What do you want from the AIC?

[ratliff]

I think the longer the AIC is in place, the more we take for granted/forget the things it does provide.

I think that's absolutely right. And that makes it a lot harder to look at those things and see if they still work. The people who have been running this have done an amazing job of creating an organization out of spit and baling wire, but that doesn't mean that we have to keep using spit and baling wire forevermore. You're right that if something's working you should think twice about fixing it, but given that the organization isn't even sure what it's trying to do, defining "working" is sort of a problem.

[Wesley]

It's academic. The people who make up the AIC aren't some group external to the theaters. If the AIC turned over scheduling/production of the Threefer and Double Barrel to the Hideout, they would still have to be scheduled.

Of course they would need to be scheduled, but by the theaters: i.e. no amount of AIC volunteerism or nonvolunteerism would matter. If the theater wanted you, you could play. If not, you couldn't. Yes they'd need scheduling, but ONLY by the requirements set forth by the theater. So it isn't academic at all to say that if the AIC got out of production, it would also get out of being able to "punish" people by withholding show slots.

As for punishments, that ONLY applies to hosting. Where's the punishment for people who said they'd tape shows and didn't? Or said they'd flyer and didn't? Or said they'd do anything other than hosting and didn't? Hosting is only one aspect of many that the AIC needs to keep growing.

I also agree with Christina. We keep taking on more without maintaining what we have. I'd much rather do less but better than more without progress or results.

[beardedlamb]

i have long thought the organization of the aic was going to be its downfall. not that it has downfallen fully, but when i returned from chicago and saw how the AIC was run, i thought, "this will never work." which is why i tried to centralize the power and make sure there were checks and balances. a cooperative does not work if everyone does not pitch in. and i saw a few people doing the bulk of work and saying, "i don't mind doing extra." "ha, just wait," i thought taking a pull from my clove sigarette while spelling sigarette wrong.

bill and nadine are right, we have both the AIC and the theatres to thank. they have benefitted mutually from each other's hard work and what was once a pit of despair of an improv scene (ask bob a.) has blossomed into an amazing tour de force that has made much headway. we've gotten a lot done and we have a lot of positive things to show for it.

i'd like to take a moment to discuss this idea of AIC producing festivals. i think this is a fallacy. oob is produced by shannon and mike and i. LAFF is a ggg deal. wafflefest is produced by andy. see.hear.speak is produced by coldtowne and/or wes. they may use people who are also aic members, but this does not make them aic projects. to make something an aic project over the past year is to send it to it's deathbed. that doesn't mean we can't change that and i'm not all about giving in and giving up. i have just learned that if something means a lot to me, i'm not going to rely on the aic for anything. i'll call on people who i know will do what i need them to and they may happen to be members of aic.

i enjoy the benefits of performing in aic shows that are staffed and that i get paid for. this can't be overlooked. it is a true rarity. so i'm torn on whether the aic should get out of production. truth be told, i and my troupe get paid more and get better houses when we (i) produce our own shows, but that doesn't mean that formula works for everyone. i fancy myself a good producer and i am very aware that not every group has that character in it. some groups need the staffing, booking, and promotion to be taken care of for them. so what harm is it for there to be an entity that does that and takes a cut of their proceeds to maintain itself? this is your troupe incubator.

the jam for example: if wes was to stop holding that bull by the horns, who would be able to take it over and continue the process of incubating there? sure, maybe someone, but the aic's existance makes it easier to find someone.

i'm with most of the people who have held positions of power in the aic when i say, "where the fuck is everyone?" but secondarily, i'm with them in that we cannot continue to pour our resources and brain power into building something that gives little back, if there are scores of others who constantly watch from the bench and shout direction onto the stage.

while i think the aic is sinking yet salvagable, all of you will be seriously missing its presence when it's gone. you'll have to work harder to do all the work an organization was offering to give you in exchange for little effort. this includes venue owners, show producers, people with ideas who need resources, festival producers, teachers, people who want award shows, and you, the performer.

i was going to post this tonight regardless, but i'm glad this thread is here acting as a release of demons for people and i hope someone (no one? all of us?) will take notice.

i also hope the irony of this discussion taking place on the forum that it has produced is not lost on anyone, either. and i don't mean that as a snide comment. it's actually amusing to me. also amusing, i just spent 20 minutes of my life composing this post.

beard

[Asaf]

I think we can all agree that there are flaws in the current system and that some structural changes will need to happen.

