The two sides in the Rochester Philharmonic fight will likely be back in court soon.
At first blush, a court ruling on Monday seemed to be a clear win for the RPO board: State Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Fisher basically tossed out requests from a group of dissident RPO members. Upset that the board fired music director Arild Remmereit, they had tried to get the organization’s annual meeting postponed so they could elect their own slate to the board. On Monday, Fisher sided with the board. But while the board issued a press release saying it was pleased, this isn’t the end of the story.
The dissidents’ initial court actions dealt only with the holding of the annual meeting and election. That meeting has already taken place, on January 23, and Fisher ruled that much of what dissidents were asking for – permitting write-in votes at that meeting, extending the expiring terms of board members and officers, among other things – was now moot.
But significantly, Fisher did not rule that the meeting and the election were void – because the dissidents had not asked for that. They can go back to court seeking that ruling. And earlier this week, their attorney, Eileen Buholtz, said she was preparing to do just that.
I have mixed feelings about all of this. I believe the RPO board was correct in terminating Remmereit’s contract. But I also believe in democracy. The RPO’s bylaws make it difficult to mount opposition board candidates. And in this particular case, there was no real dissident movement until it was too late to run opposition candidates. The bylaws set the deadline for filing nominations, and by the time the board fired Remmereit, that date had passed.
It’ll be interesting to see how the court rules in this next round. My hunch is that it will again side with the RPO leadership, not the dissidents. But if I were on that board right now, I’d be pushing for a far more democratic way to elect board members.
I’d also take seriously reports of “a climate of fear” among the musicians. The RPO players should be at the core of everybody’s focus, and no player should feel threatened – not by a music director, not by a union, not by the board, not by other musicians. Everybody needs to start building trust among the RPO family.
And if the court rules for the dissidents, and a new election is held, and the dissidents win? First of all, they won’t be in charge. Only 1/3 of the board seats will be up. There are still a few dissidents on the board, but I’d bet there aren’t enough to form a majority after a new election.
And so, some advice for the dissidents. Some of them insist that the RPO board and the CEO should never “interfere” with the work of the music director. But the board and the CEO must make sure that the books balance. And they also have a responsibility to step in if they’re concerned about how an employee is treating others – whether it’s the music director, the CEO, a board member, a secretary, or a musician.
And no, personnel problems should not be aired widely.
I’ve been troubled by the suggestion by some dissidents that employers should have different standards of behavior for “artists” than for other employees. As an out-of-town RPO supporter wrote me recently, that’s ridiculous. We should not tolerate abusive behavior from anyone, not in this day and age. It’s not ethical. And it doesn’t get the best from people.
Finally, there’s been enough dissident talk about withdrawing financial support – even about urging governments to cut off funds. That will cripple the orchestra.
This isn’t the first time the RPO has gone through this kind of drama. It will pass. The question is how strong the orchestra will be afterwards. That depends on all RPO supporters, but for the next year, it depends primarily on the board. And on the leadership of the dissidents.
This article appears in Feb 6-12, 2013.
Ms. Towler:
If you take a tour of the other internet and media sites in which this issue is being discussed (at least the ones not controlled and censored by Remmereit supporters) I believe you’ll find that this allegation of a “climate of fear” among RPO musicians has been thoroughly discredited.
For example, on the “Slipped Disc” website a gentlemen who has far more knowledge of this question than any of us in the public and even more than the vast majority of the RPO itself, having been an RPO musician for almost 30 years and having worked directly with Owens, the board and the maestro over the past two years, posted just this morning that:
“I would also like to debunk the “climate of fear” I keep reading about in this discussion thread, and others, which is used as an explanation about why more RPO musicians aren’t speaking out in support of Mr Remmereit. Some even claim they fear for their jobs. First, we, as musicians in the RPO, have a union contract, and a tenure process. …. I have been a member of the RPO for 27 years, and in that time not one musician has been fired. I have witnessed some of my colleagues try valiantly to be fired with all sorts of fantastic behaviors, but so far during my tenure none have been successful. So I very much call into question the reality of such a position. I would even say that I believe that it is virtually impossible for a musician to be fired from the RPO.”
For myself I have asked those who claim the existence of intimidation, harassment or even ugly scowls from Owens, Rice, the board or the RPO administration to step up and provide their proofs. So far the only response has been a deafening silence.
The above being said, the one action of the board which does seem to exude an unpleasant aroma is the timing of the November truncating of Remmereit’s contract. While there is nothing undemocratic in the fact that nominations for January board seat elections must be submitted by the end of October, if Owens, Rice or any other board member knew BEFORE the October deadline that the November action against Remmereit was going to take place then they should have found a way consistent with the RPO’s bylaws that the inevitable opponents to their move would have the ability to compile a slate of candidates. By this means the January election would have been a fair fight and would not have had the appearance of a put up job.
