A standing-room-only crowd packed the Central
Library’s Kate Gleason Auditorium Thursday evening as a group identifying
itself as RPO Community Supporters held a public event to address the November decision
made by the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra’s board of directors
to terminate the four-year contract of music director ArildRemmereit two years early. Remmereit
himself addressed the crowd of approximately 150 people, many of whom wore Remmereit pins handed out at the door. While the maestro
did not speak to his firing directly, he expressed his long-term vision and
hopes for the orchestra, while Remmereit supporters
explained to the gathering they’re thoughts on how the group should proceed with the orchestra in light
of the controversial decision.
Following opening statements by moderator, attorney Eileen Buholtz, and several impassioned speeches, Remmereit entered the room to a standing ovation from the
crowd. He then read from a statement which detailed his decision to
move to Rochester from Vienna, Austria, to lead the orchestra in 2011, how
“thrilled and moved” he has been by the community’s open arms, and his work
with the orchestra to “build bridges to the community, to reach
non-concert-goers” through the use of unconventional classic-music programming,
and partnerships with local visual artists and poets.
Remmereit referenced his
current situation by mentioning that the orchestra and its community is in a time of tribulation, and that “emotions are running
high.” He concluded his speech by expressing the hope that the passion surrounding the
current situation can be channeled into “meeting the obvious common goal, a
great future for the RPO.”
Immediately following his statement Remmereit
left the room, again accompanied by a prolonged standing ovation. Following
statements by two former board members of the RPO, the audience was invited to
submit questions to the organizers — questions had to be submitted in writing,
and “vetted” before being read. One question asked if Remmereit
was currently working with the orchestra, and whether he was getting paid. His
attorney, Glenn Pezzulo, confirmed that Remmereit has not been paid since December, as the
orchestra board is citing breach of contract on the music director’s part. Pezzulo disputes the claim said that he and his client hope
to resolve the matter before it goes to court.
The evening’s main call to action came from Buholtz, who explained to the crowd how they could best
make their feelings about the Remmereit termination
and other issues known to RPO management. Chief among her suggestions was for
RPO members to attend the January 23 annual meeting of the organization, during
which new board members will be elected. Although the deadline to nominate
prospective board members passed months back, Buholtz
encouraged the crowd to attend the meeting anyway, and mentioned the
possibility that a new alternative slate may be able to be introduced.
(Mark Berry, vice president of media relations for the RPO,
told the media following the event that nothing in the organization’s bylaws
allows it to disregard its own rules, so a new slate of nominees will not be
accepted at this time.)
Barring the adoption of an alternative slate, Buholtz told the crowd to “take the long view” by looking
forward to next year’s board elections. (One-third of the RPO’s
roughly 30-member board is elected each year, Buholtz
said.) “We need to make a fundamental change in the board, the attitude of the
board,” she said.
When asked later in the evening about what Remmereit supporters can do about getting the embattled
maestro reinstated, she pointed out that members have no control over what
happens with Remmereit, but they do have control over
the way they vote in the annual meeting.
Other speakers at the gathering included Liane
Curtis, a musicologist at Boston’s Brandeis University and founder of the
Women’s Philharmonic Advocacy group, who came to Rochester for the meeting.
Curtis has been a vocal Remmereit champion, having
started two online petitions to get the conductor reinstated with the RPO. Her
advocacy group created a new award for Remmereit
based on his programming choices for his first two seasons with the RPO, which
heavily featured work by female composers like Amy Beach.
John Sullivan, who has been a violinist with the RPO since
1979, addressed the fact that while many musicians in the orchestra have
publicly supported the decision to terminate Remmereit’s
contract, that feeling is not universal among the performers. He called the
decision and its fallout “a serious wound to the collective psyche of the RPO
family, one that will be slow to heal, if in fact it ever does.”
Two former members of the RPO board who resigned in the past
few months also spoke about their concerns with the RPO leadership and its
decision to terminate Remmereit’s contract. Gwen
Sterns and KishanPandya
both read their letters of resignation to the group, which included allegations
of board mismanagement, withheld information, the neglect of financial
responsibilities, and the alienation of major donors.
