The memo asserts that the Grandview Symphony is self-sustaining, and the only reason to continue funding the symphony is because the symphony has succeeded in finding an audience. However, there are a couple of significant assumptions that seem to be lacking from this argument.

First, the memo does not define what the symphony is or how much of its budget comes from private contributions. The symphony might be a small, regional, community-based orchestra that plays classical music and raises funds for other civic organizations. Or, the symphony might be an internationally renowned professional orchestra that performs at Carnegie Hall. If the latter, then private contributions may account for only a small portion of its total budget. In any case, the symphony’s operations should be defined, and the memo should list the symphony’s income and expenditures to help the reader understand how the symphony became self-sustaining.

Second, the memo does not explain how the symphony became ‘internationally known’ or ‘well-regarded.’ The memo implies that the symphony’s success is due primarily to the hiring of a foreign conductor. However, the symphony could have hired a conductor of comparable stature and renown, and that alone could have catapulted the symphony to greater popularity. The memo also fails to explain why the symphony chose a foreign conductor over the many talented, locally based conductors that reside in the area. It seems more likely that the symphony hired a foreign conductor with the hope that the maestros’ name recognition would attract more concertgoers than would the symphony’s own name. The memo states that attendance at the outdoor summer concerts ‘reached record highs,’ but the memo does not explain how the symphony reached that conclusion.

Concert attendance is an important indicator of a symphony’s success. However, it is difficult to examine whether the symphony’s popularity is due to hiring an internationally renowned conductor or to the symphony’s previous efforts. For example, if the symphony’s previous efforts were mediocre, and the hiring of the conductor led to the symphony’s improved reputation, then it would be difficult to conclude that the symphony is self-sustaining. Further, if the symphony advertised the concerts rather than relying on the maestros’ names, the symphony could determine the actual attendance figures. This would allow the budget planner to compare the symphony’s actual attendance figures with the memo’s conclusions.

In any event, if the symphony’s budget planner is correct, then the symphony should be free of city funding. The memo does not mention whether the symphony’s income is sufficient to cover its expenses. The orchestra’s expenses might include salaries for the symphony’s musicians, rent for performing venues, utilities, transportation, and the cost of guest artists. If the city’s tax money is used to fund any of these expenses, then the city’s expenditures are not justifiable.

The memo also fails to consider that other civic organizations might benefit from the city’s financial support. For example, the symphony’s concerts might attract tourists to the city, and tourists would benefit the local economy. If the tourists spend money on accommodations, meals, and shopping, then the money spent by tourists benefits the city’s businesses. The memo also fails to mention what the city’s contributions to the symphony are or how much the city spends on those contributions. The memo could compare the symphony’s contributions to other programs and organizations, such as the Grandview Parks Department, and determine whether the symphony’s contributions to those other programs justify the money it spends on the symphony.

In any event, the assumptions made in the memo are incomplete. To properly evaluate the city’s decision to continue funding the symphony, the assumptions in the memo must be eliminated or justified.