Bill has stated the case fully and eloquently as far as the musicians are concerned. The “Climate of Fear” argument is so specious it deserves no further attention. As for Bill’s sniffing the air for an unpleasant aroma, may I assure him that no Lysol spray is needed. Maestro Remmereit went into the RPO offices during the Thanksgiving holiday and cleaned out his office. All that was left was a small stuffed U of R mascot on a shelf . This was before any decision to terminate was made. What would you conclude of an employee’s intentions if he or she cleans out their office and is not seen again ? Let’s be reasonable. More to the point; there were concerts to be rehearsed and performed with deadlines rapidly approaching. Uncertainty was not an option. The Board and the RPO staff moved in the direction they needed to go.
“Finally, there’s been enough dissident talk about withdrawing financial support – even about urging governments to cut off funds. That will cripple the orchestra.”
Let me pose a question. Should the input of over a thousand patrons and members be ignored, in addition to multiple musicians who feel Remmereit acted appropriately? We members were denied a voice and a vote. We are obviously upset with the outcome of this situation. This puts us in a quandary: we can support an organization whose leadership blatantly scorns us, or we can harm the musicians. Thus, I would love your input, Ms Towler, as to how to satisfactorily resolve this problem. As far as I can tell, the only other way to resolve these conflicting goals is going to court.
Mr. Maurer
I absolutely accept that I will not convince you of anything, but for the benefit of others who may be tempted to accept your claims without challenge, I respond:
Please be specific about your unsupported claim that the input of over a thousand patrons and members were ignored? Who are these thousand people? Are you referring to the online dissident petition calling for RPO heads to roll? You may feel that that is a legitimate HR mechanism. Others do not. The RPO Music Director and the CEO report to the Board and their employment status is not and will not be determined by online polls. I also consider the online polls in the D&C asking readers whether Maestro Remmereit (earlier poll) should have been fired or if Charlie Owens (recent poll) should be fired, despicable, even though both tallies supported the RPO. Still, it’s a throwback to the Roman Coliseum where crowds voted “Thumbs up / Thumbs Down” with hungry lions waiting for the count. How would you like you employment determined by a poll of poorly informed readers? I’ll just go for the more common end-of-year review, thank you!
The fact is that all “RPO members” (individuals contributing at least $75 or companies who gave at least $300.) according to the RPO record dates received ballots. If you were a paid-up member, you received a ballot. The vote was monitored and validated by an outside accounting firm (Bonadio). What you really mean when you say “ignored,” is that the vote did not come out the way you wished. The so-called “dissidents” went to court to argue the validity of the record date. Judge Fisher denied all those claims and admonished the attorney on her abuse of the legal system. In the meantime , this caused very real “harm to the musicians” by forcing the RPO to spend thousands of dollars in legal costs defending that nuisance suit. Money the RPO does not have to spare. You are now suggesting going to court again. If one claims to love and support the RPO as an institution, and wish the musicians (or at least YOUR musicians) no harm; this to is a strange way to show it.
Yes, the musicians are split. A sad turn of events. Fortunately, they are ALL so professional that they set that aside when the music starts. Still, for every musician lining up one one side of this, there is another with an opposing point of view. But if you see the choice as either “supporting an organization” (you disapprove of) or to “harm the musicians,” you will agree that harming the musicians cannot be a selective process; you do them all ill.
By claiming that “the leadership blatantly scorns us,” what you are really saying is that you disagree with the decision that was made and don’t like the result, as is your right. I might well feel the Democrats “scorned” me last November, but I would be wrong. It was a democratic process and they had the votes. The Board deliberated and discussed the serious issues before them for over 18 months. There was disagreement and at times, regrettably, a bit more heat than light. Intelligent, well-meaning people can disagree and occasionally harsh words are spoken. But everyone, without exception, had the best interests of the RPO at heart, as they saw it. In the end some 80% of the Board was in agreement.
The right decision is to support the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra for the good of the community and for the treasure it is. We need to move forward. Buy tickets. Write a check. Go hear wonderful music.
Peter Maurer
You ask, “Should the input of over a thousand patrons and members be ignored, in addition to multiple musicians who feel Remmereit acted appropriately?” . Your question raises several questions in turn.
For example, what do you mean by, “Remmereit acted appropriately”? In what regard ? It’s reported that the maestro cleaned out his office and cleared out of the RPO even before the board voted to truncate his contract in November, and that he subsequently refused to show up for meetings, rehearsals, planning sessions, etc. . Is this the “appropriate” behavior to which you refer?
