Buzzing Reed- Classical Music & Clarinet Culture

It is clear that orchestras must change the way they do business to adapt to changing behaviors of consumers. Even orchestras with large endowments in the US are suffering. I believe the Columbus Symphony has a chance to evolve and adapt with Martin Ingles and Rolland Valliere at the helm.

via Editorial: Seeking stability | The Columbus Dispatch.

After skating near insolvency and collapse in mid-February, the Columbus Symphony Orchestra was pulled from the brink by the quick action of its board and quick agreement by the musicians. Now the organization appears to have a plan that might put the orchestra on a sustainable footing.

In early February, the symphony management realized that the combination of low subscription sales for the season and a dramatic decline in individual and corporate donations meant that time was running out. So the symphony's board and management decided to turn over the organization's administrative functions to the Columbus Association for the Performing Arts, which serves a similar role for the Franklin Park Conservatory, Contemporary American Theatre Company, Phoenix Theatre for Children and Opera Columbus. Its relationship with the symphony became effective three weeks ago.

This move will save the orchestra about $750,000 for the fiscal year beginning Sept. 1 and, as CAPA President and Chief Executive Bill Conner says, it allows CAPA to deal with the business side and "lets all the art just be about the art."

Right before a shutdown in mid-2008 because of financial difficulties, the Columbus symphony's annual budget was climbing to an unsustainable high of $12 million. Reflecting the new economic realities, its budget has dropped to about $8.5 million for this year and $7 million for next fiscal year. The number of performing weeks will fall to 25 next year, down from the 48 weeks in its last full season in 2007.

Before the 2008 shutdown, musicians were paid an average of $55,000 annually; their pay was cut last year to $45,000. For next year, they have agreed to accept about $38,000 per year, which includes benefits. This is what they were paid in 1993. They also have given up significant amounts of paid vacation. Their sacrifice for the survival of the symphony is commendable.

The group is not out of the woods, but if all goes as hoped for the rest of this year – meaning it's not a rainy summer for Picnic with the Pops – the symphony believes it can break even.

The symphony board leadership is formidable. Martin Inglis, executive vice president and chief financial officer for Battelle, took over as the board chairman in October 2008 and has worked hard to keep the organization alive and to find ways to make it thrive. Before that, he had risen through the ranks of Ford, at one time serving as its head of North American operations.

2008 was a year of distrust and angry words between the symphony management, board and musicians. Now the management team, headed since July 2009 by CSO President Roland Valliere, and the board have been open with the musicians, giving them unprecedented access to board meetings and materials. Valliere and Inglis express their concern about the well-being of the musicians as people who are vital to this community and who have families to support and bills to pay.

Unfortunately, hard times are reality for arts groups all over the country – even for metropolitan orchestras that, unlike CSO, enjoy large endowments. Now Cleveland's world-renowned symphony is struggling, as is Philadelphia's.

With stability and strong leadership, the Columbus symphony might break out of its cycle of crises so that donors can again view it as a good investment. Subscription sales will rise as the economy picks up – and also when the symphony finally hires a music director. The new maestro should be a respected leader, charismatic, expressive, musically talented and, of course, affordable.

Here is Glenn Sheller’s (Dispatch editorials page editor) letter to which Bob Nichols responds below. Mr. Nichols’ gentle admonishments seem to have little effect on the outcome of the Dispatch’s stance.

Dear Mr. Nichols:
Much of the opposition to the board’s plan focuses on what the board SHOULD have done before to prevent the symphony’s finances from reaching such a parlous state. But even if it’s true that the board previously failed to act effectively, nobody can travel back in time and fix things. So the question is, what would critics have the board do NOW? How do critics propose that the symphony balance its budget?

Dear Mr. Sheller,

Thank you for your response to my May 10 email. Excellent point – the problem today IS today’s problem to be solved, not yesterday’s! So let’s do PUSH for a resolution now, and NOT surrender to an “I give up – you win (or you lose, depending on where you stand) conclusion. The motivation to protect the integrity of an in-place asset, an unchallenged artistically successful institution (the CSO) SHOULD, should it not (?), provide plenty of motivation to look for solutions to protect, not destroy this orchestra. I am sure it is much cheaper, easier, and considerably more efficient to keep an orchestra, than it is to create one. This scenario assumes the board leadership is not already satisfied, even pleased, they are about to, or perhaps have, already achieved their goal – to disband the present orchestra.