I intend to propose such things within a few weeks (I am hoping to do it within two). I have meetings planned with Val, Julie, Jeremy, Chris, Andy and Christina in regards to their various roles and what they need to see the goals accomplished more easily and where they benefit and how the AIC helps or hinders. This is all research for the proposal.

There may be some big things that I am going to suggest as part of that proposal:
1. There needs to be a contract between the AIC and the venues to better delineate the relationship between them and what the responsibilities/benefits are of each of them in that relationship.

2. Define what membership is, how one acquires it and for what length of time, what the benefits are of membership, and what are the requirements. Basically, another contract. I am also going to suggest a expiration date on these membership contracts to allow groups to opt out of renewal as well as the AIC.

3. Create a system of accountability that distributes tasks amongst the entire membership. The point system is where this comes into play. Points would earn rewards, possibly monetary or services or such. The more points accrued, the more rewards. This is my preference to creating a system of punishments which I think will be majorly counterproductive. The major obstacle on this is that point systems work best with individual members as opposed to membership troupes.

So that is the proposal that I have in my head. The discussions that I have lined up will help solidify these ideas with more specifics or change them to something that better benefits the AIC. I may, however, after two weeks find that the best proposal is to dissolve many aspects of the AIC.

More to come in two weeks.

[Wesley]

Please e-mail me as well, Asaf. I would also like to meet with you, I was simply unable to give you a time on the spot. I have been very involved from the beginning and have a lot of legacy knowledge and would not like to be left out on this front for lack of a calendar on Sunday.

Two other points (and now you get the short sassy versions of them because I accidently hit back and deleted the longer, but sweeter versions).

First, I hope no one mistakes my attitudes on the forums for my attitude in public. While I may come across negative in attitude on here about some facets of the AIC and its future, I do so because I believe debate and honesty to be healthy. I'm not going to pussyfoot around to save face and spare feelings. HOWEVER, in public, such as at the Create Austin meetings or the S.H.S.2 radio interviews, I speak of Austin improv and the AIC as if it is the second coming of Christ Almighty himself. To the pbulic I present a picture of sunshine and roses and beds made of kittens and streets paved with assorted types of cheese (Gouda if it runs N-S, Muenster if it runs E-W).

Two, one of the most commonly cited reasons for burnout behind lack of support is revisiting solved issues and second-guessing previous decisions on the first instance of failure. Some of the proposals above, such as member ship were proposed as early as late-2005 before they were even needed and settled in July and August of 2006. While this information should be collected in a centralized location (I'm pushing for centralizing a lot of things if you haven't noticed), a quick search of the forums will bring up old agendas, meetings notes, and threads with answers and historical discussions on such proposals. Having the same discussions every 3-6 months is energy I do not want to expend (yet again).

[Roy Janik]

Some of the proposals above, such as member ship were proposed as early as late-2005 before they were even needed and settled in July and August of 2006.

Yes, please. Membership is a done deal. Let's not revisit it.

[kaci_beeler]

Having the same discussions every 3-6 months is energy I do not want to expend (yet again).

Amen to that.

[York99]

Heck, we even had a debate over wheter or not an AIC charity function was stealing audience members from the TNA. Yet wasn't our goal of the AIC to expose ourselves to new ideas and help get our name in the community? But this was lost because "TNA is struggling for audience members"

I brought this up because I think that doing one project at the expense of another could possibly be harmful to the AIC [read: maybe it would piss off someone that their project was being marginalized due to other projects... and internally, no less]. I never said cancel the charity function. I thought the subject should be addressed, however, in hopes of avoiding conflicts within the AIC as well as to maximize our efforts, rather than spread ourselves too thin. The topic was discussed and I feel there was some healthy back and forth over the issue. Plus, Val got to lay the smackdown on me... which is also beneficial for the AIC.

[Asaf]

Some of the proposals above, such as member ship were proposed as early as late-2005 before they were even needed and settled in July and August of 2006.

Yes, please. Membership is a done deal. Let's not revisit it.

