Statements, Part 2

Yesterday (in part 1 of this blog entry) I noted that the negotiations between the locked out musicians of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO) and the management of the Woodruff Arts Center (WAC) hit a rough patch; shortly thereafter the two sides had begun making statements in the press. My main point was that the WAC’s statements were, to be honest, bizarre, and they did not inspire trust in the WAC’s ability to manage the situation.

Well… I’m disappointed to report that things only got worse.

While I was posting my blog entry, I learned that the WAC had posted a full-blown summary of its position. I didn’t want to delay my previous post, or make it any longer than it already was, so I held off on commenting about this much fuller statement.

Allow me to do so now.

* * *

At a glance, it appears that the statement isn’t (as of this moment) on the ASO’s website, so I will post the version that appears on their Facebook page. Curiously for a social media site, the comments have been wiped clean. I mean, isn’t that the purpose for posting things on social media—to encourage interactions? If not, why not just post it to the website? Regardless, here’s the link, but as not everyone uses Facebook, I’ll just copy and paste the text:

This is in response to the Counterproposal made by ASOPA last night shortly before 11PM. You were informed at that time that we would consider your counterproposal and respond in writing today.

First, let me remind you of the situation in which our negotiations have occurred. As you well know, the Atlanta Symphony has been losing millions of dollars every year for 12 consecutive years. We have used up a significant portion of our endowment to cover the losses. Ticket sales only pay for approximately 20% of the cost of producing classical concerts. The rest of the cost has to be covered by donor contributions and other revenue sources. Despite prior fundraising efforts by the ASO Board and Staff, and significant support from the Arts Center, there is still a deficit every year—$2 million last year. ASO is spending money it does not have.

Stated simply, continued deficits aren’t sustainable. Some of our biggest donors have told us they will stop contributing if we do not slow down our spending and put forth a plan for sustaining the Symphony into the future. It is against this background that the Union wants us to increase our expenditures and spend money we do not have.

Here are the specifics of our proposal:

  1. Wage Increases. Despite our desperate financial condition, we have offered the Union wage increases. This is because we know the Musicians took a substantial pay cut two years ago and we did not want to ask them to take another cut. Our proposal is to raise Musician pay by 4.5% over the term of the agreement. Your proposal would add almost $10,000 to each Musician’s base pay by the end of the fourth year. Musician base pay, excluding benefits, currently ranges from a high of over $200,000 to a low of approximately $75,000, with an average of $112,000, plus extra pay for such things as playing multiple instruments, overtime, youth coaching, travel, etc. We believe that our current offer is more than generous under the circumstances for 38 weeks of work and four weeks of paid vacation.
  2. Health Care. We have reached agreement on health care. The plan that ASOPA has agreed to is a BCBS High Deductible plan with HSA cash contributions to Musician accounts from $1,000 to $2,000. Musicians will only pay $20 per week for this plan. This modest increase is more than offset by the wage increases we have proposed.
  3. Size of the Orchestra. It has become clear that the only real remaining issue in the negotiations is the size of the orchestra. The Orchestra currently has 76 active musicians. The Union has demanded that the number of players be raised to 89 by the fourth year, regardless of the fact that the orchestra is losing money. Of course, everyone would like to have a very large orchestra, but we cannot afford 89 musicians at the present time.

ASO has proposed to start where we now are (76 musicians) and to guarantee that no Musician would lose his/her job during the four-year agreement due to downsizing. Then we would build the size of the orchestra over time as we can afford to do so—up to 90 players. To accomplish that, we committed to use our best efforts by putting a major endowment campaign into place, with the proceeds being used exclusively to increase the number of Musicians.

You have previously received our detailed proposal on complement which states:
“ASO will increase the complement through endowment of chairs during the term of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The ASO/Arts Center intends, as of the date of this agreement, to create and undertake a major fundraising campaign focused on endowment of chairs, led by the ASO/Arts Center with the full support of the Music Director and the participation of Musicians.

The goal of the campaign will be to increase the complement of the orchestra as follows:  By the end of year one of the Agreement…………At least 77 Musicians By the end of year two of the Agreement………….At least 81 Musicians By the end of year three of the Agreement……….At least 85 Musicians By the end of year four of the Agreement…………At least 90 Musicians.”

The ASOPA Committee made it crystal clear during the past few days–it would rather have no orchestra at all if it cannot have a larger orchestra with a guaranteed number of players. ASO simply cannot agree to spend money we do not have.

We are pleased that we are able to guarantee positions for the current 76 musicians but we must decline your proposal to guarantee more without having the funding in place to pay for them.

We have provided a path to a larger orchestra through an endowment campaign and we wholeheartedly believe that the Atlanta community will support such an effort. By rejecting that concept and demanding further deficit spending, we believe the union threatens to bring an end to our great orchestra.

Our proposal will remain open for your acceptance until 4PM, Monday, October 27, 2014. If not accepted by that time, we will be forced to make further cancellations.

* * *

And now, my response.

“You were informed at that time that we would consider your counterproposal and respond in writing today.”

I suppose there could be a reason why the WAC negotiators would need to leave the bargaining table and formally draw up a response, but are these steps truly necessary? Couldn’t you agree (or disagree) on the back of a cocktail napkin, and write up any formal response later, once both parties have agreed in principle? Why did you need to “adjourn” to do this? It feels like a transparent attempt to run out the clock… and indeed, the federal mediators have now left town.

“First, let me remind you of the situation in which our negotiations have occurred. As you well know, the Atlanta Symphony has been losing millions of dollars every year for 12 consecutive years.”

I’m sure the musicians don’t need a reminder… being without pay or insurance tends to focus the mind. I’m fairly confident the events of the past few months are seared into their memories without any help from the WAC.

And again with these statistics. Simply restating a point does not make it true. As many have pointed out, there are serious questions about how the WAC has managed the ASO’s finances, and these questions have not been satisfactorily answered. Plus, the WAC insisted two years ago that the lockout and subsequent cuts were going to turn this bleak financial situation around. By your own admission, they didn’t. So why are you relentlessly pursuing this same, failed strategy? Especially when you know that it is having an adverse impact on the organization?

“Ticket sales only pay for approximately 20% of the cost of producing classical concerts. The rest of the cost has to be covered by donor contributions and other revenue sources.”

Yes. You are a non-profit. This is what every other 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit organization experiences. Do you not realize how ridiculous you sound… to every other person across the country who works in a non-profit?

“Despite prior fundraising efforts by the ASO Board and Staff, and significant support from the Arts Center, there is still a deficit every year—$2 million last year. ASO is spending money it does not have.”

And again, since there are serious questions about how the WAC has managed the ASO’s finances, this statement is debatable at best. I ask you: Is it that the ASO does not have any money, or is it that that the ASO does not have any money because the WAC is withholding financial support from it?

