“The theaters are not civil servants. This is a creative profession "

Theater managers commenting on the investigation of "Transpenser Internet - Russia"

Transpenser Internet - Russia published an investigation that claims that the financing system for many theaters is “penetrated by conflicts of interests”. The material applies to the artistic leaders of 14 institutions (theater of the P/r Tabakova, the Cat Theater Yuri Kuklachev, the Pushkin and others theater), which conclude state contracts, including the directing and performance of roles, with themselves, "artificially creating additional opportunities for making money." The Gogol Center also appears in the list, whose artistic and artistic and forth the arts from August 2017 has been under house arrest-nevertheless, the authors insist that their actions (Transparency employees turned to the prosecutor's office) did not affect this. The text is actively discussed in a professional environment: many managers and theaters believe that Transpenseeni did not take into account the specifics of creative work and found corruption where it is not. Medusa asked theatrical managers (not mentioned in the investigation) to comment on the information published by Transpenseri.

What is said in the investigation of Transpenseri International - Russia. Very short

The authors of the investigation checked the commercial activities of the leaders of 135 theaters in Moscow and St. Petersburg (at the same time, the Yaroslavl Theater named after Volkova also appears in the investigation) and in 14 cases revealed signs of violations that the prosecutor’s office said. The text notes that the leaders of at least 14 state theaters, including Oleg Tabakov, Kirill Serebrennikov and Oleg Menshikov, conclude state contracts about the performance of acting or directorial work with themselves, “artificially creating additional opportunities for making money,” and thus spend the money of taxpayers.

In most cases, as the law requires, the transactions are coordinated with the employer (only two arts from the investigation agreed after the conclusion), that is, with the Ministry of Culture or the Department of Culture of Moscow. However, the authors of the investigation emphasize, this does not resolve the conflict of interests, but only “masks it”. Transpenseeni employees also indicate a drawback that all contracts are concluded on a non -alternative basis - with the only supplier, and the justification of the contract says that the artistic director can better than other suppliers to set up a performance or play a role in it.

The full text of the investigation can be read here .

Evgenia Shermenev

Theater producer, former head of the Federal Center for Vacation Support, former deputy head of the Moscow Department of Culture

I think that the authors of the investigation allocated 14 theaters about which they say, only according to one principle: they saw options where the fee was paid under the [agreement with] IP. Because a lot of theaters pay fees to their arts that and leaders, but in another way, and this does not appear in the competition documentation; They pay as additional bonuses, as one -time payments additionally agreed with the founder in the form of a salary. And they pay fees for individual entrepreneurs, of course, according to one principle: to save money for the salary fund. When you pay an individual entrepreneur, you pay a clean amount, and he is already calculated with taxes. And if you enroll this as a fee, you must pay 27.1% deductions to the social and pension funds. To preserve these 30% for budget funds, very often creative people open individual entrepreneurs in order to take responsibility [for tax payment]. In my opinion, this is a very correct practice, because the person who earns the fees reports to the state for them.

The fact that theaters cannot be disconnected at all from state support has already been discussed many times. But if you look at the budgets of theaters, they still consist of a large percentage of their own earned funds ( the authors of the investigation emphasize that for many city theaters, budget subsidies make up more than half of the annual income, sometimes even 90%-approx. Medusa ). These are sponsorships, and touring earnings, and participation in festivals, and ticket sale.

Very often up to 80% of the theaters earnings are what they earn on their own thanks to the activity of the artistic director. It must be understood that any fees for the production of performances - invited or uninhabited directors and artists - are all extra -budgetary means. No state funds will be enough for this. In a situation that transparency leads, this is not all budget money. But the fact is that now we have all the money entering the theater account is recorded in the budget. Even the money from sponsors, from philanthropists, from the sale of tickets immediately fall immediately for budget regulation. Now there is no separation that was many years ago, when the state’s money and its own funds were separately taken into account, which allowed not to coordinate expenses with the founder - everything is considered a common wallet.

In addition, to the amounts called by the investigators, of course, it is ridiculous to appeal ( the total amount of 60 contracts that are given in the text of Transperentsi International, is approximately 97 million rubles - approx. Medusa ), because it is actually a part -time job - half -stage. And those amounts that Dmitry Bertman ( 440 thousand rubles for staging one performance - approx. Medusa ), Kirill Serebrennikov ( 345 thousand rubles per performance ), Evgeny Pisarev ( 480 thousand rubles per performance ) - this is a half -rate, and even a quarter of the rate of payment of the work of the director for a large performance, depending on the capabilities of the theater. Because, of course, if Cyril Serebrennikov goes to Europe, he will receive ten times more than indicated in his fee at the Gogol Center. But at the same time, he prefers to put in his Gogol Center, getting less than to leave and put somewhere on the side.

