Neil Gaiman/MN speaker fees brouhaha

[trixie]

Not sure if you've all seen this or not, but Neil Gaiman is being raked through the coals for collecting $45,000 in speaking fees in the state of MN. The problem is the fees came from state-supplied funds, which Gaiman then went and donated, so really, what's the problem?

Well, now the House of Representatives is recommending cutting the local library allotment by $45,000 to make up for the unnecessary spending. Thinking of this makes my blood boil since I feel passionately about my library.

The underlying question here (in my opinion) is asking for and collecting speaking fees. It's a natural transaction that you see in all areas of business. But why is it the wealthier you are, the more you are expected/encouraged to do things pro bono?

I'd love to hear any other thoughts. I'm slightly fired up now that my library is the unfortunate collateral damage. And in full disclosure, I blogged about it here: http://tlconwaywriteshere.blogspot.com/ ... itics.html

[Sommer Leigh]

I remember when this originally happened and I'm trying to pull from memory, but I thought the money was through some kind of fund that they had to spend or lose, and they had to get it spent. I could be misremembering though. I do remember him saying that his fees are so high for speaking engagements mostly because he doesn't have the time to do them and get his work done and all the other projects he's involved with so the high cost means he gets fewer requests.

Here is Neil's side of the story: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/

On one hand, I think it's too much money for a speaking engagement. It makes me feel kind of uncomfortable even considering asking that much. On the other, if someone is willing to pay for your time, then who am I to judge? My husband the English teacher got into a conversation with his students about this subject and he pointed out that no one gets all bent out of shape when athletes and actors make hundreds of thousands of dollars for making brief appearances or $2 million an episode for a 30 minute sitcom, but there is something outlandish about a popular author being paid, willingly, $45,000 which he immediately turned around and donated to 2 different charities.

So I don't know. I kind of think maybe it's nobody's business but Mr. Gaiman's and the library that paid him.

[Cookie]

I was just talking about this with a co-worker. Sommer, you are right, it did come from a fund that was going to expire, so that's why the library was willing to pay that amount.

Personally, I think it's silly. I agree that its no one's business. Maybe instead of cutting the budget, they let it roll over.

[sierramcconnell]

I worked for the government. If you do not use those funds every year, they are reallocated to other departments because they believe that since you did without it that ONE YEAR, you can do without it every other year. And it is a total bitch to try and get it back when you do need it.

They made the right decision, but it seems the greedier government wants the money back anyway. Government is one of the cheapest, most retardest places I have ever had to work for. They use some of the crapiest equipment you've ever seen. I guess it's like those people who live in those nice houses, but they don't have any furniture or curtains. They live by the rule of "if you can't see it, it doesn't matter". They only spend on things that make them look good. XD

[hektorkarl]

I can't see that Gaiman did anything wrong here. Someone met his price and he performed the gig as contracted. No one's suggested that any sleazy political maneuvering was involved on his part.

It's reasonable for a politician to question public spending, but this was just juvenile grandstanding aimed at making a cheap political point.

I agree that the art world gets far more criticism than is fair for these types of things, but Rutgers (a public university) did get a lot of criticism for using student funds to bring Snooki to campus (yeah her name's on a book, but it's a stretch to group her with writers).

[polymath]

The underlying issue I see is spending earmarked funds when not spending them benefits the greater good more or they're spent for a greater greater-good purpose. The bureaucratic mindset, the culture, if you will, is to not let a dime of funds get away from the coffer unspent, which drives wasteful spending at every tier of government. The days of blank check taxpayer wallet dips are over. Tighten the belt, goddamn it. Taxpayers are.

What I don't know is how many or how people benefited from Gaiman's speech, nor whether there was another, wiser use for which another agency could have used the funds as intended. I suspect there was. Gaiman's charities did benefit, indirectly, but they weren't outdoors or cultural venues eligible for Legacy funds. Needy, yes, but not what the funds were earmarked for. That was his choice to make, though, as socially conscientious as it was, it doesn't track.

Now, that's not to say I believe government has no obligation to fund arts and culture. I believe the current conservative platform push to reduce or eliminate arts and culture subsidies is seriously flawed thinking. That mindset is revealed by Dean's word choices. Pencil neck? Low brow anticultural anti-intellectualism. Uh-huh, no creative spirit in that unimaginative, artistically jealous, dull-witted man.

