Posts Tagged ‘board members’

Backlogs at US Consulates, New USCIS forms, Contract Entirety Clauses, and Board Term Limits

Wednesday, June 15th, 2022 
LAW & DISORDER:

Performing Arts Division

June 16, 2022

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

» Backlogs at US Consulates «
» New USCIS forms «
» Contract Entirety Clauses «
» Board Term Limits «

Current USCIS Service Center Processing Times:

Vermont Service Center: 
Standard processing: 4 – 8 weeks
Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Center: 
Standard Processing 2 – 4 MONTHS! 
Premium Processing 13 – 14 days!
US Consulates Are Significantly Backlogged!
The current slow down at the California Service Centre notwithstanding, the real bad news is that many—not all, but many–U.S. Consulates continue to experience significant backlogs. Artists approved for visas are finding that it can take weeks or months to have their visa stamps issued by a U.S. Consulate. Just within the last few weeks, an artist approved for an O-1 visa found she could not get an appointment for a visa stamp at the Paris Consulate until January 2023!

Whilst some consulates have expanded their interview waiver programme, many continue to be wildly inconsistent with regard to how this is implemented, including whether to grant interview waivers at all. For example, an artist was recently informed by the U.S. Consulate in London that, though he qualified for an interview waiver, it could take “several weeks or months” before he would be able to submit the application and get his visa stamp. Others have found it has taken 3 – 4 weeks for Consulates to return passports with visa stamps. Consulates also continue to be wildly inconsistent in how they grant requests for emergency appointments, with arts visas, of course, sedimenting to the bottom of the bin.

Whilst it is still “officially” possible for anyone, regardless of citizenship, to apply for a visa at any U.S. Consulate in the world where one can get an appointment, some consulates—purportedly to manage workload—are only accepting applications from citizens or residents of the country in which the Consulate is located.

In response to manifold complaints and queries from all sectors, the U.S. Department of State has issued several urgently indeterminate statements, a synopsis of which essentially being as follows:

“Yes, we know there’s a problem. We are very sorry. We are doing our best. We have a lot on our plates rights now. We are currently implementing many solutions which, due to national security, we cannot divulge other than to re-assure you in the vaguest possible terms that these new solutions will be more effective than our previous solutions which in hindsight should have been seen as imprudent in the expectation of their efficacy. Will it help if we continue to blame COVID? We care about you. Really. Every effort is being made towards prioritizing a scheme pursuant to which visa applications will be prioritized based upon a system of discretionary prioritization. The wizard says go away!”

Devastatingly, we are increasingly encountering engagements having to be cancelled or rescheduled where visa petitions were approved, but artists could not get their visas in time to travel. As such, please take this into consideration when planning your timelines and budgets. If you are planning anything for fall 2022 which depends upon a non-US artist, you would be wise to (1) check the current application procedures and timelines for the consulate where the artist will be applying for their visa stamp and (2) seriously consider premium processing at the outset so as to get the petition approved quickly and allow for as much time as possible for the visa stamp application process.

USCIS Has Issued Updated Forms

On May 31, 2022, USCIS released new editions of Form I-129 (used to file for O and P visa Petitions) and Form I-907 (for Premium Processing). Both of these forms are identical in all respects to the prior forms, except with new dates at the bottom. Why did they bother, you say? What was the point? No point. They’re just a bunch of crazy kids.

Legal Issue of the Month:
Contract Entirety Clauses

Look out for what are sometimes called “superseding agreement” or “entirety” clauses. They appear in almost all contracts, usually buried amongst the “legalese” that no one wants to read. They usually say something like this: “This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement.” It means that emails and discussions are not binding once the contract becomes binding.

So, if you had a series of emails with a presenter confirming that your artist must have a dressing room free of feather pillows, but that never made it into the final engagement contract, and the contract contains an “entirety clause”, then she’s going to need some extra-strength Zyrtec. I encountered this situation in the context of travel arrangements, but the issue is the same–and, no, sending me the chain of emails and texts did not help two days before the date! 

