Commentary
Minnesota Orchestra contract dispute is about the future, not the present
Lloyd Kepple, Mahtomedi, practices law in Minneapolis. He is a member of the Minnesota Orchestra Board.
As the absence of regularly scheduled Minnesota Orchestra concerts proceeds into its sixth month, classical music lovers in our community mourn the loss. Longtime subscribers (including the volunteer members of the Orchestra Board) miss their concerts. Restaurant owners miss their patrons.
The work stoppage is hardest on the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra. Our acclaimed players mix a love for classical music with the blessing of talent, permitting them to combine passion with profession. And we are all eager to resume a full season of educational concerts, with caravans of school buses surrounding Orchestra Hall to expose students to classical music — in many cases for the first time, given the brevity of currently available music curriculum.
Here is the most critical point, however: This negotiation is bigger than any one of us — on the board or among the musicians — and bigger than all of us together. In 75 years, most likely none of us will be around to experience the joys of the Minnesota Orchestra, save for a lucky few who may be wheeled in for a Thursday morning coffee concert before an afternoon nap.
No, rather than concerning this board and these musicians, the discussions at hand are about our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and about maintaining the grand institution of the Minnesota Orchestra as a shining star of our cultural heritage for future generations. And in preserving our Minnesota Orchestra, we must face the stubborn fact that the dismal science of economics is a necessary and critical topic of discussion.
The current economic reality is a confluence of economic downturn, dwindling investment returns, slower growth and a decline in classical music attendance. It requires a new economic model for the Minnesota Orchestra and for other great orchestras around the country.
The current negotiation is not a question of the board's commitment to artistic excellence or to compensating our valued and nationally acclaimed musicians. In the previous decade, the board hired an internationally acclaimed music director and granted a five-year musician contract (ending in 2012) that called for generous increases in salaries and benefits. By these actions, the board has demonstrated its commitment to spend substantially and responsibly from available resources. The current international acclaim for the Minnesota Orchestra is evidence of this commitment.
In the new economic reality, the key requirement for assuring the continued artistic excellence and international acclaim for the Minnesota Orchestra is a responsible and sustainable budget that current and potential donors will respect and to which they will respond. The backbone of that responsible and sustainable budget is a contract with our musicians that does not require unsustainable draws on the orchestra's endowment fund. It would be irresponsible to these donors and to future generations for the board to negotiate a contract that depletes its endowment, and it would be irresponsible for the musicians and their union to demand such a contract.
It takes two parties to create a work stoppage, of course, and our musicians have contributed to this labor impasse by steadfastly refusing to put forward any counterproposal nine months into our negotiations. It will also require two parties to end the work stoppage — this is our joint responsibility.
We remain confident that a contract can be achieved which will assure the sustained artistic excellence of the Minnesota Orchestra. With that contract in hand, we as members of the board look forward, together with our musicians, to continuing to tap the substantial individual, corporate and foundation sources within our community to enhance our endowment to maintain and assure a Minnesota Orchestra of international acclaim for years to come.
And that contract will give all of us — our musicians, our classic music lovers, and most importantly our schoolchildren on those beloved buses — a return ticket to Orchestra Hall, not just next month, but also in 75 years' time.
Comments (27)
How is it going to maintain its quality if you don't pay the players a competitive salary? They are devoted musicians but they also like money as does everyone else.
I would like to know how a 50 million dollar renovation of lobby fit into the so called "dismal science of economics".
I would like to know why there were over 250 proposed changes to the old contract, many of which had absolutely nothing to do with saving money. Michael Henson told a room full of frustrated patrons that they were "updating" things." That is a big pile of BS. How does giving Michael Henson, who has next to no formal music training, the final word in the audition process, constitute an "updated" contract. This is nothing short of an attempted artistic coup. How many gallons of the koolaid did you actually drink,Lloyd?
The economic reality is this: patrons/donors were not told of economic hardships when fundraising began (and continued!) for the new lobby. $50+ million were raised for the effort, while the Board asks the musicians to pay the operating shortfall. This isn't about the future. It's about a group of 80 people with money and power wielding their power and witholding their money. One of Minnesota's crown jewels is being used as the play thing of a spoiled and inconsiderate child. If there is a finger to point, it should be directed to poor management.
