Montana Legislature debates the future of arts and culture funding

Legislators are doubling down on efforts to reform a set of state grants dedicated to local arts and cultural projects.

On March 7, the House passed House Bills 756 and 757, revising the criteria for two cornerstones of cultural programing: the Historic Preservation Grant Program administered through the Department of Commerce and the Cultural and Aesthetic Projects Grant Program administered through the Montana Arts Council.  

Under the proposed changes, repeat applicants and larger organizations would be deprioritized for awards. House Bill 756 also restricts the ability of organizations to use Historic Preservation Grant funds for so-called “modern” improvements like security systems and accessibility ramps. 

The bills faced muted opposition in initial hearings. Critics like Kathy Barton, executive director of the Museums Association of Montana, acknowledged that the legislation’s premise of prioritizing smaller organizations was not inherently problematic, while drawing attention to the atmosphere into which the legislation was introduced. 

“We’d like to preface our remarks by calling attention to the significant confusion that has resulted this year over established requirements of grant applicants and the expectations of the Legislative committees,” said Barton. 

Her comments hinted at an increasingly adversarial relationship between Rep. John Fitzpatrick, R-Anaconda, and the Montana arts and culture community. Fitzpatrick chairs the Joint Subcommittee on Long Range Planning, which is responsible for signing off on a handful of bills that distribute state grant funds.  

To apply for funds, organizations submit lengthy grant applications a year in advance of the legislative session, which are then reviewed and scored by executive organizations like the Department of Commerce and the Montana Arts Council. A list of the ranked projects is then given to the subcommittee for review. 

Though legislators rarely see the full grant applications, they can introduce amendments to alter the ranking and maintain the final say over what projects receive funding. 

“The statute is very clear,” said Fitzpatrick during the subcommittee’s first meeting. “The ranking process that the department used and brought to us is simply advisory. We can change that list. We can delete projects from the list. We can amend the dollars.” 

In February, Fitzpatrick wielded that power by introducing an amendment to rescind funding from 27 arts nonprofits suggested by the Montana Arts Council. Five Flathead Valley nonprofits were among those penalized. 

Deidre Corson, the executive director of North Valley Music School, said that the decision contradicted how the subcommittee had traditionally handled the grant. 

“This is my 13th year being involved in the music school, and this is the first time I’ve seen something like this,” she said. 

At a volatile Feb. 21 House Appropriations Committee hearing on the amendment, Fitzpatrick said the decision sent a message to organizations he called slackers for not participating in committee hearings previously understood to be optional. He also characterized the Montana Arts Council’s administration of the Cultural and Aesthetic Grant Program as sloppy and offensive. 

An amended list of Historic Preservation Grant recipients that removed several high-ranking projects generated similar confusion. At a Feb. 27 hearing, Fitzpatrick explained that the subcommittee adopted its own criteria to review the projects, striking several projects that the department had ranked highly. Among the 39 projects removed from the list were projects at Historic Hotel Libby and Libby Lofts. 

When a fellow representative asked about the reason one project had been removed from the list, Fitzpatrick said the subcommittee “relied really heavily on the input from Senator [John] Esp, who happens to have some personal knowledge about this project.” 

The changes drew criticisms from some representatives during a March 17 House floor session. 

“My concern is the work of the ranking committee doesn’t seem to matter and worthy projects were eliminated,” said Rep. Jane Weber, D-Great Falls. 

Weber also spoke out against House Bills 756 and 757, arguing that the introduction of new criteria would only further complicate what had already proven to be a tumultuous process. 

“As my mom used to say, let’s not change the horses in midstream,” she said, echoing the concerns of several other Democratic representatives.  

Fitzpatrick, meanwhile, cited the ongoing confusion as the catalyst for the new legislation. 

“We did not try to lay down the heavy hand this time,” he said of House Bill 757. “We’re hoping that the arts council and the arts community will take a look at this and begin to evaluate their behavior.” 

Fitzpatrick characterized the grants as “entitlement programs” and maintained that, even if new criteria is implemented, the Legislature should have final authority over the disbursement of grant funds to ensure a competitive process. 

“If you want to protect this program and make it better in the future, you need to shrink it down,” he said. 

The House passed HB 756 and HB 757 on March 7. The subcommittee’s amended list of Historic Preservation Grant recipients also passed the House on March 19. The House Appropriations Committee is still reviewing the amended list of Aesthetic and Cultural Grant recipients. 

Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@dailyinterlake.com or 758-4433.