“Some of our biggest donors have told us they will stop contributing if we do not slow down our spending and put forth a plan for sustaining the Symphony into the future.”

Perhaps. But are they the same big donors that currently are running the negotiations… so that only a very select group of self-interested people is weighing in? And if so, is the situation simply a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I’d also like to point out that several members of the ASO’s board have come forward with emergency funds, but the WAC turned this extra money down.

Moreover, in order to back up this statement, I would expect the WAC to produce a capacity study by a respected firm that clearly indicates that the community is tapped out. That’s what non-profits usually do.

And finally, this point is undermined by a recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which showed that “in Atlanta, individual giving increased by more than $465-million from 2006 to 2012. Atlantans gave roughly 4 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity in 2012, which ranks the city fourth nationally among large metropolitan areas.”

This doesn’t help your argument.

“Our proposal is to raise Musician pay by 4.5% over the term of the agreement.”

Great! That covers inflation. It does not, however, bring the musicians up to the level of pay they were at two years ago.  And, these totals still keep wages on the low side for a major symphony orchestra.

“We believe that our current offer is more than generous under the circumstances for 38 weeks of work and four weeks of paid vacation.”

Leaving aside your self-satisfied “belief” in your “generosity,” I can’t help but read between the lines here. You are essentially trying to make the musicians look overpaid by tossing out the “endless weeks of vacation” canard. Look, as we dealt with repeatedly in the Minnesota Orchestra lockout, “vacation” means something very different for an orchestral musician. Like athletes, the musicians have to practice constantly, usually daily, to maintain conditioning. And they do so for the same reasons—that’s the only way to insure they stay at the top of their artistic game.  Plus, musicians are at grave danger for repetitive stress injuries. So musicians are not sitting around drinking mai-tais on the beach, those weeks are simply non-performance weeks. Giving musicians those breaks in the schedule is a win-win situation that is critical to maintaining health and keeping the overall level of performance high.

And “38 weeks?” Just how long is the season you’re proposing?

“The Union has demanded that the number of players be raised to 89 by the fourth year, regardless of the fact that the orchestra is losing money. Of course, everyone would like to have a very large orchestra, but we cannot afford 89 musicians at the present time.”

It isn’t just “the union” that is concerned about this. Every outside observer has concerns about this. Look, you need a set number of musicians to perform music by Beethoven, Mahler, or Strauss. If you don’t have that number, you will have to hire freelancers, or shift to a different kind of music.

There are real concerns that you will use this as an escape clause to unilaterally reduce the size of the ensemble, in effect turning it into a house band to back up pop performances. And based on your statements and actions to date, I find these fears to be fully justified.  Your assurances that you would not do such a thing are meaningless…after all, two years ago you promised not to demand concessions from the musicians again.

I covered this yesterday, if you wish to read more.

“Our proposal will remain open for your acceptance until 4PM, Monday, October 27, 2014. If not accepted by that time, we will be forced to make further cancellations.”

Please, can we stop with the abuser-blaming-the-victim routine? You locked out the musicians at the first moment you were legally able to do so. You chose to cancel the season. There is a well-established mechanism to keep the season going: play-and-talk. Groups do this all the time. All sorts of people have urged you to do so, too. So please, you aren’t forced to do anything. You are choosing to do this.

And taking this thought further, I find it odd that you are so coy about what you are doing. You have said again and again that you are acting to bring about much-needed “sustainability” for the organization, and you are convinced that this will be a net positive for the organization. To achieve sustainability, you have proudly announced your intention to cut costs and reduce the scope of the ASO.   And you clearly believe that although there might be short-term pain, the benefits will be worth it.

But why do you dissemble about your strategy to do so? Right from the beginning you were astonishingly evasive about the fact that you had locked out the musicians. Even today, you avoid using the factually correct word, “lockout,” and instead refer to what’s happening as a passive-voice “work stoppage.” And here, as elsewhere, you blame the musicians for bringing it about.

But this is your chosen strategy. You think it is a good thing that will provide benefits to all. So why won’t you own up to it, if it is so self-evidently wonderful?

If you are afraid of sparking a backlash… well, doesn’t that raise questions about how “obviously” good your strategy really is?

* * *

Again, given how sloppy the WAC is being—in both words and actions—I find it hard to take them seriously.



Statements, Part 1

Thursday night, negotiations between the locked out musicians of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO) and the management of the Woodruff Arts Center (WAC) hit a rough patch.

The two sides had agreed to mediation, and with the assistance of federal mediators talks had taken place for several days over the past week.  Unfortunately, things unraveled and the WAC ultimately withdrew from the talks. Shortly thereafter, the ASO musicians released a statement, which reads:


Last night just before 11:00 PM, the Woodruff Arts Center representatives for the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (WAC/ASO) walked away from the table after three days and almost 40 hours of talks ably mediated by Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Commissioner Rich Giacolone, leaving the musicins at the Buckhead venue the FMCS arranged. Although some significant progress was made in health care — and further time together may well have resulted in a complete agreement — the WAC leadership continued steadfastly to refuse to support the need of a world-class Orchestra for a minimum fixed number of musicians. While the orchestra has been reduced by departures to only 77 Musicians, despite the required contractual complement of 88, the WAC refuses even to commit to 77 Musicians.

The ASOPA Committee volunteered to assist in health care cost savings by making a radical shift to a different type of plan that will save the WAC/ASO at least 25% — over a quarter of a million dollars — annually over the previous plan, which was canceled by WAC/ASO management last month three weeks after it locked out its musicians on September 7. The Musicians also proposed an annual compensation package which, in the final year of the proposed agreement (2018), would have the musicians earning $1,043 less per year than the compensation they earned during the 2011-12 season.

The ASOPA Committee has worked tirelessly — and will continue to do so — with no other intent than to achieve a fair agreement that protects the Orchestra’s stature and allows it to return to making music on the stage where it belongs. The Musicians are available to meet and are certain that an agreement is entirely possible that will end the heinous lockout to which the musicians have been subjected. “We deeply appreciate the Orchestra’s Board members and other supporters who are working to raise funds and who understand and appreciate the fight to maintain the artistic quality that has made the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra one of the world’s great symphony orchestras, and Atlanta’s cultural flagship,” stated ASOPA President Paul Murphy.

Attached for your information is a copy of ASOPA’s last proposal dated October 23, 2014 to the WAC/ASO.