[sierramcconnell]

The underlying issue I see is spending earmarked funds when not spending them benefits the greater good more or they're spent for a greater greater-good purpose. The bureaucratic mindset, the culture, if you will, is to not let a dime of funds get away from the coffer unspent, which drives wasteful spending at every tier of government. The days of blank check taxpayer wallet dips are over. Tighten the belt, goddamn it. Taxpayers are.

What I don't know is how many or how people benefited from Gaiman's speech, nor whether there was another, wiser use for which another agency could have used the funds as intended. I suspect there was. Gaiman's charities did benefit, indirectly, but they weren't outdoors or cultural venues eligible for Legacy funds. Needy, yes, but not what the funds were earmarked for. That was his choice to make, though, as socially conscientious as it was, it doesn't track.

Now, that's not to say I believe government has no obligation to fund arts and culture. I believe the current conservative platform push to reduce or eliminate arts and culture subsidies is seriously flawed thinking. That mindset is revealed by Dean's word choices. Pencil neck? Low brow anticultural anti-intellectualism. Uh-huh, no creative spirit in that unimaginative, artistically jealous, dull-witted man.

What happens isn't that the taxpayers get the money back, poly. It gets REALLOCATED to other departments. Which means RAISES for other people. Equipment that doesn't need to be purchased because it looks pretty. Building renovations that are unneccessary because the public can see it. Or simply buying cheap junk and awards to make people feel more important. Or maybe, they'll just do a luncheon every week for their senior members.

THAT is how government runs. You aren't getting that money back. THEY are.

[polymath]

Yes, I know unused funds are reallocated. I know how government works, intimately, especially the culture of self-justified corruption inherent in all things human.

If funds are not wisely spent for the purpose they're intended, they should go to another agency, ideally to serve the greater good, and not for any agency's self-serving agendas.

If the library in question hadn't used the Legacy funds, if the funds were then allocated to another agency for a more worthy outdoors or arts and culture purpose, as that particular fund allocation is required to do, then the greater good would have been better served.

[Margo]

I will also add what I know from working for and with every level of government. Earmarked funds can't be reallocated to just anything; they usually have to be reallocated for similar purposes. So could the library dollars have gone to help fund badly needed mental health services or foster child programs or job training programs or more police or sheriffs or firefighters? No, 99.9% chance the funds would have had to go to something similar for another library somewhere else. I'd say 100% no, but I can't without knowing the funding source.

Also, if Sarah Palin can ask $100-150k in speaking fees from a university in one of the poorest areas of the country (the San Joaquin Valley of California -- the Appalachians of the West, according to a congressional report), I'm not going to moan about Neil Gaiman getting $45,000.

Plus, I cannot underscore the importance of Sierra's comment. If something a division planned to buy with their budgeted funds falls through (like an equipment order that can't be fulfilled because the manufacturer suddenly goes out of business -- it takes time to go through another RFP to find another manufacturer), the city council or board of supervisors will think they can get by with a smaller budget the next year, and that can be devastating to the division trying to serve the public.

[trixie]

From what I'm reading (caveat: scratching the surface at best), a portion of the Legacy Funds were allocated to the Stillwater Library to be used for providing outer-ring communities an opportunity to bring in better-known/bigger-named authors. Basically, bringing Arts to the outer lying communities. The funds could not be used for salaries, renovations, books, etc. And if they weren't used, they would be gone.

Neil Gaiman wrote about this issue back when it happened in May, 2010. Here's the link:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2010/05/p ... eacup.html

My favorite gaffe?

When the politician was asked about his comments, he replied that he had, "likely made enemies among Star Trek fans."

Just like that, sci fi/fantasy have been lumped together as "Star Trek."

Sigh.

[Cookie]

My favorite gaffe?

When the politician was asked about his comments, he replied that he had, "likely made enemies among Star Trek fans."

Just like that, sci fi/fantasy have been lumped together as "Star Trek."

Sigh.

You didn't know? Star Trek IS sci fi-fantasy. Period. Everything else is just "fiction".

[hektorkarl]

The last Star Trek movie grossed $257 million at the US box office... so he might want to be careful tossing away those Star Trek voters.