimaginings’ blog series. You can find all posts in the series here, and everything we’ve published related to boards here. In this post, Generator Strategic Advisors Co-Chair and Board Member Brendan McMurtry-Howlett introduces the project.
Kaitlyn Riordan, Brendan McMurty-Howlett, and AJ Richardson (left to right) in Withrow Park, Shakespeare in the Ruff’s home base, in 2012 (perhaps contemplating the nature of governance, who’s to say?) — photo by Daniel Daley
So, my friends, we’ve had a couple blog posts about boards and governance already, primarily highlighting the shortcomings and challenges of the legislated model (i.e. systemic patriarchy and white supremacy). You can do a quick little recap here and here. You can also basically ask anyone who has ever sat on a board or worked with a board and they’ll likely give you a litany of issues…as well as a handful of positives.
Despite the widely acknowledged flaws of the non-profit board governance system that a company becomes beholden to as soon as it incorporates, “to incorporate or not to incorporate” is a question Generator hears routinely.
This, of course, is never as simple a conversation as the independent companies asking hope it will be (although we did write an ArtistProducerResource.com page about it to cover the basics). There’s pressure on indie companies who are looking to grow to pursue incorporation, either for regular non-profit status, or the coveted, yet misunderstood “charitable status” (Cue the pots of gold dancing in artists’ eyes.)
We’ve been having this discussion on repeat for years, emphasizing the systemic white supremacy and patriarchy that plagues the non-profit board of directors model—but we haven’t really had a clear alternative to point to. So, we thought we’d try to do something about it. We teamed up with Shakespeare in the Ruff and the Toronto Dance Community Love-in, two companies we’ve worked with closely over the past few years through our Company Collaborator program, to propose a project exploring alternative governance models—and lo and behold, the funding came through!
But first, how did I get here?
I’ve been peripherally connected to Generator (and even the former version: STAF) for a number of years. I helped found Shakespeare in the Ruff and served as the Artistic Director for the first five years, before passing the torch to Kaitlyn Riordan and Eva Barrie, who have now completed their tenures as well. More recently, I joined Generator’s board, curious to experience the board structure from the other side. See, as a young artist producer launching Shakespeare in the Ruff, I myself was lured by the promise of incorporation and charitable status. Well, to be perfectly honest, we were forced to incorporate in order to obtain a permit to perform in a city park. But, it seemed like a reasonable step to take since we wanted to grow the company and increase our access to resources.
I flew headlong into incorporation, and the accompanying “corporate” requirements and mandated board of directors, without much thought to what it actually meant.
I soon found myself trying to quickly learn the language of a corporation: Robert’s Rules, by-laws, minute-taking and motions. I filled our board with non-artists, as per the advice of the day: lawyers, accountants, corporate marketing experts, and the like.
I soon found I was living a double life: an artist in the rehearsal hall, actively embracing uncertainty with a robust creative process and vocabulary to navigate it; and a corporate executive in the board meetings, faking my way through meetings, discussing corporate decision-making procedures —steering clear of uncertainty at all costs lest the board of non-artists get scared and panic in a way that might undermine the organization. I found I was frequently undermining my own expert knowledge of the arts industry to defer to a corporate lawyer who waved around their “fiduciary duty” like a beating-stick.
I couldn’t provide leadership within the vocabulary and processes of a corporation, and the corporate directors couldn’t provide leadership for an arts industry they knew nothing about.
At the lowest point, our board imploded over disagreements of corporate procedure, and the company very nearly folded. No joke: Shakespeare in the Ruff, now celebrating its tenth anniversary and welcoming a third generation of leadership, almost went belly-up in year three.
I don’t believe there was malicious intent from any party. We were all simply pushed into a system of operating that did not arise from the values or ways-of-knowing of the artistic company itself. None of us had clarity on the actual functions of governance, beyond fulfilling the legal structure insisted upon by the Incorporation Act.