Paul Murphy, President ASOPA

Daniel Laufer, Vice President ASOPA

Facebook: ATL Symphony Musicians
Twitter: @ATLSymMusicians

In the wake of this announcement, several members of the WAC leadership team made statements of their own. Unfortunately, each and every one of these statements was bizarre, and they do not reflect well on the WAC or its leaders. I see that just as I was posting this blog entry, a full announcement from the WAC became public.  I’ll comment on it shortly, but in the meantime, let me comment on the bewildering statements the WAC made in the press over the last 24 hours.

* * *

Statement 1. The first problematic statement came when the WAC tried to dispute the the musicians’ claim that they had “walked out” of talks. According to the statement printed in ArtsAtl:

Management promptly disputed the claim, countering that its representatives had simply adjourned in order to consider the union’s latest proposal, and accused musicians of deliberately misrepresenting the situation. “To say we ‘walked away’ is not the truth and the union knows it,” said Randy Donaldson, a WAC spokesman. … No further meetings have been scheduled for next week.

So… to contradict charges that they had deliberately scuttled discussions and walked away, the WAC states no… they had simply “adjourned” to consider the latest proposal.

That seems quite a fine line to draw—I’m not sure how one side abruptly leaving negotiations and making no statement of if or when they would ever return qualifies as “adjourning” rather than “walking away.”

Although I wasn’t in the meeting room and have no first-hand knowledge about what actually transpired, a moment’s worth of thought about this statement suggests that it’s false.  It flies in the face of what we know about communications technology, negotiations, human nature… and to be blunt, common sense.

Why on earth would the WAC negotiators need to adjourn to discuss the proposal? Surely since they had called for mediation, they knew what the process would entail.  And just as surely, they would have sent a representative who was well-versed in what the WAC would or could accept. And if an offer was made that lay outside the negotiator’s comfort zone, he or she would be able to text, email, or call someone in a position of authority and get a near-instantaneous reply. I mean, surely the WAC has created contingency plans, cost analyses, projections, and such… and could run the numbers of any proposed plan, right? Especially since everybody has been meeting for many days by now.

How much time would they need?

And why simply walk away when the end is so near? How many times have breakthroughs in negotiations occurred late at night or past the “absolute” deadline? Per the musicians, there was a great deal of progress already, so why just… stop? At the very least, why not make a clear provision to reconvene when everyone is fresh in the morning? Again, there are many points of agreement and all the characters are assembled, including federal mediators. Why pull the plug?

Another thing. How is it that self-proclaimed business elites of the WAC are so completely incapable of securing a deal? If this was a negotiation with a business competitor, would the business elites running the WAC board be so cavalier about the progress? Would they have walked away so close to finalizing the deal? Would they have been so incapable of making a quick decision, and instead asked for an indefinite amount of time to huddle up and discuss things?

The only thing I can think of is that the WAC simply doesn’t want a resolution. Or their business savvy is vastly overrated.

Statement 2. In explaining the reasoning why the WAC won’t agree to a set number of musicians, lead negotiator Tom Kilpatrick said, “The ASOPA committee made it crystal clear during the past few days it would rather have no orchestra at all if it cannot have a larger orchestra with a guaranteed number of players. ASO simply cannot agree to spend money we do not have.”

The first sentence first. Kilpatrick seems to be making a false distinction. If the WAC doesn’t commit to a specific size, it could still very well end up with “no orchestra.” I can understand what the the musicians are afraid of—without a guaranteed number of players, the WAC could reduce the ASO to a house band of only 10 players or so, and hire freelancers (at reduced salaries, with no benefits) to fill out the ranks. It could transform the ASO into an ad hoc band for pops presentations and corporate events… and based on the WAC’s actions and statements to date, this feels like a very real possibility.

The ASO musicians have been very vocal in explaining why the guaranteed number is so important to them: as Paul Murphy has explained: “We cannot field the great Atlanta Symphony as we know it and love it with 77 musicians. The majority of the repertoire that we perform, to present the variety of styles and music that we do, you have to have those numbers.”

Thus, Kilpatrick is being astonishingly mendacious as he tries to whitewash this fact.

And let’s take Kilpatrick’s final sentence, too. It is possible that the ASO doesn’t have any money. But there’s a larger issue.  Again and again, the musicians have raised serious questions about the WAC’s finances, and how money has been allocated to its component groups including the ASO. It seems that many times over the past two years, incoming revenue that could (or arguably, should) have gone to the ASO was allocated instead to the High Art Museum or the Alliance Theatre.  Meanwhile, the ASO was shouldered with disproportionate debt.

Perhaps Kilpatrick is correct that the ASO doesn’t have money. But since the WAC has created the situation where the ASO was strapped for cash, his comment is disingenuous at best.  It also blurs the responsibilities and financial actions of the WAC as a whole.

Statement 3: Tom Kilpatrick has another zinger. He writes, “We believe the union threatens to bring an end to our great orchestra.”

This is astonishing. I’m curious as to why he thinks that “the union” is the problem. Mr. Kilpatrick, let’s assume for the moment that there was no union, and you simply announced to the assembled, individual musicians that they were going to have to take sacrificial pay cuts.  Plus, you were going to reduce the size of the orchestra to whatever size you saw fit, and reduce the length of the season.

Do you suppose they would have responded with joy and thanksgiving? And that everything would have turned out well for the orchestra?

“The union” has nothing to do with your punitive proposal that will cause real financial pain. “The union” has nothing to do with the fact that musicians are losing their insurance. “The union” has nothing to do with plummeting morale.  “The union” has nothing to do with the fact that musicians are looking at their situation and deciding to leave the group for other opportunities.

The problem isn’t that “the union” is somehow blocking you from implementing your proposal—the problem is the proposal itself.

Statement 4. WAC president and CEO Virginia Hepner sent an email to the WAC Governing Board and the ASO board’s Executive Committee, informing them “…work stoppage will continue. Barring the union accepting our latest proposal, we will soon be forced to announce a cancellation of more of the Symphony season.”

It is astonishing that Hepner has no sense of agency, essentially declaring that the WAC is helpless against the bitter winds of fate.

“Work stoppage?” I’m sorry, but it is insulting that Hepner uses that term. This isn’t a passive “stoppage,” but a case where the WAC has deliberately locked the musicians out, stopped their pay, and cancelled their insurance. The musicians want to play. They want to continue working. But the WAC is unilaterally blocking them from doing so, in order to inflict such economic pain that the musicians will be forced to accept concessions they would never normally agree to.

At least the WAC should have the honesty, and courage of its convictions, to call this action what it is: a lockout.

But the helpless act continues. Again with the passive voice, the WAC “will be forced to announce a cancellation.” Why? Under whose authority? Many, many people have called on the WAC to allow talk-and-play, where the performances continue under the terms of the just-expired contract while negotiations continue.  Again, the WAC should at least be honorable and upfront about what it is doing and why. Even without making this sentence inflammatory, it could at least be honest and state “…we will soon cancel more of the Symphony season.”