Dear Law and Disorder
Actual Questions We Get Asked and The Answers People Don’t Want

“BOARD TERM LIMITS”

Dear Law and Disorder:

We are a small non-profit that runs a performing arts center. In up-dating our by-laws, its been recommended that we establish term limits for our directors and officers, as well as a formal nominating committee. Do we really need such formalities? We’re very small and don’t have any other committees. Can’t the board itself select its own members and officers? And it seems a mistake to force directors to leave when they are willing to continue to serve on our board. What do you recommend to your clients?

While I am a strong advocate of fixed terms, I never recommend term limits for board members. Why? Because among the most challenging aspects of running a successful non-profit is finding and keeping healthy board members who through wealth, work, or wisdom (as opposed to whining, wasting staff time, or wrongheadedness) contribute to the success and productivity of the organization. Once you are lucky enough to find such pearls, the last thing you want to do is force them to leave! However, at the same time, you need to have a mechanism through which malignant board members can be removed. Such members, if left to metastasize, can quickly chase all the healthy ones away, burn out the staff, and poison the entire operation. Fixed terms where board members can then be re-nominated and re-elected provides you with such flexibility.

On the other hand, term limits for officers can be more appropriate. Why? Because with no term limits, even a beloved president or board chair can quickly become a feared dictator that no one wants to cross, or, just as worse, a benevolent, but ineffective leader who spurns all attempts at needed growth or change. At the end of the president’s term, they can still serve on the board, but no longer gets to wield the mace of supreme authority. Also, in my experience, I have found that those you most want to serve as board presidents or chairs will also be those who do not want to serve more than a few years year whereas those you want to avoid will be those looking to establish a hereditary fiefdom.

Deep Thoughts

“The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by a period of worry and depression.”
John Harvey Jones.”
Send Us Your Questions
Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

 

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!
.

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

Whose Lawsuit Is It Anyway?

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I’m dealing with a presenter who wants to cancel two weeks out due to poor ticket sales. While it’s not a huge engagement fee, my artist has already contracted its performers and paid out expenses for the date as its part of a bigger tour. I have a cancelation clause in my contract and I’ve explained what canceling would mean and that the presenter will be on the hook. However, he still wants to cancel. Its been a rough year and I can’t afford legal counsel. Do you have any suggestions?

At least the presenter is not trying to claim that poor ticket sales constitutes an act of God. While I am familiar with many organizations whose strategic plans require some degree of divine intervention to stay operational, God rarely takes an interest in ticket sales.

If you have a cancellation clause in your contract, then that will govern the legal remedies for the situation. Contractually, the presenter either has the option of either proceeding with the engagement or cancelling and abiding by the terms of the cancellation clause (which, I am hoping, spells out how much the artist is owed in the event of cancellation). If the presenter elects to cancel, but refuses to honour the terms of the cancellation clause, that would constitute a breach of contract…which really just gives the artist the right to sue the presenter, obtain a judgment, and, hopefully, collect the judgment. Whether or not attorney fees, interest, or court costs would also be part of the judgment depends on the terms of your contract as a judge has no authority to awards such costs unless the contract requires them. However, regardless of the terms of your contract, a lawsuit should always be the last resort under any circumstances.

Have you tried discussing with the presenter any solutions for increasing ticket sales or promoting the performance? Does your artist’s shows typically sell at the last minute? Has the artist ever performed in this market before? Don’t presume the presenter knows its own market or how to sell your artist in that market better than you do. You may have ideas for selling tickets that the presenter has not considered.

Is the person you are dealing with the final decision maker in the organization? If not, don’t hesitate to go over their head. Don’t threaten—just do it! If the presenter is a non-profit organization, then even the president or executive director reports to the board of directors. Contact the board president or an officer of the board. Often board members are far less cavalier about breaching contracts than an organization’s administrative staff. Its very possible that the board doesn’t even know about the situation as many presidents and CEOs are quite proficient at keeping their boards on a need-to-know basis.