Following the event, Mark Berry of the RPO said that he was at
the meeting to listen, and was pleased to see so many people who are so
passionate about the RPO. He couldn’t comment on the
specific allegations made about board conduct, as he was not party to those
meetings. However, he pointed out that the vast majority of board members were
in support of the decision to terminate Remmereit’s
contract, and that many of the musicians also have publicly supported the
decision.
David Angus is a horn player with the orchestra and
president of the Rochester Musicians’ Association, the union that represents
the performers in the RPO. Following the meeting he expressed unhappiness with
the group’s plan to go after the RPO board, and said that many people in the
group are operating with “limited information.” “The meeting only told part of
the story,” he said.
Angus and Berry both referenced the fact that, since being
given notice that his contract would expire in May, Remmereit
has failed to fulfill his duties to the orchestra. Earlier this week the RPO
announced that guest conductors would be handling the Mozart programming
scheduled for the end of January because Remmereit
refused to confirm that he would be at the podium.
Angus said that Remmereit has
failed to show up for auditions and rehearsals, and that planning for the
2013-14 season is going on without him because the schedule must be released
regardless. (Berry said that they hoped to have next season’s programming
unveiled by late winter.)
“I’m not sure how you do that and hope to come back at some
point in the future,” Angus said. “I just don’t see how that could happen.”
Regardless of the Remmereit
situation, the RPO continues to perform. This weekend the orchestra will play
with jazz-trumpet icon Chris Botti at two nearly
sold-out concerts at Kodak Hall.
This article appears in Jan 9-15, 2013.
“Angus and Berry both referenced the fact that, since being given notice that his contract would expire in May, Remmereit has failed to fulfill his duties to the orchestra. …Angus said that Remmereit has failed to show up for auditions and rehearsals, and that planning for the 2013-14 season is going on without him because the schedule must be released regardless. “
Very professional maestro ! Sulking in your tent like Achilles?
TONIGHT! EASTMAN THEATER! 7:25 PM. BRING SIGNS AND LEAFLETS. FIRE OWENS, REINSTATE REMMEREIT!! It’s OUR RPO!!
Liane Curtis – Owens can only be fired by the Board and that ain’t gonna happen ! And Remmereit has already proven he doe not deserve reinstatement. Better luck next time.
Mr. Smith,
You are obviously very gullible. Why on earth would you choose to believe staff pitchmen? We can all read, else we would not be on this site. Quoting their questionable remarks does not make them true, or the whole truth. Go to RPOCommunity.wordpress.com to gain some perspective, if you’re truly interested.
Been There – It appears that Remmereit has failed to show up for work since it was announced that his contract was being terminated . As a result of this sulking, I mean failure to perform his duties, the board has held him in breach of his contract and has accordingly has not paid paid him. Nothing I read in this article or elsewhere from Remmereirt or his cultists has addressed this issue and provided either rebuttal or justification for his inactions. If the board’s remarks are “questionable” or their version of events is incorrect or there are extenuating circumstances then provide your rebuttal and get your own “pitchmen” out there with your version. Until then the board ‘s version remain the only one we have.
For those interested in understanding how the RPO board conducted itself this fall, they
can go the video of the meeting (http://rpocommunity.wordpress.com/) and listen carefully
to the testimony of Drs. Gwen Sterns and Kishan Pandya (at 21:40 and 27:45 into
the video). Dr. Sterns describes, in particular, the manner by which a November
“survey” was (hastily) arranged with neither input nor even the knowledge of the entire board. Nor were its complete “findings” subsequently shared with the entire board. Yet, it was precisely the result of this “survey” that Rice explicitly referred to in the letter to the community of early December as having contributed to the board’s decision to terminate the contract.
A reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that the board
used this survey as the basis of a sleazy and manipulative public relations campaign to convince the community that something was so deeply wrong between Remmereit and the musicians that termination was their only possible solution. The absence of any vetting of
the wording of the survey’s questions, nor any analysis of its raw data before its conclusions were announced, exhibit a level of fundamental dishonesty that serves to discredit the institution to which the board has a fiduciary responsibility to defend. Character assassination, which is what this survey and its media packaging exemplified,
is, after all, not part of any board’s charge.
It is therefore completely immaterial that the majority of the board, in Berry’s terms, supports the decision to terminate Remmereit’s contract. Indeed, such support reflects a profoundly moral blind spot common to this majority for which they should feel deep shame. Unfortunately, they appear completely incapable of this because they continue
to defend their conduct.
What of the musicians in all this mess? So far, in all that I have been able to learn (admittedly
only a very small percentage), I cannot yet understand how phrases such as
“deep disappointment” or “completely impossible to work with” are appropriately connected to specific behaviors or styles of interaction. The testimony of the violinist
John Sullivan (see the video beginning at 10:28) helps shed some light on this, but
many more voices are needed before this can be really appreciated.
If there is, in fact, a climate of intimidation, if not genuine fear, aggravated by forthcoming contract negotiations in the context of an apparently not insignificant (but who really knows?) budget deficit, then it is entirely natural to encounter
deep reluctance to rebut in public the central thrust of Owens and Rice’s message.
Acts of moral courage, as exemplified by Sullivan’s testimony, should however make (at least some) people pause and reflect before concluding that things are as clearcut as they appear to be in Rice’s or Berry’s public statements.
“It is therefore completely immaterial that the majority of the board, in Berry’s terms, supports the decision to terminate Remmereit’s contract. Indeed, such support reflects a profoundly moral blind spot common to this majority for which they should feel deep shame. Unfortunately, they appear completely incapable of this because they continue to defend their conduct.”
Translation – The majority of the board must be immoral since they do not agree with the minority and because they refuse to change their minds. And the minority must be morally superior because they lost the vote.
An interesting commentary on the validity of majority rule…from the losing side.
Re Mr. Smith’s “translation”. The December 3 letter states:
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 RPO.
The manner by which this “survey” was both initiated, distributed, and analyzed, is detailed in Dr. Sterns’ testimony. It does not seem to me to be a pretty story since it (i.e. the
survey) was composed without full board review. Nor did the board get a chance to
review the raw data of the musicians’ responses. The conclusions were simply presented
as an accepted fact upon which a fundamental decision was to be based (in part). Of course, I base this assertion upon her testimony (supported implicitly by the statement
of Dr. Pandya). Others, privy to the board’s conduct, have not presented their side of this feature of the story. On the other hand, Dr. Sterns is a distinguished member of
this community, and there is no particular reason to question the veracity of her account.
I do not see this particular part of the process as being remotely fair or moral. That is what
I was referring to. Since the termination vote used this flawed process as justification, and was then included as part of the public rationale for the board’s decision, it
is therefore, to my mind, a decision that is immoral. It is irrelevant whether a majority approved it. Majority votes often support immoral positions. History is full of such things. They often turn out to lead to dreadful mistakes.
bl – So you believe that the majority of the RPO board entered into a conspiracy to oust Renmmereit , and the a second conspiracy to cover up the first one? In general conspiracies , particularly such public ones as this, have been notoriously difficult to ,maintain. Care to suggest why the board would go to such extremes?
M. Smith.
You will observe that I did not use the word “conspiracy” anywhere in both comments. Nor
did what I express necessarily imply the existence of a conspiracy to “oust” Remmereit. I do
not understand your reasoning here nor your word choice. The board clearly had several other reasons that were not related to the survey. These were listed in Rice’s Dec. 3 letter. I
do not address them. I focus solely upon the survey.