Because that is, after all, what it will be doing.

Statement 5: The Grand Finale. The most jaw-dropping statement of all also came from Hepner, who stated: “The national musicians’ union believes it can divide and conquer and then intimidate our boards into imprudent decisions through its acrimony and misrepresentations. This has been their go-to tactic in labor negotiations for decades. We will not give in to those efforts.”

In truth, I could devote an entire blog entry to these three sentences. They reveal a profound lack of understanding about… well, not to be snarky, but about the real world in which we all live.

What national union is she referring to? Who is in it? Who runs it? Where is it located? What specifically is it doing? What is its plan? How is it implementing its strategy? How does it enforce compliance? How does it retaliate, if crossed?

And what evidence does she have?

I mean, this is as absurd as claiming that the Freemasons and Illuminati are running the Vatican.

But she goes on to mention that this national cabal of shadowy agents is trying to “divide,” “conquer,” and “intimidate” boards everywhere.

But… the boards ultimately have all the power. The WAC board is locking out the musicians, not the other way around. The musicians are going without pay or insurance… how are any of the board members affected in any way? How are these titans of industry intimidated by anything? And how on earth are they about to be “conquered?” They are going through work and life untouched by this lockout. Are they upset about unfavorable coverage in the press? Or the fact that bloggers such as myself are challenging their statements? Good heavens… I’m astonished such powerful community leaders are so fragile. Do they get this flustered in their business dealings, too? Has none of them ever experienced bad publicity?

My sense is that if there are any divisions among the board members, they have happened because some individuals are taking a longer, more holistic view of the situation than others.  They’ve come to the conclusion that the WAC board’s actions are dangerous, counter-productive, and short-sighted.

But since everyone knows each other, why don’t you ask them, rather than making grandiose statements that don’t make sense?

And I’m curious as to where Hepner finds evidence that unionized musicians have brutalizing poor, unfortunate boards “for decades.” I mean, is that what happened two years ago when the WAC board previously locked out the ASO musicians? I’m sorry, but the trend for the last decade has been for orchestra boards to unilaterally lockout musicians to force sacrificial cuts in pay and other compensation. Not the other way around.

Ms. Hepner, if you know of a single case where an orchestral union (or any union, for that matter) brutally forced concessions from a board of directors, please let me know.

* * *

I could go on, but I think you get the point. I’m stunned by the rank amateurism being displayed here. And I can’t say I’m looking forward to reading the full statement the WAC has just posted…. [And now part 2 is posted.  Click here.]



Climbing the Mountain: An Alpine Symphony

Such a curious piece, Strauss’s An Alpine Symphony.

The music itself is remarkable—and it’s no surprise that it has so many passionate advocates. Vladimir Ashkenazy has called it a profound musical experience. Emmanuel Villaume remarked that for him, conducting the score was like being a kid in a candy store: “The colors, mastering all these climaxes, mixing all these textures is absolutely fascinating and an exhilarating experience for a conductor. It’s an absolute total masterpiece.” And of course, Edo de Waart, who for years served as the Minnesota Orchestra’s Artistic Director, has made An Alpine Symphony one of his signatures. During his tenure, the Orchestra performed the work on several occasions; together they recorded a 1989 CD that earned raves.

But this is sweeping music that no CD or sound file can ever fully contain. It requires such a huge number of performers that orchestras’ business offices get twitchy whenever it’s scheduled—Strauss even includes a part for heckelphone, or baritone oboe.

That said, An Alpine Symphony is much more than an empty showstopper… it is a profoundly spiritual work that is immensely moving, too.

Thus, you don’t want to miss this week’s performances at Orchestra Hall here in Minneapolis.

Need to be convinced? Let me explain a little bit about what you’ll hear.

* * *

Let me say flat out that An Alpine Symphony is astonishing. While it is nominally about an ascent and decent through the mountains, there is so much more to it, too.

In the early 1910s, Strauss was in a philosophical mood. A series of events had touched him deeply, including the death of his friend Gustav Mahler. Inspired by the writings of Nietzsche, he began to think more broadly about the idea of humans striving toward greatness and achieving some sort profound enlightenment. How can a person achieve this awakening? Can a society as a whole achieve it, too? For many, the means to achieving this spiritual awakening is through organized religion; Strauss, however, felt this was inadequate and began looking elsewhere for enlightenment. Not just a pilgrimage, per se, but what about some sort of secular pilgrimage?

Ultimately, these ideas became the genesis of An Alpine Symphony.

This new work was designed to be a spiritual journey couched in the idea of climbing a mountain. As he wrote in his diary, this new work represented “moral purification through one’s own strength, liberation through work, worship of eternal, magnificent nature.”

And this is indeed the crux of An Alpine Symphony. It has all the surface details of a straightforward hike up a mountain, including depictions of cowbells, birdsongs, and howling wind. But at its heart it is a profoundly spiritual journey.

In a way, I can’t help but think of a similar work by a contemporary of Strauss: Ralph Vaughan Williams’s visionary The Pilgrim’s Progress. This work, which had its origins at roughly the same time as the premiere of An Alpine Symphony, similarly focuses on the idea of a spiritual quest. And like Strauss, Vaughan Williams wondered what such a journey would look like outside of traditional Christian theology. As a result, he freely adapted John Bunyan’s famous allegory, tweaking the story so that it would resonate with anyone whether they were Christian or not.

But although they both outline a spiritual journey, The Pilgrim’s Progress and An Alpine Symphony differ in one key respect. Over the course of their respective journeys, the Pilgrim and the Alpine hikers face many incidental moments. But for Vaughan Williams’s Pilgrim, these incidents are nearly always obstacles or challenges that must overcome—they distract him and seek to deflect him from his course. The destination is the only thing that matters.

But for Strauss, these incidental details are not to be avoided… they are to be savored. The moments are woven into the pilgrimage itself, so that the emphasis is not just on reaching the destination, but experiencing the journey itself.

* * *

And what a journey it is! An Alpine Symphony is a glorious 50-minute tone poem that seamlessly moves from dawn to dusk as a mountaineering party climbs to a mountain’s summit, and then returns.

The work opens in a murky world of pre-dawn darkness. While the opening chord is nominally B flat minor, it is a modernist tone cluster that seems to contain all the notes of the scale. The protagonists gathers their belongings and prepare for their ascent…

…and then the sun rises.

It is one of the most vivid dawns in all of music, breaking free in a wave of sound that never fails to stun. This orchestral blaze alone is worth the price of admission.

And with that, the journey begins in 22 sections that flow together without a break.

The “Ascent” is excited and hearty, full of energy for a day’s climb. Strauss uses a sturdy quarter-note theme to represent the hikers’ footsteps.