There were also many great experiences with Ruff’s board, where I was genuinely supported by a community of artists and non-artists alike to achieve more than I ever could have on my own. These polar oppositional experiences piqued my curiosity, and ever since leaving Shakespeare in the Ruff, I have sought to learn more about the spirit of governance and the legal structures we have in place. (I even went and did a Master’s degree looking at some of this stuff, but that’s a different story.) When the opportunity arose to join this project (and help write the grant), I jumped at it.
Brendan with Wayne Burns (right) in a production photo from Romeo and Juliet in 2016 — photo by Cylla von Tiedemann
Brendan welcoming Ruff audiences before a performance of Two Gents in 2012
So what is the project?
From the outset, the core of this project has been the desire to tackle the seemingly overwhelming topic of ‘governance’ within the context of a community of artist producers thinking about similar questions, but each through the lens of slightly different operating structures.
The Toronto Dance Community Love-in is an incorporated non-profit, and has operated with a collective leadership model since their inception. Shakespeare in the Ruff is a theatre company that has been operating under a co-leadership model, but is now undergoing a leadership transition towards a collective model, as well as a moment of transition with their board. Ruff is an incorporated charity which means they’ve got an extra layer of regulations and reporting requirements on their “corporate” structure.
We wanted to achieve a few things through this project. First, we wanted to learn. What are the other possibilities for governance models and structures? What are the exact legal requirements, and are there any loopholes in fulfilling them? What does “governance” actually mean separate from the non-profit board-of-directors model? Second, we wanted an opportunity within each of our three organizations, to try things out, do things differently, and experiment with governance and organizational structures based on our learning. Third, we wanted to share our learnings with the broader community…hence this blog post. And there will be more blog posts coming.
Throughout the past six months, we’ve structured our project as a series of (mostly Zoom) learning sessions, inviting in various knowledgeable folks who each bring a different perspective to the concept of governance and non-profit structures. These have been incredibly enlightening and exhilarating sessions, filling my head and heart with so many ideas, and allowing for an intimate discussion about the issues. We’ve been meeting with folks such as Jane Marsland, Yvette Nolan, Zainab Amadahy, Elder Whabagoon, Cynthia Lickers-Sage, and others.
What has struck me so far in these sessions is that governance is no one thing for any one person. It is about a practice of decision making that is undertaken in community. There is no magic wand, or perfect structure that will solve all the problems. Anything we create must be engaged with, nourished, and sustained by those impacted by and connected to the organization.
We’ve also had sessions where we’ve all shared our current thinking and questions, as well as how each of our uniquely structured organizations are wrestling with the shared issues. These sessions have been just as enlightening as those with invited guests, as I’ve been exposed to the innovative thinking and practical adjustments that my fellow participants have been doing within their own organizational contexts.
Over the next couple of months, we will be publishing a series of blog posts written by various people participating in this project. Some of them will be engaging with the learnings offered to us by our guest speakers. Some of them will be personal reflections on an evolving understanding of governance. We hope they will all be wildly entertaining. Or, at the very least, we hope to contribute to a growing community of folks in the arts (as well as other sectors) who are taking a good hard look at governance and the ways we make decisions together. We are all starting to recognize that in order to address systemic racism and patriarchy, we need to address our systems, and be bold in dreaming up something different.
These times of upheaval are an opportunity, if we can find the energy. As Yvette Nolan said to us, "I don't know how long this window is going to be open for." This is urgent work, and the more we share our growing knowledge on the subject of organizational transformation, the better our chance of enacting change that will reverberate through our sector…and honestly, hopefully the world too.
Governance Reimaginings asks how we can deconstruct inherited governance structures to create systems of accountability and community care that support, and are aligned with, the values of the organizations and individuals they serve. Structured as a knowledge exchange between Generator, Shakespeare in the Ruff, and the Toronto Dance Community Love-in, Governance Reimaginings took place between April-December 2021 and featured a series of instigations by invited guest speakers. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Chalmers Family Fund, administered by the Ontario Arts Council, for this project.