Unfortunately, their actions and published comments to date have done NOTHING to dispel this very dark and I sincerely believe inaccurate, although too easily obvious, a conclusion.

“How do they balance the budget?” is asked. Perhaps it IS a smaller orchestra in terms of full time musicians, perhaps it IS a shorter season. However, it certainly is NOT resorting to abusive or inadequate compensation practices (i.e.. 40 %, or whatever it was, pay cuts). It is NOT canceling reportedly successful concert venues (i.e. Picnic With the Pops). It is NOT denigrating the input of the musicians by insincere “bargaining” sessions. (i.e. apparently ignoring a $500,000 payroll reduction reportedly offered by musicians). It is NOT conducting lack-luster fund raising campaigns that do not reach a sufficiently broad audience and do (did) not instill ANY sense of urgency.

I am not informed enough to place priorities on, or to determine the relative value of, each the above items – but I do think there is a potential balanced budget there, somewhere – maybe even w/o any personnel reductions(?), do you suppose?.

Now to matters other than “balancing budgets.”

WOSU has understood the importance of broad campaigns, directed to individuals and their sense of responsibility to maintain a service that used to be, and still is would you believe free for the listening! They have done this through repetitiously reinforcing the intrinsic value of their service plus developing a public sense of urgency, ownership, and responsibility. They (WOSU) followed a very unpopular programming change with another successful campaign – actually amazing! Is there not a lesson available here to our symphony?

No one, except perhaps the politicians (?), I think, has ever “won” the battle for popular support by attacking the credibility of those individuals on the other side. Affirming relationships are much more constructive! There has certainly been too much of that unfortunate technique used here between the symphony leadership and the musicians. The January board “Strategic Plan” began this episode by producing a unilaterally created document arguably not very kind to the musicians on several levels. The musicians responded quickly and understandably questioning the integrity of the board and leadership. This sort of dialogue has continued unabated, and recently has even spread to the Maestro! This practice is very sad and totally unproductive leading to divisiveness that can last beyond the time limits of the “negotiations.” Very, very sad indeed!

In conclusion, this “critic,” would very much like to see the symphony board/leadership along with the musician’s leadership quickly seek the counsel of a third party mediator/consultant to enable developing an acceptable and creative resolution for everyone out of this obvious impasse. (I admittedly have no credentials to be labeled a “critic,” I am only reacting to what I perceive as less than positive and not very constructive publicly displayed attitudes that sometimes even seem to be driven by mysterious(?) agendas.)

I do not see ANY indication a solution is to come from any other source or technique.

Can we not ALL easily agree that the Columbus Symphony Orchestra is worth the effort!

Incidentally, I was “amused” with the editorial comment Sunday morning that “…the loss (of the CSO) would not necessarily mean the loss of orchestral music in Columbus.” We simply are evaluating this issue on totally different levels. It occurs to me and I am quite sure you will not ever hear any of the personnel of the “other” orchestras in or around Columbus express anything other than dismay at losing or the compromising of the Columbus Symphony.

The Dispatch certainly has it within their influence to garner positive community support around the symphony, to stimulate the kind of attitude that would enable the negotiation of a responsible “labor” contract, and to give confidence to a no doubt “uneasy” board, as well as to help generate a community climate for very successful 2008-2009 fund campaigns.

Wouldn’t you like to do that? A decision to not go this route will most certainly also contribute to the destruction of the CSO as a viable institution for many years.

At the risk of redundancy, the goal should not be simply to save or keep “a” symphony orchestra – the goal is for Columbus to continue to have an orchestra worthy of the true critic’s ink.

Recent ticket sales and the positive community/audience response to the orchestra certainly are encouraging. Let’s build on that!

Once again, thank you for your response and taking the time to read this rather long email.

Bob Nichols

Adaptistration posted more analysis of the Columbus Symphony board of trustee’s catastrophic destruction of it’s own orchestra here.

OUR COMMITMENT
Last Sunday evening I gave a free recital in my home, the second such event in a month. The audience loved the concert, relishing the opportunity to see musicians perform up close and speak with them afterwards. Cultivating relationships with music lovers nurtures their personal investment in the Symphony and offers a valuable path for development of a strong and dedicated support base.