Here on the lower elevations, there are still signs of humans, and Strauss includes horns to signify distant hunters—they appear right before the “Entry Into the Woods.” Once inside the forest, Strauss creates a playful atmosphere by having the clarinet and flute mimic birdcalls. “Wandering Along the Stream” includes a swirl of strings; as the hikers pass by a waterfall, a stepwise harp figure suggests they see an apparition of a mountain spirit in the mist. “In a Flowering Meadow” follows, with the violins playing out a folk-like melody. A grand vista opens revealing a flower-lined pasture, and we hear cowbells and yodels off in the distance. At this point, the hiking party loses their way, in a chaotic section called “Through Thicket and Underbrush the Wrong Way.”

Worse is to come, as the hikers near the summit. “On the Glacier” is a treacherous, icy section that gives way to a hair-raising section, “Dangerous Moments.”  Here, the journey almost comes to an untimely end.

But the party perseveres, and is amply rewarded for its endurance. At “On the Summit,” the hikers literally reach high point of the work, and it is glorious. With music that recalls the sunrise at the beginning of the work—and also suggests the famous opening to Also Sprach Zarathustra—the mists part and the hikers see they have made it to the peak. It is a moment of profound understanding that words cannot adequately describe.

But there is more. With the most subtle of transitions, Strauss moves into the section, “Visions,” which forms the true climax of the work. The hikers gaze out on Creation… but this is about more than just taking in a vast landscape. At this moment, the climbers find what they are seeking. They are Elevated—finding spiritual fulfillment through their own strength, persistence, and communion with nature.

With that they turn and begin the homeward journey. Obstacles remain, but fortified by their success the party winds its way back down the mountain as darkness settles in again. The music harkens back to the opening pages of the work, but it feels somehow lighter—illuminated by the profound journey that has just taken place.

It is an astonishing journey, through both physical and spiritual realms. And in the end, we too find a quiet enlightenment.

* * *

The music alone is a powerful draw. But what moves this concert into the “can’t miss” category is the performers we have on hand. A brilliant conductor who specializes in this powerful score? Along with an orchestra playing at the top of its game? What are you waiting for?

This is why we go to live concerts.

Get your tickets now.



A Response to Virginia Hepner

While I was in London, I missed a curious tidbit from the labor dispute between the musicians of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO), and the management of the Woodruff Arts Center (WAC) who have locked them out.

In brief, the musicians had raised questions about the actions of WAC Chairman Doug Hertz while he was serving on the Board of Administrators for Tulane University.  The musicians noted that Hertz was involved in a series of controversial cost-cutting actions directed against Tulane’s tenured faculty, and compared these actions with his similar cost-cutting plans at the ASO.

The curious point is that WAC President Virginia Hepner gave a strongly-worded defense of Hertz’s actions, as well as the actions of the WAC as a whole.

Her full quote reads:

The protracted financial challenges at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra are very serious and threaten the health of the entire Woodruff Arts Center.   The ASO has had 12 years of accumulated deficits, a severe reduction in its endowment and an annual operating gap that we cannot afford to continue. Over the last eight months, ou team has proposed many potential scenarios to the musicians in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. We continue to ask the musicians for constructive ideas to help us address these challenges and we are frustrated that they have turned a deaf ear to the situation. We are saddened that they are attempting to disparage the reputation of Doug Hertz, our chairman.  He is widely recognized as one of the most successful and generous leaders in Atlanta and we feel extremely fortunate to have his ongoing support at The Woodruff Arts Center. Our fervent hope is that a federal mediator will bring calm to the protests, picketing and petitions and get us back to meaningful progress at the negotiating table.

I take great issue with this statement, and want to post a quick rebuttal.

* * *

“The protracted financial challenges at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra are very serious and threaten the health of the entire Woodruff Arts Center.”

With respect, the WAC’s tax documents (the 990s) suggest a completely different story, one that is bolstered by information provided by the musicians. For one, it appears that the ASO is not the poorest performer at the WAC.

More to the point, there is also credible evidence that the WAC has systematically starved the ASO for funds over the past few years. The ASO musicians have pointed out that in both 2012 and 2014 the WAC received substantial funds from the sale of two properties and gifts that could have “mitigated or eliminated completely” the orchestra’s annual deficit in those years. After receiving a $15 million gift from the Woodruff Foundation in November 2011, the musicians noted, the WAC gave $5 million to the Alliance Theatre and the High Museum to retire debt. No funds were allocated to the ASO, which had an accumulated debt of $20 million. Perhaps the most curious fact that when the WAC sold off property, the proceeds were not shared with the ASO at all—in one case, the proceeds were donated to another non-profit.

There may be a perfectly benign rationale for all this, but I am skeptical.

Even so, this pattern of activity clearly demonstrates that the WAC’s revenue and expense streams are so intertwined, and so convoluted, that it is impossible to put all the blame on the ASO for the financial troubles of the entire organization.

Ms. Hepner, you would need much more evidence to make such a statement. And given the numerous opportunities for you to have done so, in response to many, many requests that you do so… well, I find it telling that you have not.

“The ASO has had 12 years of accumulated deficits, a severe reduction in its endowment and an annual operating gap that we cannot afford to continue.”

So you say. As I’ve argued, we saw similar strong, declarative sentences like this made by the leadership of the Minnesota Orchestra during the lockout in Minneapolis. But upon closer inspection, they turned out to be less than truthful.  In the case of Minnesota, it became clear that money was systematically, and deliberately, moved around the organization so that different “results” could be shown to different audiences.

Plus, the Minnesota Orchestra’s posted deficits were artificial.  As the minutes from the board meetings revealed, a PR firm was contracted to come up with a deficit number that would look serious enough to support management’s claim that substantial budget cuts were necessary, but not so severe that investors and donors would be spooked. The PR firm in question suggested a $6 million deficit; the Orchestra’s management subsequently manipulated its fundraising efforts and endowment draws to achieve this number.

With this sordid history in mind, I approach Ms. Hepner’s statement with a healthy degree of skepticism.

As I noted above, the ASO musicians have shown that the WAC received significant assets over the last two years, but chose not to allocate those resources towards the ASO. These actions have raised significant questions about priorities of the WAC leadership that have not yet been satisfactorily answered—is the WAC financially starving the ASO as part of a strategy to break the musicians’ union?

But there’s another thing I’m curious about. This is nearly the identical argument the WAC made two years ago during the last lockout. Logically, the WAC leadership would have had to have known about the financial problems the organization faced, and laid plans to address them. After all, the rationale for the previous round of concessions was that they would buy the ASO some much-needed time to get its financial house in order.

So what did the WAC do to right the ship?