Leonid Osharin

Director of the theater. Mayakovsky

It so happened that, as a rule, artistic director is a director or actor. But the artistic director does not have to be a director or actor. And if he puts a performance in his theater or participates there as an actor, then he is forced to sign a contract for this work. At the same time, contracts must undergo a transaction procedure with an interested person, that is, with the Ministry of Culture or the Department of Culture, so that there is no corruption component. The artistic director cannot write in the contract that he wants to get for work, for example, three million rubles, although this amount can be paid to the invited director. The Department of Culture really evaluates the work, determine and approve the amount that the artistic director will receive for the work of the director in his theater - it, as a rule, is less than if he staged a performance on the side.

You can arrange additional work not through an individual entrepreneur - although this is more profitable for the theater - but an additional agreement to the employment contract. But in this case, you still need to undergo a procedure for coordination with the Department of Culture. No one gives managers to set up their own fees for performances and roles. The founder controls this. Not a single penny from above the theater established by the contract has the right to pay Khudruk or the director without coordination with the founder. It is difficult to immediately include these amounts in the contract: no one knows in advance whether a person will put something this year or not-or how many performances he will put.

There are arts that are hired by the director, and there are those who have a contract with the Department [Culture or the Ministry of Culture]. There are nuances there. Who has a contract with the Department, he answers him or the Ministry of Culture. If the contract is concluded with the director, then in any case the director will answer before the founder, he will also determine the salary and fees of the artistic director. In this case, the contract itself is not necessary to coordinate the contract with the Ministry of Culture, because then there is no conflict of interest. Another thing is that there are very few such theaters where the founder is directly hired by a artistic director, but a director.

Kirill Krok

Director of the theater. Vakhtangov

The fact that [in the investigation of “transparency” is called the words “conflict of interests” is a situation where the head of the budget institution performs additional duties that are not registered in the employment contract and therefore are subject to additional payment. Can I give you an example? If you are offered to work in the editorial office not a journalist, but by the secretary, you probably say: “I can, but for an additional fee.”

When artists, in addition to the leadership of the theater, play performances or put up performances, this conflict of interest arises - therefore, the transaction is always approved by the founder ( the Ministry of Culture of Russia or the local Department of Culture - approx. "Medusa" ). The artistic director can appoint a fee to himself, depending on whether the theater can afford it, and on what is the charter in this theater. If in the theater the unity of command and at the head of Khudruk, then yes, he writes a fee on behalf of the founder, and then coordinates him; If two, then the director is appointed to the amount. We live in a market economy and represent the market value of Oleg Pavlovich Tabakov in some entreprise. Each service has its own value, and now there is no standards for acting and directorial work, as in Soviet times, now.

When the founder was not notified in time [about the deal], this is a technical violation, and administrative responsibility comes for him. Sometimes we give a document on the approval of the founder, and he goes to bureaucratic offices for a very long time. It turns out that the premiere has already come out and the director or the actor has already participated in the play, and the approval came out later. This is a violation of the law, but this is not a criminal violation of the law, this is not corruption, but the maximum administrative responsibility, when they may announce a remark so that the next time they would not be done.

There are, for example, such situations: an artist is assigned to the role, in the process of rehearsals it turns out that he does not pull this role, or for some creative reasons he refused to play in the play. Then the shoulder of the theater substitutes the artistic director and in two to three weeks is introduced into the performance. The deal with an interest ( the deal in which the theater’s personal interest is present - approx. Medusa ) is issued, but it slips out of terms. What is this? It is decorated, for example, on the 20th, and played the prime minister on October 1. What has changed from this? The calculated month for the premiere is still coming after the provision of the service.

Maria Revyakina

General Director of the Golden Mask festival, Director of the Theater of Nations

There is such a 44th Federal Law [“On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, works, services to ensure state and municipal needs”], according to which we have the right to sign contracts with the so-called single supplier, about which Transparency International writes. This does not contradict the law at all. Any institution has the right to sign a contract with this single supplier - this is the name of the law, for example, an actor, director, artist ( in the investigation, they note that “all contracts are concluded on a non -alternative basis - with the only supplier” - approx. Medusa ).

Therefore, if the artistic director of the theater is an actor, director or artist, he can do this work, but with a separate contract and for a separate amount. Each Khudruk has a job instruction, according to which he carries out the points prescribed in the charter and in his contract. This contract is signed by the founder-that is, the Ministry of Culture or the Department of Culture of a City, and in this contract a lot of points: competent PR, attracting spectators, repertoire policy and more. Displays or playing plays are not included in this contract. So if Evgeny Pisarev puts a performance in his theater and still plays in it, let's worship him in his belt for doing this.

Contracts with artists as actors and directors are absolutely legal. Because we will not be able to find another such actor as Oleg Tabakov, he is unique. We will not be able to find the same director as Rimas Tuminas, he is unique, just as Dmitry Bertman or Evgeny Pisarev is unique. Evgeny Mironov cannot be a thin and playing performances for free. This is his work, his bread, his profession, so an additional contract can be concluded with him. The law spells it all out, even more details than necessary.

And then here [in the investigation] it is written: “The commission of the Moscow Department of Culture on the official behavior of civil servants should follow compliance with the legislation on the conflict of interests.” The heads of theaters are not civil servants, this is another category of profession, look at the classification directory - this is a creative profession.

Alexandra Mirror , Sasha Sulim