"The backbone of that responsible and sustainable budget is a contract with our musicians that does not require unsustainable draws on the orchestra's endowment fund."
You want to talk about the endowment size in relation to salary, so let's do that. Did you know that the proposed contract puts the musician base salary at 2500x less than the size of the endowment? No one else in the industry (besides Boston, which has a massive $387 million endowment) follows this the ratio. New York only has an endowment 1800x times the size of the base salary, LA 1250x, Cleveland 1082x, Detroit (the orchestra the MOA idolized in its minutes) a mere 379x. This contract would be a terrible deal for Minneapolis: Minnesota would have paid for the fourth-largest orchestra endowment in this country, and ended up the 17th-best paid orchestra. There would be no other orchestra ***in this country*** with such a *hugely* lopsided relationship between base salary and endowment size. Hopefully everyone realizes what a terrible deal this would have been!
Good to see a board member talking; however, it's disappointing to see them reiterated debunked talking points. Visit my blog songofthelark.wordpress.com for in-depth analysis. I've devoted my life since August to writing about this conflict, and I'd love to talk with you. There are some additional things you need to know, which Mr. Campbell, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Henson have not told you... I'm always available to talk.
Emily E Hogstad
As a subscriber and long time patron of the orchestra, I have found the cancellations this season tragic. I DO understand that the renovation of the lobby is a separate issue. It is a good idea and will make the hall a much better place for everyone. But how did we get to this COMPLETE breakdown of trust? That is my biggest concern. This all sounds like such "old school" negotiating. There are well-known and well-documented methods of breaking through a negotiation impasse. For goodness sake - we are not trying to re-write the Camp David Accords. The issues in this disagreement seem to me to be difficult, but not impossible. There is a great deal of shared purpose and mission - but there seems to be a real lack of mutual respect and trust. It seems to me it's time to get an outside agent in to help break through. Without some creativity and positive energy, I fail to see how a breakthrough will happen - and I am thoroughly annoyed that I still possess tickets for remaining concerts that I am almost sure will be cancelled. If one of the issues is dwindling audiences, I suggest that cancelling concerts is not the best way to build demand. Find a way to get the musicians playing again and for both sides to really listen to one another in new and constructive ways. It IS possible to continue playing while negotiations continue. Why is that such a non-starter with the management team?
I'm genuinely perplexed as to how Michael Henson can continue to draw his $400,000/year salary, while there is no income coming in to the orchestra this year. How is that sustainable? (And if we're talking about salaries and benefits in this economic climate, how is this salary even viable if the orchestra is having such a difficult financial time?)
There is a "decline in classical music attendance" because Henson continues to cut the number of concerts each year. What a convenient self-fulfilling prophecy!
With all due respect, Mr. Kepple, it seems like you have been drinking the water that Mr. Henson, Mr. Campell, and Mr. Davis have been dishing out.
It is extremely tiresome for us in the community to keep hearing about how everything is all the musician's fault. If ONLY the musicians had offered a COUNTERPROPOSAL! ---which they have---mediated arbitration, pay and play, etc. I'm sorry, but this argument just doesn't fly anymore. And the comments above illustrate many, but not all, of the sticking points which indicate why this is the case.
It would be instructive for you to read Ms. Hogstad's blog to get another view point, as well as all the comments on the Minnesota Orchestra Facebook page (under posts by others) , and the Facebook page of the LOMOMO to see exactly what the Minnesota Orchestra patrons/donors are thinking. It might be an eye-opener for you.
We in the community understand and appreciate the efforts and contributions of MOA's Board. We believe that you do have the best interests of our fine institution at heart. But we think that you should be asking some serious questions of those who hatched the current plan in January 2009---because everything that has has happened was a foregone conclusion, to the lockout of the musicians and the cancellation of the current season. And there doesn't seem to be any intention of deviating from" the plan"---no matter how much money the community throws at the Orchestra...
Mr. Kepple, is it possible, just possible, that you've been misled by Richard "BlahBlahBlah Get Over It" Davis and Jon "Too Big To Fail" Campbell and Michael "Worldwide Orchestra Manager"Henson??