Where was the capital campaign to grow the endowment, or at least support programming? Where was the boost in annual fundraising efforts? Where were the increased “good faith” gifts from major donors and corporations? Renewed marketing pitches? Audience building initiatives? Streamlined operations? Has the WAC done anything to improve the ASO’s finances?

It isn’t just me asking these questions… many are wondering the same thing. And we’re still waiting for answers.

It seems odd, then, that Ms. Hepner would bring up this point to bash the musicians—the financial failures of the past few years are a far bigger indictment of her administration than of the musicians.

And if the WAC hasn’t tackled the much bigger, much more pervasive financial problems within the organization, why on earth would simple pay cuts to the musicians make any difference?  All that will do is, again, buy a couple years’ time… and the situation will be identical to the one today.  We’ll all still be in the exact same place.

“Over the last eight months, our team has proposed many potential scenarios to the musicians in an attempt to find a solution to the problem.”

This statement is mendacious, at best. No, the WAC has only proposed one scenario: massive cuts on the part of the musicians. Granted, there are many ways that the cuts could be implemented, but the WAC leadership has made it clear that the total, aggregate amount of cuts is non-negotiable. As I’ve said before, a cashier asking you if you wish to pay for an item by cash, check, or credit card does not mean you are negotiating about the item’s price. Plus, these “negotiations” don’t change the fundamental fact that no one else is asked to make any sacrifices or come up with new ways of doing business.

I’m sorry, but the WAC is not negotiating solutions—it is demanding concessions.

“We continue to ask the musicians for constructive ideas to help us address these challenges and we are frustrated that they have turned a deaf ear to the situation.”

It’s a bit embarrassing to read this, as it is demonstrably untrue. The WAC negotiators dragged their heels for months leading up to the lockout, and refused to meet with the musicians at all in the final days before the contract expired. The WAC has also engaged in delaying tactics as the two sides entered into mediation, and launched a public relations campaign against the musicians. As a labor negotiation tactic.

And Ms. Hepner states the musicians have turned a deaf ear to the situation?

“We are saddened that they are attempting to disparage the reputation of Doug Hertz, our chairman.”

In two separate interviews (here and here), Mr. Hertz insulted every writer covering the ASO lockout, the much-loved artistic leadership of the ASO, and the musicians themselves by suggesting they were “crazy people.” No… I think Hertz is disparaging his own reputation, quite without the help of anyone else.

Plus, his previous actions at past organizations are public knowledge, and obviously germane to this labor dispute. The musicians are right to bring them up.

“He is widely recognized as one of the most successful and generous leaders in Atlanta and we feel extremely fortunate to have his ongoing support at The Woodruff Arts Center.”

Interesting. Three things here. First, one could point out that the musicians of the ASO have won 27 Grammys, and give greatly of their time and talents to their community. Are they not also successful and generous? Why no comparable praise for them?

And just a few sentences ago, Hepner stated that the organization is in dire financial straits, racking up deficits and seeing a collapse in the endowment. But Doug Hertz is the leader of the organization, and presumably presiding over these troubles. With respect, doesn’t he bear any responsibility for them? By Hepner’s own statements above, it seems that “extremely fortunate” is a bit hyperbolic.

Which brings up the final point. Hertz may be successful in his for-profit business. But does he have expertise in non-profit management? These are very different things. In the same way that a manufacturing magnate will not automatically be successful at running a healthcare facility or a hotel chain, a for-profit leader might not have the necessary skills to run a non-profit. There is a completely different skill set involved, and each area requires an entirely different business model.

“Our fervent hope is that a federal mediator will bring calm to the protests, picketing and petitions and get us back to meaningful progress at the negotiating table.”

Fascinating that your “fervent hope” is for a “calm to the protests,” rather than a resolution to the dispute. Or for that matter, a strong, unified organization ready to face the financial and artistic challenges of the future.

I’d also point out something. Ms. Hepner, you could calm the protests right now by stopping the lockout and engaging in play-and-talk while negotiations proceed. Why don’t you, if calming protests is your fervent hope? Such power is entirely in your grasp, right now.








A few short weeks ago there was a new development in the ongoing labor dispute between the Woodruff Arts Center (WAC) and the locked out musicians of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO). Following a few false starts, both sides agreed to meet with federal mediator Allison Beck to try and find a resolution.

Those who have been following the most recent rash of labor disputes rippling through the world of classical music could foresee one of two potential outcomes, based on the experiences of two different ensembles.  On the one hand, the move toward mediation could follow the path of the Metropolitan Opera, where mediation brought both sides together, leading to a mutually-acceptable compromise. As Alison Beck was a key figure in these negotiations, there was certainly hope that she would be able to bring both sides together in Atlanta, too.

The other possibility is that the attempt at mediation could follow the path of the Minnesota Orchestra. While this case also involved an eminent peace-maker (Senator George Mitchell, who famously brought peace to Northern Ireland), no accord was reached. The Minnesota Orchestra negotiators ultimately refused Mitchell’s proposals, arguing that if they accepted them they would “lose leverage” to use against their musicians.

So what would be the result in Atlanta? Would a seasoned veteran be able to hammer out an agreement? Or would both sides end up as far apart as ever?

Well… based on the developments of the last 24 hours or so, my impression is that we’re closer to the Minnesota model, rather than the Met model.

And sadly, looking at the actions of the WAC thus far, I’m increasingly suspicious that it has only agreed to mediation as part of a stalling tactic.

* * *

To begin, it appears that the WAC representatives are only indifferently taking part in the mediation process, as evidenced by a letter sent to the ASO board of directors. (Oddly enough, the ASO board is only indirectly involved in negotiations—it is the WAC’s board that has the real authority to make decisions.) In this letter, the musicians note that the two sides have met only twice since Allison Beck came on-board, and that after the second session on October 8, WAC management asked for a “pause” with no additional negotiating sessions scheduled.

“We have not heard from the WAC about the results of the ‘pause’ they sought in the mediation process,” wrote the musicians, “but clearly, once again, they arrived at the table with neither proposals nor the ability to authorize a deal.”

In response, the WAC sent out a letter of its own. In it, WAC spokesman and negotiator J. Thomas Kilpatrick gave bland assurance that there was no pause, and certainly no attempt to stall negotiations. He also noted that “We look forward to meeting next week and are prepared to continue to bargain in good faith.”

With respect, I simply don’t believe Mr. Kilpatrick.

I want to be clear that I am not accusing him of lying—I have no direct knowledge of the negotiations and have no basis or justification for doing so. But still, based on the words and actions of the WAC leadership to date, it would be foolish to take any of their statements at face value. Why so? Well, leaders of the ASO and WAC have a history of making statements that are not exactly true.