In addition, what is this “input of over a thousand patrons and members” you are citing? If you’re looking for the vox populi, we know of two Democrat & Chronicle polls which yielded the following results:
1) Should the RPO have fired music director Arild Remmereit? (2,504 votes)
a) Agree. He didn’t do the work, shouldn’t get paid – 55%
b) Unfair. He was forced out. – 26%
c) Too bad they couldn’t work something out. – 12%
d) Unsure – 6%
2) Should Rochester Philharmonic CEO Charles Owens be fired? (2,488 votes)
a) No, the RPO needs some stability now – 55%
b) Give him six more months to see if he can turn things around – 18%
c) Yes, it should have happened long ago – 15%
d) I’m tired of all the drama surrounding this orchestra – 10%
Were the views of your “over a thousand of patrons and members” obtained in a more scientific manner and with greater specificity as to what THEY believed?
Mr Maurer, you claim that you and other members of the RPO were denied a voice by the board’s actions. Yet you as moderator of the so-called RPO Community Supporters site have openly admitted to deleting comments with which you disagree. In fact you did so to me this evening. Does this perchance seem a tad hypocritical?
Mr. Hess, This petition http://tinyurl.com/petition-RPO , at Change.org, does not call for any “heads to roll.” It calls for the reinstatement of Arild Remmereit. Apparently you have not read it, and thus you have disregarded its 1,200 signers!
As to your interpretation of Remmereit moving out of his office, he only moved his materials into that office on November 30, 2011. Being Music Director is not a 9 to 5 office job, and perhaps he decided that he could work better at home, as he had done previously. It does not say anything about him expecting to no longer work at the RPO, but perhaps it does register that the working climate created by the management was hostile, as he has stated.
Liane Curtis – In a different venue you directed the following to Ms. Rice, “I feel it is fair to ask for an election for Board members that offers a choice and is conducted in accordance with democratic principles. Why are you opposed to that?”. I in response posted a question, which was deleted before you could respond, asking what “democratic principles” you believe the RPO board violated under their bylaws. Luckily you now have a second opportunity to answer.
First of all, let’s fix your selective memory, Ms. Curtis. You have two petitions. The one that has 1000+ signatures is to support Remmereit’s programming and performances, something that has been publicly stated as NOT being the crux of the problem. The second petition, having 230 signers, is to fire Charles Owens. Both petitions seem to have a healthy dose of people who are not actual supporters of the RPO, but rather only of Remmereit (I can’t see how to view all the signatures at once, so I can’t get an exact number). And it is important to note that those who support Remmereit do not necessarily support firing Charles Owens! This is a line that you, Mr. Maurer, and your other colleagues continually blur.
Frankly, I must say that I am truly incredulous that you, Ms. Curtis, continue to project yourself as some champion of the RPO’s cause. You continue to speculate about how this orchestra, which you have no investment in, is run. I am trying to understand how you, a person who had not been to Rochester, NY in more than 20 years before the last Viola Congress , continue to push your own agenda and somehow claim that it will benefit the orchestra. Many of your colleagues (who I may disagree with), at least are clear in their motivations, and they are people who have an actual investment in the orchestra.
You may champion women composers, and that’s great, but stop pushing an agenda of division when what the orchestra needs the most is to find common ground, learn from this whole debacle, and move forward.
Update: Attorney Eileen Buholtz provides these insights into her recent legal actions. Yes, the legal process is ongoing. http://rpocommunity.wordpress.com/2013/02/…
Liane Curtis –
Ms. Buholtz states..
“Late in the afternoon of January 31, Justice Fisher questioned my subpoenas duces tecum and proposed affidavits,”
” On Feb. 4, Justice Fisher vehemently disapproved of my subpoenas duces tecum and ruled that I cannot use the documents that I had requested from the witnesses. “
” Also on Feb. 4, Justice Fisher denied my requests brought on in my pre-meeting suit and told me to proceed on a post-meeting basis.”
Sounds more like a train wreck then a process likly to result in truth, justice and the American way.
On a broader topic, the Sunday editorial in the D&C is disappointing and illogical. They round up the RPO deficit from an admittedly awful $746K ( nearly ALL in labor costs) to “close to a million” Nitpicking perhaps, but indicative of their bias and agenda. They suggest dropping the Board member financial minimums ($10K a year, actually Board contributions are much more) and letting in supposed new ideas from a more “diverse” Board, urging a free ride on expected annual support. Of course they do not suggest how to replace the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would disappear. How would that improve things? They mention that if these fresh new theoretical Board members can’t financially support the orchestra they can get their friends to contribute. Simplistic and disingenuous. Anyone who has served on non-profit Boards knows that if you are asking friends to write big checks you first have to write your own. Tough world out there. Maestro Remmereit, by the way, was highly critical of the minimum expected RPO Board contribution: he said it was much too low!
