Quote:

Likewise, never accept criticism from someone unwilling to
put their name on it.

You're right - the "Loew's Board" is actually the FOL Board of Trustees.
And, yes, a non-profit organization could certainly operate
the theatre - if it had the industry specific business expertise
to manage a facility the size of the Loew's. Frankly, I would
prefer this kind of arrangement. Just because an operating
entity is a registered 'non-profit' doesn't mean that it cannot
hire paid staff (i.e. bring jobs to local JC residents). Such a
model would do more to bring jobs to the area than an
outside / out-of-state conglomerate which would likely move
in its own employees to run the theatre.
The great irony here is that FOL's original "business plan" was
for FOL to complete the theatre's renovation, then maintain
the facility and oversee its operation via a paid 'operating
company' which had the requisite entertainment industry
knowhow and connections.

To begin, I'd like to thank Mayor Fulop for taking a much
needed, long overdue step toward returning the Loew's Jersey
Theatre to wonder-venue it was always meant to be.
I'm glad to see so many people interested in this issue. One
thing I've noticed is that many people are confused about the
Loew's, and many others are badly misinformed and buying
into the 'spin-doctoring' coming out of FOL.
I've got a somewhat unique insider's view of the Loew's
project, having been a volunteer for over 10 years AND a
member of the FOL Board of Trustees for (almost) 5 years.
I'd like to address 2 issues here, from that perspective:
1. FOL often publicly brags about how its volunteer organization
is doing so much to restore the Loew's. However, one reason I
resigned from the board was that FOL 'management' had made
it very clear, by direct statements to myself & other volunteers,
that "volunteers are not part of the FOL organization" - i.e.
FOL consists only of paid management and board members.
It was FOL's growing disregard for the volunteers and
disrespect for the professional talents many of them offered
that made me realize the volunteers were being used as
nothing more than a disposable commodity. This just isn't the
right way to manage individuals giving their time and talents
in a sincere effort to improve the quality of life in their
community.
2. FOL asserts the project is failing because 'the city' refuses
to meet its obligations (financial & other) to the project. What
FOL fails / refuses to tell you is that those obligations are all
based on performance benchmarks in FOL's lease from the
city AND that many (if not most) benchmarks weren't met (at
least when I resigned in 2008). While FOL blames a lack of
funding on the city, it doesn't mention all the grant money that
it has actually had in hand in the past - nor does it mention
that its poor financial management cost the project $100,000
in lost grant $$.
I may post more about the 'workings' of FOL later, but for now
let me conclude by saying that, in my opinion & based on my
experience on FOL's board, FOL has taken the project as far as
it is able and does not have the business expertise needed to
move the project forward or to operate the theatre. What is
desperately needed now is a truly professional entertainment
management company, with connections to the industry, and
a willingness to open the theatre to local community performing
arts groups.