ARTS: RPO Board releases statement clarifying Remmereit decision

1. •A Tawdry Affair – I have interjected my remarks within the press release, in an attempt to inject some reality.•

   Understanding the Board of Director’s Decision on Arild Remmereit
   From Elizabeth F. Rice, Chairperson of the Board

   On November 28, the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra Board of Directors decided that 2012–13 will be Arild Remmereit’s final season as music director of the RPO.

   The RPO is currently working out the details of an agreement with Mr. Remmereit, and discussing such matters would be grossly unfair to everyone involved; it would also be a distinct violation of the RPO’s own human-resources policy. The RPO does not make a habit of airing its personnel matters in public, •then why are you doing it?• and we are saddened and dismayed by people who feel compelled to report rumor and innuendo.

   Understandably, there is significant interest in knowing why the RPO Board of Directors voted to terminate Arild Remmereit’s contract at the end of the 2012–13 season; while the RPO will not identify specific reasons, it is important to provide a reliable description of the background that led to this most difficult decision, and the lengthy process through which the board arrived at it.

   The Background

   Shortly after the RPO appointed Mr. Remmereit to be music director–designate in summer 2010, tensions developed between him and members of the RPO staff •- and would that primary staff member be Mr. Owens?• , board, and orchestra. At the time, board members provided Mr. Remmereit with constructive suggestions to assist in easing the tensions. By the end of Mr. Remmereit’s first season in 2011–12, the situation had only grown worse, despite several efforts by the board to mitigate the situation; the orchestra and staff were suffering •- please take a look at the parade of staff members who left, were laid off, or have been forced out during Mr. Owens tenure. You may find that it’s an unprecedented array of talented and dedicated people, all of whom cared deeply about the RPO’s welfare. Now there’s staff suffering -• , and the matter became of serious concern to the board.

   In April 2012, after repeated attempts to repair the relationship between Mr. Remmereit and the • (or is it primarily between Maestro Remmereit and Mr. Owens, as reported in the media and confirmed by Ms. Rice?)*• RPO, the board commissioned Craviso & Associates to identify the underlying problems. As research for the report, Craviso & Associates interviewed Mr. Remmereit as well as people involved with the RPO at all levels.

   The Process

   In June 2012, the board agreed upon and communicated specific expectations for Mr. Remmereit to meet in the wake of the Craviso & Associates report so that the relationship between him and the RPO – again, do you honestly mean between Maestro Remmereit and the entire organisation? could be repaired. The board developed a protocol for monitoring his progress, provided Mr. Remmereit with a clear means for communicating with the board, and assigned him an advisor to help ensure success. Mr. Remmereit voluntarily agreed to meet these expectations and to follow the protocol.

   After five months, the board reviewed Mr. Remmereit’s progress—a process that included input from the staff, his advisor, and board members, and a survey of orchestra musicians—and determined that he had not made sufficient effort to meet the agreed upon expectations and work toward repairing his relationship with the •(and again, too broad and disingenuous)• RPO. It was only at this point that the board, after serious consideration of the consequences, took this matter to a vote on November 28, and decided to terminate Mr. Remmereit’s contract.

   Factors Considered

   The decision to terminate Mr. Remmereit’s contract was made through thoughtful deliberation, and with a number of factors being considered, including the following:

   the input and reaction of the musicians • ( many of whom were reluctant to return your survey) – what about the results of their own previous survey?•
   the input and reaction of other RPO artistic leaders: Jeff Tyzik, Michael Butterman, and Christopher Seaman • (Why drag Maestro Seaman into this? He has spent next to no time here since he left – just a few days around his birthday)•
   the ability to sustain our operations with competent and capable personnel • (surely you can’t still say that Maestro Remmereit is the cause of that revolving door)•
   the impact on major sponsors and patrons of the RPO
   the reaction of the general public • ( as you will see – those in the community who care about the RPO are greatly impressed by him, his talent and outreach)•
   the effect on year-end donations •( Being down $1,100,000 due to Betty Strasenburgh’s outrage at this act is just the beginning, according to others’ comments)•
   After months of trying to remedy the situation, and assessing all of the above, the vast majority of the board agreed that the best option for the long-term future of the RPO was to release Mr. Remmereit from the contract, as the contract permits it to do. Our assessment of these factors has proven to be accurate • – there has been no time to assess you accuracy – it does not include the public outcry -• and we are very comfortable with our decision.