Allow me to provide some examples.

  • Back when the lockout first began in early September, the musicians accused then-ASO President Stanley Romanstein of going back on his word. They noted that when the last lockout ended back in 2012, Romanstein made a commitment to the musicians that the ASO would not seek similar concessions in the future. Because of this, the musicians have seen the current lockout as a specific betrayal of trust. When asked if he had indeed made such a promise two years ago, Romanstein vehemently denied it. Well, an audio recording of Romanstein actually making that very remark has indeed emerged, leading to broader questions about the WAC’s truthfulness. Writer Drew McManus, for example, openly expressed “concerns about a larger, calculated degree of duplicity and whether or not it was limited to this one senior WAC executive or the entire executive committee.”
  • Last month, the ASO leadership sent out misleading emails cancelling the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra (ASYO) auditions. In the version sent to the press, the ASO was studiously neutral about the cause of the cancelations, but in the version sent to the students and the broader public, it explicitly blamed the union. Making different statements to different constituencies does not help your credibility.
  • And finally, there was the leadership’s “announcement” that both sides had agreed to mediation in the first place. This was news to the musicians—they had not agreed to mediation at the time, and in fact had not even been contacted by the proposed mediator.

For these reasons, I feel it would be foolhardy to trust any statements from the WAC without first verifying them with independent sources.

But there is another problem with Kilpatrick’s description of events… it just doesn’t make sense.

Again let me reiterate: the musicians have been locked out by management against their will. Right now, they are going without pay and insurance, and under Georgia state law they are ineligible for unemployment. But they still have mortgages to pay. They still have tuition to pay. They still have a whole series of bills to pay. And if they have any kind of medical condition ranging from pink-eye to cancer, they have medical bills to pay.

It is not in their best interests to delay. Even for a moment.

So of course they’ve been anxious to restart negotiations. The musicians want this resolved as quickly as possible. That is precisely why they sent their letter to the ASO board—to try to get the WAC negotiators back to the table and keep discussions moving along.

This is what makes Kilpatrick’s account of events so bizarre. As quoted by Howard Pousner:

“Kilpatrick said that after ‘extensive discussions’ with the mediators on Oct. 7 and 8, the negotiation teams adjourned to update and add to their original proposals. ‘In the words of the mediators, it was time to put some of the shared ideas “on paper,” ’ Kilpatrick wrote. ‘This was precisely what ASOPA had asked us to do — make new proposals to show our good faith.’

“The attorney said he called the mediators on Monday with an offer for the sides to meet on Wednesday, then [Alison Beck’s associate Richard] Giacolone notified him on Tuesday ‘that the union was not available for a meeting this week.’ With Beck out of the country next week, Kilpatrick recounted that Giacolone confirmed on Wednesday that he will lead negotiating sessions next Tuesday through Thursday.”

First, Kilpatrick seems to suggest that Federal Mediator Alison Beck told the WAC leadership to take a week or so and write up a new proposal. Really? To what end? And how much time could he need for this exercise?

Kilpatrick and the WAC certainly know the sticking points of negotiations. They have to know the areas of concern for the musicians, as these points have been covered extensively in the press. And surely Kilpatrick had an inkling of how far the WAC would go when he walked into the room—if he didn’t, why was he a negotiator? I mean, this is how negotiations work… both sides send in deputies who are knowledgeable about the key issues, and are authorized to engage in the process and make decisions.

I have to believe that if Kilpatrick was asked to put some ideas on paper, he could have written up new terms on the back of an envelope and slid it across the table right there and then. If there was a larger question or if he needed feedback from someone higher up, he could have stepped quietly into another room and made a phone call.

How much time does he need?

But then, the story gets even weirder. Kilpatrick goes on to describe that for some reason, when he finally got his ideas on paper, he called the mediation team only to discover that “the union” was not available for a meeting—this is unfortunate, in that the Alison Beck was out of the country the following week, and any negotiations that occurred during this time would have to be conducted by her associate, Richard Giacolone.  So, more delays.

I’m sorry, but this story makes no sense.

If it is in their best interests to negotiate, why would the musicians (not “the union”) so blithely wave off an opportunity to meet over an entire week, especially since the head mediator was unavailable the following week? Not to disparage Richard Giacolone’s abilities, but why would the musicians willingly seek to bypass the services of a top federal mediator, and further complicate an already complicated situation, when they so clearly want to end the dispute? What possible motive would they have for such a delay? What advantage could they possibly hope to gain from it?

Isn’t it far more likely that this is simply a delaying tactic, as the musicians allege? Isn’t it more logical that the WAC is hoping to delay the proceedings as part of its clear strategy to starve out the musicians—to inflict maximum financial pain so that they’ll accept painful concessions they would never otherwise agree to?

* * *

At the end of the day, this is just depressing. Many had hoped that Alison Beck would be able to come in and find a solution that both sides could agree to. But based on the WAC’s actions of the last two weeks or so, I think it’s clear that it doesn’t want a solution… it just wants to starve out the musicians.

And I don’t quite know how Ms. Beck will be able to work around that.



A London Holiday

Thank you for visiting my blog! I’m running off to London, St. Albans and Canterbury for a holiday, and don’t plan on posting until I return. In truth, I thought it would be a tad excessive to ask our house-sitter to water the plants, keep the kitchen clean… and to write articles on federal mediation, non-profit management, and the intricacies of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra labor dispute. Not since I’m already making them deal with our famously unfriendly cat.

Please check back later; and in the meantime, you are welcome to check out my playlist honoring the great city of London.





A Horrifying Interview with Douglas Hertz

Well, it has been an active day on the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (ASO) front. On the one hand, there was an explosive press statement made by the musicians. And now to bookend the day, there is an exclusive interview with Douglas Hertz, chairman of the Governing Board of the Woodruff Arts Center (WAC).

I thought I was going to have a quiet evening, but Mr. Hertz’s comments really need to be addressed.

* * *

“ ‘I disagree that the public has sided with the musicians. I think the artists’ friends have sided with the artists. But I think the corporate community and the philanthropic community understands, like any businessperson would, we’re not going to make an investment in a business that keeps losing money.’ ”

Mr. Hertz, with respect, this can be reversed to say exactly the same thing about you and the board: “I think the corporate community has sided with the board.”

Of course your like-minded friends feel the same way you do… that’s just how the world works.

The real question is to what degree the public at large thinks about this topic, how passionately they feel, and what they as a whole decide to do as a result. You sidestep those issues entirely… but those are the issues that will ultimately determine what happens here.

And I do find it striking that you seem to think the public might be on your side—although public pressure has already forced Stanley Romanstein to resign. And, apparently, you to agree to this interview.