A symphonic orchestra runs on money. in the same way a sports team runs on money. Get real. The only difference is that a very talented musician makes a tiny fraction of what a very talented athlete makes. But the principle is the same. Kind of shows where society’s values are 🙁
The D&C gets very substantial advertising dollars from the RPO. I didn’t see a community-spirited initiative from them to cut the impoverished orchestra some slack on this. As far as I know, the RPO got no support from the D&C. last year. Easy to talk the talk. If I am wrong on that I would be delighted to be corrected. Further:
I WILL MATCH THE “DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE,” DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR, UP TO TEN-THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR ANY CASH CONTRIBUTION THEY MAKE TO THE RPO (CHALLENGE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS) Talk is cheap!
The D&C holds up the very fine Buffalo symphony as a shining example on how to do it right, but they conveniently ignored the BFO’s 2012 financial report, showing that they had a couple of VERY generous Board heavy hitters who made challenge grants that made a huge difference; much to the BFO’s credit. Good for them! God bless them. Every major symphony, I say again, every major symphony has to have very substantial Board contributions to make it. Some call the whole classical music business “elitist,” Be that as it may. The truth is it appeals to a relatively small market and is a lousy business model. But for those of us who love fine music, we are willing to dig deep to keep it alive. It can’t just be all about “Beyonce”
Steve Hess:
You are correct about the pro-Remmereit, or rather the anti-board bias of the D&C.
For example the fact that no rational person would contend that “to some extent the B(uffalo) P(hilharmonic) O(rchestra) is gaining enviable momentum at the expense of the embattled Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra” did not prevent the D&C from making such an asinine statement, as if the two orchestras were competing for the same patron base or the same dollars.
Although this rambling and obviously slapped together editorial correctly states that Owens and Rice, “made a strong case for dismissing Remmereit during a recent meeting with the Editorial Board”, the paper still managed to do a quick 180 and somehow argue that, “But in so doing, it was never clearer that RPO management must make radical changes or further risk the prized community institution going the route of the Syracuse orchestra.” The only way to reconcile these two statements is to assume that what they meant is that is the original selection of Remmereit was a mistake, a not-altogether incorrect assumption.
The D&C then goes on to contend that, “Rice and Owens must begin to immediately change this toxic environment” as if they and they alone are responsible for the current divisiveness. Kind of like telling the fire department that they’re somehow responsible for the activities of pyromaniacs.
And while the inclusion of board members with diverse backgrounds would probably be of long term value to the RPO, what in god’s name does this have to do with the current board’s termination of Remmereit? Is somebody at the D&C trying to imply that the Remmereit termination was driven by a lack of racial or ethnic sensitivity? Or that more blacks or more Hispanics or more Vietnamese board members would have somehow altered the decision on what was at the end of the day merely a glorified HR matter?
The illogic of the D&C’s position reminds me of the line from Orwell’s 1984 when Winston Smith contends that, “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”, and receives the response, “Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. “
Mr. DeLoye
Thank you for your support and, more, for your astute insight and further analysis. If the D&C can stop viewing the RPO as its “pinata dejour” we can move forward. The weekend concert was fabulous. Local boy, made good, Maestro Ward Stare and piano phenom Terrence Wilson were huge hits with the audience. That’s ultimately what it’s all about and all it should be about.
Mr. Marini,
I’m flattered that you’ve taken the time to read the WPA website. Perhaps you missed my blog about the several-thousand-dollar donation made on behalf of my organization to the RPO this past June, in the form of the newly-created AMY Award presented to Maestro Remmereit. I would say that constitutes a substantive ‘investment,’ wouldn’t you? As do my visits to Rochester prior to the Music Director’s termination and my promotion of the RPO amongst both my music colleagues and via the WPA.
And do we really want to go down the road of who has more ‘right,’ geographic or otherwise, to voice his/her opinion on the future course of any given orchestra? I note that according to your profile you currently live abroad–does that somehow diminish the value of/invalidate your opinion? I don’t think it should, any more than where I currently reside or how long I have been following the RPO should.
The only way the RPO will actually ‘learn from this whole debacle’ is to not simply paper over mistakes and culpability for the sake of a feel-good ‘coming together,’ but to conduct a rigorous self-examination, something few institutions are capable of doing without outside ‘help.’