Along with other musicians, I wish to contribute to the long term development of our Orchestra. Among us we share skills in budgeting, investing, technology, organization, outreach, management, public opinion and education, to list just a few, all of which could contribute to the success of management’s output. Yet our efforts to contribute have been met with disdain from management.

Recent heroic attempts by newly formed grassroots organizations to stir support for the musicians have been treated with suspicion and even hostility by current management, revealing the counter productive behavior we have witnessed for years. Lack of cooperation among all parties is suicide in today’s competitive market. We are eager to contribute. We await inclusion by our board and management. Yet, instead we get more hostile ultimatums and threats. Is this productive behavior?

THE PROBLEM
In the past decade, the part of the budget for musician expenses increased about 4% a year, while operations expenses rose approximately 7% a year, significantly higher. Why are those expenses so high? In two of the past three years, the musician portion of the total budget was 39%, short of the national average of 40-50% for other orchestras. (In fact, that percentage should be lower, since the “in kind” donations of $1 million were excluded from the total budget.) Expenditures for musicians have been consistently lower than the national average, so why are they being asked to bear the vast majority of proposed cuts? Lack of effective answers to such questions has prevented a positive solution to our mutual problem.

Already six CSO musicians are embracing more secure employment opportunities. The effect of losing current CSO personnel is far-reaching. We teach the city’s children, in colleges, public schools and privately; we coach ensembles and orchestras, conduct the city’s amateur orchestras. We buy houses, pay taxes and spend our income here. The cultural drain caused by musician departures is taking place as we wait for effective solutions. Our board’s resistance to amicable communication underscores their tragic failure to champion the cultural gem of Columbus, its Symphony.

The behavior of current Symphony leadership is nothing short of sabotage. Canceling the popular and lucrative Summer season and failing to sell subscriptions for next season betray their intentions. This board’s failures began years ago. In order to stave off the current crisis, they should have implemented a comprehensive strategy at least two years ago, including, but not limited to, the following initiatives:

1. Capital Campaign from the Corporate Community
2. Capital Campaign of 30 top benefactors but seeking a major gift from one or two from the list.
3. Complete and submit numerous applications of grants to the various foundations in the United States with a particular emphasis on education of younger people who are taught by the Symphony members.
4. Develop a plan to seek State and Local support and fund it through a tax levy.
5. Develop a plan of action to involve all of the regional chamber of commerce’s to solicit community support from Columbus and the outlying cities.
6. Develop and execute on a long term strategic plan for the Symphony with a particular emphasis placed on the Executive Director, staff and Board Leadership working as a team.

Board chair Buzz Trafford’s statements claiming donor fatigue and the City’s inherent lack of support the real problem; Columbus is fatigued by repeated attempts to support an organization with a lackluster, calcified board and management which has failed to serve the City and the orchestra. Music Director Junichi Hirokami said in the May 10 NY Times article that he has tried to solicit funds from companies in his native Japan. “But they don’t trust our board,” he added. “That is why they hesitate to support our orchestra.” Who would want to give money to a poorly run organization?

THE SOLUTION
Economic data does not lie regarding the relatively high median income, population density and growth, corporate density and economic stability of the Columbus Metropolitan Area. (www.census.gov) Columbus can afford this orchestra. To regain the public trust, the current board and management need to step down so those more able can do what really needs to be done.

Great cities are built on thinking BIG. Why destroy the potential for greatness already within our City’s grasp? Junichi Hirokami said in the NY Times April 12th, “…In six years I can make this orchestra one of the best.”. We should be talking GROWTH: tours, recordings, a proud new concert hall for Columbus, not destruction. Fund raising will be easier with an exciting plan for growth. Our 2001 trip to Carnegie Hall demonstrated what is possible.

The musicians are the heart of the orchestra. Our part of the current budget is only $5.4 million out of $13.5 million (counting $1 million non-monetary “in kind” donations from various sources). It seems painfully obvious that our board of trustees, which claims to represent the higher aims of Columbus, should secure the current quality of music making by maintaining the musician’s part of the budget. Then, by utilizing the vast resources offered by volunteers, grassroots organizations and the musicians themselves, we can work together to build a truly great orchestra.

Adaptistration, an orchestra management blog by Drew McManus, posted a fine analysis of what is shaping up as the Symphony board’s real plan for our Orchestra. Find it here.