This is a corrected version of this story. UPDATE (Jan. 23, 8:20 p.m.): The RPO elected eight members to its board of directors during its annual meeting Wednesday night. All of the members were backed by the RPO board. Write-in votes for alternate candidates were apparently received, but not counted.

The meeting was testy at times, however, with RPO members challenging members of the board over the early termination of Music Director Arild Remmereit’s contract.

ORIGINAL STORY

Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Fisher has denied a dissident group’s request for a temporary restraining order to delay today’s annual meeting of the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra board. The meeting will go on as planned, at 5 p.m. in Hatch Hall, according to RPO spokesperson Mark Berry. The meeting is open to RPO members.

Attorney Eileen Buholtz, one of six people running a write-in candidacy for a board seat, sought the restraining order as part of a lawsuit against the board. She argued that the board didn’t properly set the membership deadline that determines who can vote for candidates.

Buholtz is also seeking a complete list of RPO members and their contact information, which she says she’s entitled to as a candidate.

Fisher is allowing the lawsuit to advance, and has directed both sides to return to court at 11:30 a.m. on February 4.

Restraining order decision by

Related Stories

This article appears in Jan 23-29, 2013.

Covers county government and whatever else comes my way. Greyhound dad; vegetarian; attempted photographer with a love for film and fixer; sometimes cyclist.

I'm City's news editor, which means I oversee all aspects of our news-gathering operation. I also sneak in to an occasional City Council meeting and cover Rochester's intriguing and eclectic neighbors....

5 replies on “RPO elects board members”

  1. “It is not lost on the court that this application for a TRO comes on the very day the meeting sought to be adjourned is scheduled to occur, despite notice since at least January 8,2013, the date plaintiff concedes her family received such notice.”

    Translation – If you’re going to waste this Court’s time at least have the decency not to wait to the last minute to do so.

  3. If the court thought the lawsuit did not have merit, the Judge would have thrown it out. He did not, and the RPO Board must respond to the charges in this lawsuit by February 4, 2013. This battle continues.

  4. Been There – you appear to be responding to someone who has stated that the entire lawsuit filed by Buholtz has been dismissed by the judge. But I can find no such comment here. Of course as we all know, and as I posted earlier, only the request for a TRO was rejected along with a less-than -subtle note from the judge that the request should have been filed many days ago.

  5. Out of curiosity, does ANYONE truly believe that Judge Fisher, or any judge , is going to overturn the results of last night’s selection of board members and call for a new election?

Comments are closed.