My point is that the manner by which the survey was conducted and used, as part of
the rationale for the board’s decision, was both flawed procedurally and morally. That is, the fundamental question involving the music director’s continued connection to the institution was treated in a manner that prevented the entire
board from conducting due diligence insofar as the survey contributed to that
decision. When this was pointed out by people of
standing in the community, they were met with indignation, abruptness (I believe
“bullying” was one term used), and a type of crude show of force that demeans
the institution to which they have a high responsibility to protect. That has nothing
to do with conspiracy. It has everything to do with (very) bad behavior by a
sufficiently large percentage of the majority. I am unable to explain the reason
for this.
I also do not know, nor do I affirm, that a similar absence of due
diligence occurred in whatever review process they used, if any, to arrive at the other
conclusions, outlined in Rice’s letter, that supported their decision. There has been
no specific discussion of this that I am aware of.
I do not understand why the majority (or at least a vocal component of it) felt
it essential to conduct their review in this way, nor why they believed the orchestra survey needed to be included in their process, given that its treatment lacked the essential rigor/oversight that due diligence required. Whether or not a “conspiracy” existed is also completely irrelevant to the fact that their review procedure was not up to the high standards that were required, given the enormity of the decision they were making. This seems to me to be the main point of Drs. Sterns and Pandya.
bl /ben lechtin – I note that you have declined to address the question of why the board would engage in this conspiracy…pardon me it’s not a conspiracy is it…let’s call it an unholy agreement among the majority of the board members to unseat Remmereit. As a general rule a “crime” requires a motive. What was the motive in this case?
And setting aside personal opinions of immoral actions, sleazy tactics and disingenuous pronouncements. let’s cut to the chase. Has the RPO board acted in any manner or taken any action which can logically be held to be a violation of its bylaws , or have they violated any local, state or federal regulation or rule or code? If the answer is “yes” than that avenue should be pursued by those who oppose the board’s actions. And more power to them. But if the answer be “no”, then its time to suck it up and move on.
M. Smith.
We all have different internal models of how we should conduct ourselves in varying
social or interpersonal contexts. You have yours, I have mine. We then project these
upon the cultural institutions whose programming interests us and which we
attend. If there is some divergence between how the institution conducts itself and
our own idea of how we would behave in similar circumstances, then we are free
either to express this or remain silent.
I am not satisfied with a basic criterion of whether such and such behavior
is purely legal or illegal. I gather that you are. There is a difference between
moral or ethical behavior and legal behavior. Not being a lawyer I could not seriously
decide if the board acted legally. I choose not to address that point since
there is no real need to do so, certainly here. That is for a court if this issue ever goes to a trial. When I referred to “due diligence” or “fiduciary responsibility” I was speaking more broadly, and not limiting myself to a purely legalistic interpretation.
It does seem worthwhile to address the question whether it is appropriate for
a board (such as the RPO, or any other cultural institution) to make its decisions,
especially those that will significantly interest or impact its public at large, using a purely “is it legal” perspective, as you appear to affirm.
To do so, it seems to me, would not necessarily be in
the best long term interests of the institution because one then runs the risk
of seriously alienating a reasonable number of people both inside and outside the institution. For the RPO
this evidently includes potential donors, ticket buyers, as well as musicians and the international musical community. That risk still exists, though the recent
announcement would suggest that for the moment it is less than one might have feared.
(Neither you nor I cannot evaluate whether the figures provided can be taken seriously or not- that is another matter altogether, which would require knowing the conditions under which gifts were both made and withdrawn, comparing the number of holiday concerts, and their attendance figures, over several years etc.).
Of course, sometimes, as is the case here, one believes it necessary to take the risk. The tone in Rice’s December letter suggests a high
degree of institutional concern at allowing things to continue. Apparently there was great internal stress that could neither be managed nor decreased by anyone in charge. Naturally, I cannot hope to judge how accurate this perception was since crucial details are completely absent from the public record, and what has surfaced still seems very unclear. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests to me that certain parts of the board’s action fell short of what I judge
to be ethical (or moral) behavior. That is my main point.
You are free to react completely differently. However, you do not have the right
to demand that I sign on to how you see it. Perhaps “demand” is too strong a word, but that is how I understand the phrasing at the end of your last comment.