Hartford, CT. Looks pretty nice to me... |
Today's post zeroed in on the Hartford Symphony situation in much more detail. Read here for more information, or accept my very capsule summary:
- The HSO seems unwilling to state what's going on in their minds (if anything). “All options are being evaluated," said a member of management, Steve Collins. “Our goal remains to reach a satisfactory negotiated agreement with the AFM as soon as possible.” (N.B. It's my understanding that the current agreement expired sometime in 2014.)
- Too much smoke, mirrors, and administrative double talk. Drew writes, When pressed for additional details, Collins stated that he was unwilling to accommodate the request due to what he defined as being “actively in negotiations” with the musicians. Where have we heard that before? Can you spell Atlanta? Or even the closely-avoided work stoppage at the Met?
- While there is apparently no media blackout, Drew reports, “…there are myriad legal and financial issues in play as our situation unfolds,” said Collins. “With these factors in mind, and respecting the privacy of negotiations, I must decline to provide further details at this time.”
Since there is no media blackout, Collins’ reply projects an approach that is closely aligned with one particular old-school labor dispute tactic: fearing fear itself.
Drew McManus |
There is a lot more and the HSO organization is attempting the age-old tactic of scaring the musicians into submission. This only works when a community allows it to. Didn't work in Detroit (of all places), nor Minneapolis or St. Paul. One can only hope that the musicians of the Hartford Symphony can manage to stay the course.
EPILOGUE: I just found a quote from Ruth McCambridge, Editor of the Non Profit Quarterly. Too good not to share: NPQ readers may remember this general scenario from numerous performing arts organizations, including the Minnesota Orchestra, the Met in New York City, and others. In each case, the position of the organization was that musicians’ salaries were at fault for their financial frailty and that they were willing and ready to shut down or lock out the musicians to drive the point home. In each case, the solutions were more complex and involved significant concessions on the part of the administration. Does Hartford really need to go through this now too-familiar dance routine, following what seems like a mandatory script? (The boldface is my own.)
Following up on your Ruth McCambridge quote - not only were significant concessions made on the part of the administrations in Minnesota and Atlanta, but in both of those cases the environment ceased being toxic at som point after the CEO was removed, and both orchestras are thriving in their absences.
ReplyDeleteNo one should be spreading poison under the guise of sustainability. That's the opposite of arts stewardship.
(But good luck on your consulting careers, Michael and Stanley.)
It never ceases to amaze me how long boards of directors stick by their CEOs even when it's obvious that the orchestra is on the wrong path. My own non-profits are small enough not to worry about a lot of the "problems" in the profession; that said, all are experiencing a time of financial strength!
Delete