   Moving Forward

   The RPO is more than any one individual. Yes. It is certainly more than one administrator. While a music director is the public face of an orchestra, just as important are the musicians who make the music. Our musicians have proven time and again that they can play at the highest artistic level with many different conductors and music directors. Absolutely true – but Arild has brought musical variety, talent and challenge to the Philharmonic concerts – a welcome change for many orchestra members as well as the public –

   The RPO has a vibrant pops program and a world-class principal pops conductor in Jeff Tyzik. It presents educational programs under the capable baton of Michael Butterman, and performs many free community concerts that reach 30,000 people each season. And while they do that, they are continually hammered for financial concessions, which would reduce their modest salaries even more.

   Mr. Remmereit’s departure does not signal a loss of focus on innovative programming. •The attempt to take his ideas and dump him is not appreciated by the public.• We will be engaging many talented guest conductors in the future as we begin a search for a new music director. • What will be the cost of yet another search and hiring guest conductors as compared to working with the conductor that you hired? Isn’t this even more important to an orchestra which now bears as much as an $1,800,000 deficit?• We are confident we can find someone who will bring passion and energy to the position. • You already have. To expect these characteristics in a musical lapdog is preposterous.• The RPO’s commitment to education, the community, and artistic excellence in music making remains constant. • This seems questionable. • We hope you’ll continue to support our remarkable musicians as so many have done over 90 the past years. •The music and musicians are definitely worth supporting. This destructive management approach is not.•

2. Mark Berry, RPO communications VP here. There are a lot of comments, Been there. I do want to echo what the statement makes clear: this was the end of a long process that began back in summer 2010 when tensions arose between Mr. Remmereit, board, and staff. I also feel it’s important for people to understand that the expected deficit for last fiscal year, which ended August 31, will be around $700,000, not $1,800,000.

3. Been There: Why should we consider your comments to be credible when you don’t identify yourself.

4. As someone who worked artistically on a few occasions with Mr. Remmereit (although not as a member of the RPO or it’s staff) I have to say a lot of these revelations were not at all surprising. I never found Mr. Remmereit to be a particularly pleasant or warm person, and being in the same room with him never made me comfortable. It amuses me that so many people from the community have rushed to his support, even though they never worked with, or talked to the man personally. Been There seems inclined to place all of the blame on Mr. Owens. Although he probably made mistakes too, I imagine it came down to Mr. Owens fiscal needs competing with Mr. Remmereit’s artistic vision. If I had to make a guess, probably Mr. Remmereit was unwilling to back down or make enough concessions regarding his artistic desires.

   It’s all speculation, but honestly, I’m not sad to see the man go. His programming was interesting but I never was a fan of his conducting. It was mostly a show to me, never using a score, and exaggerating everything. If you are truly one of the GREAT conductors you can have this kind of ego, but his was misplaced.

5. Judie25 –
   – And you don’t identify yourself, either. Neither does Ramone. Only Mr. Berry, relatively recently hired by management to his position at the RPO is identifying himself. I believe my remarks to be credible, not Gospel, because I have an ongoing connection to the RPO. That is another reason why I don’t want to share my name, for fear of harm to others I know.
   Maestro Remmereit in not likely to be Mr. Congeniality; generally speaking, Euro conductors are not. Conducting in America, I’ve learned is a very different proposition. Obviously “Ramone” is entitled to his musical opinion: and so are the RPO’s audience members and contributors.

Comments are closed.