If the presenter refuses to honour the cancellation clause, resist the urge to scream, threaten anyone’s reputation, or toilet paper the venue. While tempting, those options rarely work and will almost always make the situation worse. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to file a lawsuit, along with costs and expenses of filing the lawsuit, belong to your artist, not to you. Regardless of whether or not you signed the contract, if the contract is between the presenter and your artist, then all legal claims belong to the artist and only the artist can file a lawsuit and appear in court. You should not be paying or incurring any legal fees out of your own pocket. Unless you, too, are operating as a charitable institution, if the artist wants to pursue a lawsuit, that is their cost burden to bear, not yours.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Board Term Limits–The Kindest Cut of All?

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We are a small non-profit that runs a performing arts center. In up dating our by-laws, its been recommended that we establish term limits for our directors and officers, as well as a formal nominating committee. Do we really need such formalities? We’re very small and don’t have any other committees. Can’t the board itself select its own members and officers? And it seems a mistake to force directors to leave when they are willing to continue to serve on our board. What do you recommend to your clients?

While I am a strong advocate of fixed terms, I never recommend term limits for board members. Why? Because among the most challenging aspects of running a successful non-profit is finding and keeping healthy board members who, whether through wealth, work, or wisdom (or a rare combination of all three), contribute to the success and productivity of the organization. Once you are lucky enough to find then, the last thing you want to do is force them to leave! However, at the same time, you need to have a mechanism through which malignant board members can be removed. Such members, if left to metastasize, can quickly chase all the healthy ones away, burn out the staff, and poison the entire operation. Fixed terms without term limits provide you with the best of both worlds.

Let’s say, for example, that the by-laws provide that each board member serves a term of 2 years. At the end of each board member’s term, the nominating committee is required to review the board member and recommend either that the board member be invited to serve another term or be invited to exit. By having terms, but no term limits, there is no limit to how many terms a board member can serve, but there is also a fixed time after which every board member’s service can be reviewed. While you can pick any term length you want, I usually recommend no longer than 2 – 3 year terms for board membership. (Anything longer and you start losing the effectiveness of early detection and prevention!) There are also ways to stagger terms so that not everyone on the board is up for renewal at the same time.

Term limits for officers, on the other hand, can be more appropriate. Why? Because with no term limit, even a beloved president or board chair can quickly become a feared dictator that no one wants to cross, or, just as worse, a benevolent, but ineffective leader who spurns all attempts at growth or change. At the end of the president’s term, he or she can still serve on the board, but no longer gets to wield the mace of supreme authority. Also, in my experience, I have also found that the people you most want to serve as board president or chair will be those who do not want to serve more than a year whereas those you want to avoid are those who are looking for a life-time appointment.

As for whether or not you need to have a formal nominating committee, its a recommended practice to have the formality of a separate nominating committee—if not at first, then certainly as your board gets bigger. The nominating committee does not make the actual decisions, but, rather, makes recommendations to the board of whether or not to ask existing board members to renew their terms, as well as reviews and makes recommendations for the nomination of new board members. While the board is always able to accept or decline such recommendations, having a nominating committee allows a forum for such discussions to be “hashed out” other than in a full board meeting. This has the advantage of avoiding potentially awkward situations. First, imagine a scenario where a board member has nominated a “close friend” to serve on the board, but who may not be a good choice for the board. Having such a frank discussion is easier “in committee” than in the presence of the board member. Similarly, when reviewing the renewal of existing board members, its usually easier to have a more open and honest assessment, including key staff input, without having the entire board present. Like all committee work, its also a more efficient use of the board’s time to have committees make recommendations and reports rather than bog down the entire board with every decision. Lastly, a separate nominating committee can potentially prevent a small board from evolving into a dictatorship where only a few members dominate everything.

By-laws, like strategic plans and business plans, are not commandments fixed in stone, but, rather, should be approached as living, breathing, and malleable tools that provide structure as well as flexibility. When thinking of by-laws, you not only need to think of current operations, but creating mechanisms for growth. Even though your board may now be small, you want think big. Similarly, even though your board may currently be one big happy family, you want to think of the future when, like all families, everyone inevitably starts to get one everyone else’s nerves.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Venues | Comments Closed

Can I Fire My Board Members?