Your words start out with gracious diplomacy, and then head straight toward the economic reality: without reckoning how much of that reality has been either ignored or manipulated for the grand purpose of union busting. Please look at the relationship between the bankers, the politicians, the deals between them...and then explain again how the musicians are partly to blame for their own lockout. I can't wait.
I appreciate communication from the Board. That has been sadly lacking in this lockout situation, and has been the chief cause of the needless breakdown in trust and civility.
I'm still troubled about the focus on a "new economic model," rather than on a vibrant, sustainable an "artistic model." The economic proposals put forward have no precedent of success. Indeed, similar "business plans" in Honolulu and Louisville destroyed or crippled orchestras, perhaps irreparably. These plans are doomed to failure if they continue to minimize artistic input and vision, and ignore the grassroots support that build orchestras in the first place.
Musicians never made or asked for the unsustainable draws on the endowment. They will bargain realistically if they feel they are getting an honest offer that includes their artistic input and participation as well as vision for building and maintaining artistry, community involvement, and healthy finances going forward from the board.
A lawyer friend told me eventually all sides are going to have to sit at a bargaining table and grant grace that they don't believe the other side deserves to move forward. The leap of faith to listen is the first step.
ASAP, please!
We can't afford to be without this great orchestra, or to jeopardize its continued greatness.
I think Mr Kepple's comments make it abundantly clear that this orchestra needs to be run by musicians and people with experience in the arts. The board of an arts organization is empowered as a means of safeguarding both the survival of the entity and of the quality of the organization's artistic output. How disappointing then to watch this board exercise its power through financial obfuscation and by demonizing its own musicians. Yes, Mr Kepple, previous boards have dutifully and successfully performed their role as stewards of our orchestra. Would we had them today.
MaryAnn is right, everything is proceeding according to a grand plan that has been in place for years. The only silver lining in this whole debacle is that the musicians knew what was coming this fall--knew that there would be no good faith bargaining, knew there would be no season--and could prepare financially if they were able to. Every day that continues according to this "plan" confirms to the musicians and the public that we are dealing with underhanded tactics by the management. How this orchestra is going to pull together after spending the entire season with the heavy boot of management on their necks is beyond me.
Shame on the management.
Mr. Kepple,
I think everyone can agree that some cost saving measures have to be taken to insure the financial stability of the MOA.However,the musicians should not be taking the brunt of any cost saving measures. I think it would be difficult for anyone to face a 30% to 50% paycut. When Michael Henson, Bob Neu, Lily Schwartz and the rest of the MOA staff are willing to take the same percentage of a paycut, then perhaps the offer can be taken seriously.
While the lobby may have needed some remodeling to make it more handicap accessible was it neccessary to spend that much on it? In addition, with another $30 million each going towards the endowment and "artistic initiatives",is there enough "wiggle room" to insure the musicians don't have to take such a drastic cut in salary?
With the over 250 changes to the working conditions listed in the contract is it really the boards intent to keep a world class orchestra? Or is more about making Orchestra Hall into a performing venue and hiring a classical orchestra" a few times a year?
We all appreciate what the current board and past boards have done for the orchestra. Hopefully, the is a solution to bring the difference closer together.
Mr. Kepple:
It is disingenuous for the MOA to frame this as an economic dispute. You fail to mention the staggering contract changes that by themselves imperil the artistic integrity and legacy of our great orchestra.
As a scientist I take issue with the notion of economics as a science. There are many economic theories; the dismal fact is that the MOA appears to have locked themselves into one inflexible view.
Please retire the misleading talking point about the Musicians not having made a counterproposal. They have made the best counteroffers they can in response to a shocking management proposal; but further I refer you to Drew McManusâ excellent blog Adaptistration: âFor those not familiar with the collective bargaining process ⦠in the field of professional orchestras, it is worth pointing out that it is not unusual ... for an entire negotiation to unfold without the employees ever submitting a formal, written proposal or counterproposal.â
Finally: I am troubled by the MOAâs manic fixation on the endowment which, based of your words and actions, you seem to value more highly than the music. It reminds of Smeagol from âThe Hobbitâ muttering âmy preciousâ, oblivious to all else. