"Ghost Ballet for the East Bank Machineworks" designed by Alice Aycock is a project by the Metro Nashville Arts Commission. Credit: Banner Photo/Martin E. Cherry

This post has been updated.

What’s controversial about funding the arts? In Nashville, it turns out, a lot.

Metro Arts, the body responsible for distributing grants from Metro to local artists, has been embroiled in controversy over how funding is distributed. The issue has grown to include multiple legs of Metro government, multiple investigations and multiple layers. To better understand the issues, the Banner has created a timeline of key events that brought us to this moment. This timeline will be updated as the situation evolves. 

In 2021 Metro Arts began an overhaul when allegations of racism and mistreatment by leadership were revealed by the Nashville Scene. Those allegations led to the executive director’s departure and, in August 2022, Daniel Singh was hired with the task of bringing increased equity to the arts. 

A report from the Metro Human Relations Commission found that since 1987, the Arts Commission has awarded approximately $61,572,329 to arts organizations in Nashville, and 71 percent of it has gone to organizations with an annual budget of $1 million or more. Singh set out to change this, with the goal of increasing Thrive grant funding, which goes towards independent artists and small arts organizations, but the situation quickly devolved. Over the course of 2023, nearly half of the Metro Arts Commission resigned and multiple investigations were spawned out of events surrounding the grant distribution process, which ended with Thrive artists losing out on funding and operational grants being delayed by months. 

There are at least three ongoing reviews:

  • The Metro Human Relations Commission found probable cause of discriminatory action by the Arts Commission and Metro Legal. They plan to hold a public hearing on the matter, but a date has not yet been set. 
  • An audit of Metro Arts is expected to be completed “soon,” according to Metro Finance. 
  • On April 4, the Board of Ethical Conduct will consider a complaint made by an artist who was supposed to receive Thrive funding. 

How we got here:

December 2022

  • With Singh at the helm, the Metro Arts Commission adopted a grant funding formula that would fund independent artists and small art organizations at historic levels. Created with community input, this formula aimed to push funding towards independent and BIPOC (Black, indigenous and other people of color) artists and organizations, while still maintaining some level of funding for larger organizations that have historically received funding. 

June 2023

  • Metro Council passed the FY24 budget and Metro Arts did not receive enough money to fund the December formula. 
  • Because of the shortfall, multiple councilmembers supported an amendment to the budget that allocated $2 million of anticipated surplus funding to the arts commission as “funding for cultural support.” When passing this amendment, Metro Councilmembers expressed that they wanted this funding to go towards Thrive artists. 

July 20, 2023

  • The Metro Arts Commission voted on a new funding formula based on distributing a little over $4.6 million. The Commission chose what was considered the most equitable of the four formulas they were presented with, providing Thrive applicants with more than $1.7 million in grants. 
  • During the meeting, Commissioner Will Cheek raised concerns about the constitutionality of their decision, because the funding formulas had “BIPOC impact” listed as a data point. He asked Metro Legal if making a funding decision based on race could open the commission up to litigation. Metro Legal did not express concern at the time. 

July 25, 2023

  • Following a phone call between Cheek and Metro Legal Director Wally Dietz, Metro Legal Associate Director Lora Fox sent a memo to the Arts Commission citing a recent Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action from university admissions as a reason for concern over the Commission’s decision on the funding formula. 

August 11, 2023

  • During a closed-door executive session, Metro Legal advised the Commission to revote the funding formulas. 
  • The Metro Human Relations Commission would later argue in their report that this closed-door session may have been illegal under Tennessee’s Open Meetings statute.

August 17, 2023

  • The Commission met to revote on a funding formula. One option would have accomplished similar equitability to the July scenario, but it was voted down 6-8.
  • The Commission instead passed a plan that cut the July formula’s Thrive funding in half, and returned to traditional funding levels for larger organizations.

This decision prompted outrage from many in the arts community. 

September, 2023

  • The Metro Human Relations Commission received multiple complaints from Thrive applicants who either had funding cut in half or fully taken away because of the August revote. The complaints alleged discriminatory actions from the Metro Arts Commission and Metro Legal. 
  • Simultaneously, contracts started going out to organizations that were awarded operational grants. Those contracts said organizations would receive 50 percent of their award first and 50 percent later.

October 2023

  • Operational grant funding was originally slated to go out in October. It did not. 

Early November, 2023

  • Organizations were informed that they would receive new contracts, but it was not communicated why. When they received new contracts, they were only for 50 percent of the funding they were supposed to receive. 
  • It would later come out that Metro Finance told Metro Arts that the contracts must be redone because the $2 million in surplus funding would not be available until later and must be disbursed through a separate contract. 

November 28, 2023

  • On Giving Tuesday, multiple nonprofits of various sizes sent emails to their supporters with messages of desperation. They explained that Metro grant funding they have come to depend on is missing, and they have not been told if or when it will ever arrive. Some said that because of the late and missing funding, they may have to cut down on programming and even lay off staff. 

December 8

December 14

  • During a specially called meeting of the Metro Council’s Public Facilities, Arts and Culture Committee, Singh explained the delay in operational grants and said that while the first half will go out soon, he did not know when the second half would go out. 
  • Metro Human Relations Commission Executive Director Davie Tucker also attended the meeting, and said that the August funding formula “maintains the status quo”
  • He also said that while an MHRC investigation into the Thrive artist complaints was underway, Metro Legal was causing it to take longer than it should. 

January, 2024

  • Arts organizations received the first half of the promised operational grant funding. 
  • Mayor Freddie O’Connell appointed five new members to the Arts Commission. Going into the new year, the body barely had enough members to make a quorum due to a flock of resignations throughout the events of 2023, including two chairpersons.

Feb. 7, 2024

  • In a letter to the Metro Arts Commission, Metro Legal Director Wally Dietz and Metro Finance Director Kevin Crumbo provided updates on their investigations. 
  • Crumbo said that “financial activities at Arts do not appear in compliance with Metro’s policies and procedures, and accordingly, raise questions about overall financial control and stability.”
  • Dietz said that aside from the financial concerns, multiple Metro Arts staffers had come forward to report “intimidating” behavior from management that may violate Metro’s Workplace Conduct Policy.
  • It was also revealed at this point that while the $2 million surplus is available, it would be held until the audit can ensure Metro Arts’ finances are in order. 

February 26

  • During a meeting of the Arts Commission Oversight Committee, which was formed in response to the ongoing issues, Crumbo revealed that while the audit was not complete, Metro Arts would be in a deficit due to overspending on consultants and contractors. 
  • Crumbo said that if that is the case, the $2 million surplus monies may need to go towards balancing the deficit. 
  • In another specially called meeting of the Metro Council’s Public Facilities, Arts and Culture Committee later that evening, Singh said that he believes salary savings will be able to be used to pay off the potential deficit.

March 5

  • The Metro Human Relations Commission released its report.
  • The report found probable cause that there had been discriminatory action in the Arts Commission’s decision making. Additionally, the MHRC said that Metro Legal had “potentially overstepped” in their dealings with the Metro Arts commission.
  • “Ironically, the decision to rescind the allocation decision likely creates a greater risk of liability under Title VI for both the Arts Commission and Metro Legal than they would have faced had they proceeded with the grants decision on July 20,” said the MHRC’s outside legal counsel in the investigation.
    • At the end of that meeting, Tucker revealed that he is being investigated over allegations from three Metro Arts employees of assault, intimidation and coercion. He accused Metro Legal of weaponizing Metro Arts employees.
    • Dietz called this accusation “categorically false.”

March 6

  • WPLN reported that Singh had not reported to work since Feb. 23, with Singh saying “The racist behavior of the Metro Government has affected my health.”
  • A Commission meeting was scheduled for the following Monday to discuss Singh’s absence and employment. 

March 12

  • During a hastily called meeting of the Metro Arts Commission, commissioners heard the results of an investigation conducted by outside counsel into allegations of workplace misconduct in Metro Arts. That investigation found the Metro Arts workplace in complete disarray, with Director Daniel Singh and his employees at constant odds with one another. 
  • Although the Commission’s agenda for the day included a discussion of Singh’s employment, they delayed that discussion by a week to allow Singh to work out leave-related issues with HR. Singh, who was at the meeting, said he could return to work remotely starting that day. 
  • The Commission scheduled a meeting for the following week, but that meeting was canceled. 
  • Also that day, a group of Metro Council members called on Crumbo to immediately release the funding so that it could be distributed to artists. 

March 16

  • Will Cheek resigned from the Metro Arts Commission. This came just a few days after a resolution was filed in Metro Council calling for his removal from the commission. 

March 18

  • A letter was sent to Tucker from a lawyer who had been retained as Metro Legal’s outside counsel in connection with the MHRC report. Rita Roberts-Turner wrote that “the finding of probable cause against Metro Legal is without merit and should be withdrawn from the record.” She argued three main points:
    • Metro Legal was not a party to the complaint that was submitted.
    • Metro Legal cannot lawfully be a part of the complaint because it does not receive Title VI funding.
    • Metro Legal’s actions do not support findings of discrimination. 

March 22

  • Mayor Freddie O’Connell and Metro Finance Director Kevin Crumbo announced that all funding commitments made in both the July and August funding formulas would be fulfilled. 
  • Between these commitments and a growing deficit at Metro Arts, an additional $3 million will be tacked on to the $2 million in surplus funding that was already being directed to Metro Arts.
  • In a memo to Metro Councilmembers and Arts Commissioners, Crumbo requests that the commission appoint an executive director who is qualified to assist in the process that will be undertaken.
  • Director Daniel Singh interviews for a position out of state.

Clarification

• A previous version of this story — based on reporting at a Metro Human Relations Commission meeting — said that during an August 11 Executive Session, the MHRC found that “Cheek may have used this time to convince his peers to agree to a revote. Cheek explicitly denies lobbying other commissioners during the session.” At the meeting, MHRC staffer Ashley Bachelder said, “We do believe that there is an appearance that the legal memo and the executive session were used by at least one commissioner that did not support the outcome of the July vote to advocate for a revote.” Bachelder contacted the Banner to clarify her comments from the March 4 meeting: “Will Cheek, to my knowledge, did not attend the executive session or lobby any commissioners directly. Rather, he used his influence by calling Director Wally Dietz to suggest he look at the potential unconstitutionality of the vote, which ultimately led Metro Legal to call for an executive session.” 

Disclosure: Kevin Crumbo has donated to the Nashville Banner in the past. Financial supporters play no role in the Banner’s journalism.

Connor Daryani is a staff reporter. He has previously freelanced for the Nashville Scene and the Nashville Post covering the state legislature and Metro.