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Dear Law and Disorder:

Many years ago I founded a successful non-profit dance company. Over the years, we have continued to grow by adding board members, increasing donations, and critically acclaimed performances. However, my current board has become too invasive. In the past, I have always given them reports about the upcoming season, plans, new artists, etc, and they have focused on fundraising. As the founder and artistic director, it has always been clear that I was always in charge. Now, some of the newer board members are starting to demand financial reports and budgetary control. The new board chair recently wanted to be involved in interviewing a new development director I wanted to hire! My understanding has always been that the legal role of the board was only to raise money. How do I stop this situation before it gets worse? Is this something I can address in the by-laws? Can I fire the board members? What are my legal options?

 

First, and foremost, congratulations! Clearly, under your leadership, you have created a viable and sustainable organization for which you deserve an extraordinary amount of credit. For the purposes of your question, I am going to presume your non-profit has also been approved for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by the IRS. This is important because not all non-profit organizations are also tax exempt. A non-profit organization, like its for-profit cousin, can organize and operate in whatever manner its founder or owners decide—subject only to whatever restrictions may be imposed by the law of the state in which it is formed. However, a non-profit which has also applied and been granted tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code must operate under very specific guidelines in order to maintain its tax-exempt status.

In applying for and receiving 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, the founders of the non-profit are striking a grand bargain with the IRS pursuant to which, in exchange for permitting donations to the organization to be deductible and exempting the organization from having to pay taxes on its income, the founder must forfeit sole control and ownership. Like a scene from a Dickensian novel, once a non-profit organization applies for and receives 501(c)(3) status, its founder abandons the organization on the steps of society. It becomes an “orphan” whose care and welfare is left to the community. The community is represented by the board of directors, which is then charged with overseeing the management and operations of the tax-exempt non-profit to ensure that it continues to serve its mission and tax-exempt purposes. The artistic director and founder can—and, in my opinion, should—serve on the board of directors, but the organization is no longer owned by anyone. In short, it is not “your” organization. It is not anyone’s organization. It belongs to the community and, as such, the authority and control of the organization rests solely in the board of directors.

In your situation, it sounds as if your board is transitioning from a culture where you have understandably been given much deference to one where the board wants to assert more control and oversight. While I understand that this can be frustrating in many respects, it can also offer many positive opportunities for growth and sustainability. A healthy tax-exempt organization requires a constant exchange of expertise and experience between the board members, administration, and artistic leaders who must in turn balance many competing considerations in carrying out the organization’s mission: art and business; emotion and practicality; innovation and tradition. Even in a situation where an organization’s founder might be perceived as the best person to arbitrate such things, the organization’s by-laws cannot legally bestow upon any one individual—the founder, the board chairman, the artistic director—sole control and authority. Unless the board has some degree of meaningful control and oversight authority, not only does the organization risk losing its 501(c)(3) status, but also jeopardizes its relevancy and viability as a community institution. On the other hand, while the board needs to have control over major decisions—such as the hiring and firing of the artistic director or whether or not to raise funds for a new production—if the board asserts too much control, it risks losing its artistic legitimacy. The surest path to artistic disaster is to allow a board of well-meaning attorneys, business leaders, and wealthy patrons to dictate casting, programming, or other similar artistic decisions. These are extraordinarily difficult and perilous paths to navigate, to be sure, and are littered with organizations who, in either failing to address these issues correctly or ignoring them completely, have fallen into the abyss of bitter feelings, splintered boards, burned out staff, depleted endowments, and even bankruptcy.

Rather than looking for a means to assert—or maintain—absolute control, it sounds as if the time has come for you and your board to evaluate the organization’s operations and structure. Among other things, does your organization have the right balance of wealth and wisdom, both financial and artistic, on its board? Is there a plan should you, as artistic director, want to retire or take a less active role? What if an overly-aggressive board chair presents itself? How are decisions made? Now is the time to reflect not just upon your by-laws, but the policies, strategies, and procedures necessary to ensure a healthy balance that can sustain the future of the organization you have nurtured this far.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ftmartslaw-pc.com.

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. FTM Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Presenters | Comments Closed