“ ‘It’s frustrating, because the whole allegation, whether it’s by musicians or supporters of musicians, or journalists who want to take the musicians’ side — I’m using “journalists” pretty loosely … for them to allege that the WAC doesn’t want a fantastic symphony orchestra, or the governing board doesn’t want to take care of the musicians, is so far off base if they looked at the facts.’

As evidence, Hertz mentioned the work of other Woodruff governing board members including retired BellSouth executive Jere Drummond, “whose raised millions of dollars for the ASO’s endowment” and Paul Garcia, the recently retired Global Payments chairman and CEO, who along with Delta Air Lines CEO Richard Anderson raised nearly $1.5 million over the last two years to reduce the orchestra’s deficit.

‘It makes you wonder, you know,’ Hertz said, ‘are we supporting a bunch of crazy people.’ ”

I understand that you are frustrated, but this is astonishingly petty.

So… first you insult any writer who might possibly think the musicians have a point by tossing out the line, “I’m using ‘journalists’ pretty loosely.” With respect, I don’t know that open contempt will help attract people to your point of view.

But you also completely avoid the question at hand… does the board want to turn the ASO into a minor-league ensemble to save money? You respond, in effect, that some people are still contributing large sums of money to it. Great. But that doesn’t answer the question. And makes me all the more curious to know if you plan to shrink the ensemble specifically to match the total that handful of gifts that has come in, rather than to seek out additional funds.

And finally… the fact that the musicians raise legitimate questions about your aspirations for the ensemble means you get to categorically insult them as “crazy people?”

Wow. Just… wow.

“ ‘The sad part of it is … there are not enough people that care. If the public cared maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation. When you’ve got less than 5,000 donors in a metropolitan area of 5 million, that’s my concern. We (board, administration and musicians) need to be getting together and figuring out together how do we grow support for the symphony.’ ”

Mr. Hertz, I find this deeply disturbing on several levels. First, I would obviously question the notion that people don’t care. They do.  An earlier post of mine attracted 12,100 readers from all around the world. That’s an intriguing bit of data… you seem so sure no one cares in Atlanta, but given the ASO’s international reputation, there is a vast international constituency you could be drawing from. But you aren’t.

And let’s unpack your comment further. What businessman goes out into the world with the attitude that no one “cares” about his product, and just gives up? A successful businessman fulfills demands the customers don’t even know they have. A successful businessman creates a market for his goods. He creates an appetite for his product. He creates demand.

And he doesn’t do that by denigrating his product in statements to the press. He doesn’t try to turn the public against his product as part of a labor negotiation strategy.

And let me ask you something. Just seconds ago you insulted your musicians by suggesting they are all crazy. But you need their help in growing support for the symphony… you just admitted as such. How do you propose to get them to help you when you actively insult them?

“Well, we are very interested in exploring alternatives. We are not, cannot and will not move from ending up with a balanced budget moving forward. But there are a lot of ways to get there, and if we were to do it together, we may be able to find a way.”

As I’ve said before—this isn’t actually a negotiation if you won’t budge from the first (and only) number you propose. Think of it this way: a clerk asking if you want to pay by cash, check, or credit card does not mean the two of you are negotiating about an item’s price.

“ ‘Well, it’s my impression that our symphony orchestra got the same artistic reviews over this past year as they have had in previous years. We had 116 separate musicians that played with our orchestra (who were) not part of our (88-musician) complement — 116 additional musicians who sat in just last year. Yet no one’s told me that artistically that we were any better or worse.’ ”

It’s your “impression?” No one has “told” you?

Do I take this to mean you have no first-hand knowledge of the group you oversee?

Do you think it is good that a business leader has no such first-hand knowledge of his or her product?

Look, freelancers can absolutely be as talented as their counterparts with permanent positions. As subs, they can also bring passion, fresh ideas and flexibility to the group. Subs play a critical role in every standing ensemble. And yes, a group that uses subs can still sound great and get rave reviews.

But that’s not what you’re saying here. You are saying you just don’t care. You don’t care about the fresh perspective subs bring, or their passionate playing.  You don’t care about how much work it is to integrate them into the ensemble. Conversely, you don’t care about the added value permanent players can bring, or about how you could use their familiarity to the community as an advantage. You don’t care about personnel.  You don’t care about the orchestra sound—its brand.

You are simply saying you can’t tell the difference and you don’t care.

I can’t imagine being a leader of a group if I were so indifferent to it.

“ ‘Again, we’re criticized for not wanting a great symphony, right? But we signed Robert to a five-year contract (that’s just beginning) with a raise. And Robert’s getting paid. And we signed (principal guest conductor) Donald Runnicles to a three-year contract. He’s getting paid. So don’t criticize WAC management or the WAC governing board for not wanting to put our money where our mouth is.’ ”

“He’s getting paid”? That’s the criteria?

So proof that you want a great orchestra is…the fact that you haven’t unilaterally revoked the conductors’ contracts?

What an astonishingly low bar.

“ ‘Maybe Robert’s feeling a little bit guilty because he’s getting paid and the musicians aren’t. But he could be a big help in solving this.’ ”

Do you have any evidence to support this speculation?

Let me ask: is it correct that Spano provided $50,000 to finance a tour to Carnegie Hall that the board was ready to cancel to save money? Is it possible, then, that he has been appalled by the lack of support you and the board have given the organization, and is genuinely upset?

And is it possible that most observers would consider that he was justified in his feelings?

“ ‘Encouragement of the musicians to come back and talk. But he hasn’t been particularly constructive to this point.’ ”

Please consider. If you and he switched roles, would you suggest to the musicians that they should get back to the table, based on everything that’s been said and done? Or would you see the WAC’s actions as an existential threat to their interests?

“ ‘We’ve got a division of the arts center that threatens the ability of the other divisions (the Alliance Theatre, High Museum of Art and Arts for Learning) to produce the great work that they’re doing. We owe it to everybody to make sure that everybody is pulling their weight.’ ”

Really? So you are publicly stating that the ASO is the problem? That the ASO is a drag on the collective finances of the WAC? And as the problem it has to be brought into line? That’s worth remembering….

“ ‘Don’t forget, when you have earned ticket revenues of only $5 million and have salaries and benefits just for the musicians of $10 million to $11 million, you’re losing money from the very beginning. …Every day, we lose money.’ ”

I don’t think I can convey how disappointing I find it that the head of the WAC doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit organization, as defined by the IRS.

Mr. Hertz, the WAC is a non-profit. By definition, your earned income does not, and will not cover your expenses. As a 501 (c) (3) you are given the right to engage in fundraising to make up the difference. That is what you do. Just like every other non-profit in the country.

This isn’t a failure in your business model. It is your business model.

* * *

I find this whole interview deeply depressing.