With all due respect, I don't know that it is. And I am not looking to open a big discussion on Membership. I am investigating the specifics of it through my various meetings (I will contact you soon, Wes). It seems that there are some holes in the system and some of them stem from the lack of definition to the membership. There is talk of rewards and punishments but that will not hold any weight if there if membership does not mean anything.

I was given membership to the AIC before I even moved here, just by showing up at a meeting in November. That is a bit strange to me. I did not do anything to earn it yet, had not performed in Austin, and I never needed participate again.

In the end, please trust me that I will put together some proposals that will revisit these areas but in a more definitive way with new directions and immediate goals in mind.

[arclight]

IIRC (and I think Erika May has a better memory of this if we can't find the meeting minutes), before a certain date anyone in an AIC member troupe was in plus people who regularly attended meetings. After that date, if you were in an AIC member troupe, you could be in, otherwise you needed a thumbs-up from three AIC members to be in.

There are currently no dues, no responsibilities, and no privileges aside from voting at meetings and getting into AIC shows free, provided you're not bumping a paying customer. There are troupe responsibilities that come with performing in the Double Barrel or Threefer, but that's about it.

There are no classes of membership (such as performer, volunteer, student, or public.) There's no provision for kicking someone out - that's probably OK for the time being. Membership exists primarily to define quorum for meetings to ensure decisions are made with some semblance of legitimacy. This is mostly of interest to parlimentarians and the like.

One of the open issues for articles of incorporation & bylaws (both necessary for 501(c)(3) incorporation) is whether the organization has members, and what role they have in running the organization (e.g. none, elect executive board, direct participation, etc.) If we are to proceed toward obtaining 501(c)(3) status, this issue needs to be clarified and unambiguously stated (however, this is not the thread for that discussion...)

FWIW, I've been very busy last week, this weekend, and today, otherwise I would have commented further and more generally; I think this covers the specific topic of membership.

[York99]

Counter Point: The State of the Union is Good

I think the AIC is doing a good job. There's a web site, regular shows, and a whole bunch of people who believe in it.

Right now, there is no incentive to expand. Why bother forcing it? Everyone is doing a great job and having fun.

[Asaf]

To play devil's advocate, here is a reason.

Everyone is having fun playing in the Double Barrel and Threefer shows and the shows are great. Awesome. The shows also play to an audience of mostly improvisers who get to see the show for free. This means little money coming in for the Hideout. There is trouble finding people willing to help expand the audience of those shows beyond improvisers through advertising, flyering, etc. It is by the good graces of the Hideout that the show continues without an improvement in audience revenue. And possibly we take that for granted.

There is no doubt that the AIC structure is great. But all structures need regular maintenance and all organizations have politics to get through. That is part of their nature. I think what is being looked for is adjustments to what are in place, rather than scrapping the various aspects.

[beardedlamb]

Everyone is doing a great job and having fun.

did you even read these three pages of posts?

[York99]

I just don't want to kill a great thing by asking too much of people.

Wes mentioned the 80/20 rule. That's the way it's going to be. It's not the ideal situation that makes communism good in theory. It's the real situation that makes communism bad in practice. But so long as people are not relying on it for their living, then it fits this situation.

ColdTowne stayed in Austin after Katrina because the AIC was so awesome. Asaf came to Austin in large part because the AIC was so awesome. Etc. etc.

It is a different situation from the perspective of the Hideout. If that situation is in risk because of financial matters, then something better has to be figured out.

But, as someone else mentioned, our situation of getting paid is unique. At Second City's theater in LA, I think it was $500 to get a four-week run and a director for a show and the return was a cut of the door that would likely not make the troupe a profit. Stage time costs money other places.

Food for thought.

[Jastroch]

Everyone is having fun playing in the Double Barrel and Threefer shows and the shows are great. Awesome. The shows also play to an audience of mostly improvisers who get to see the show for free. This means little money coming in for the Hideout.

ColdTowne has not been at the HideOut every week for obvious reasons, but in the shows we've played in since November, the audiences have been consistently packed.

Is this a matter of troupes not promoting themselves and their shows at all? And expecting the AIC to do all the promotional work? Maybe. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are a few troupes in town that consistently draw audiences. Why do you think that is?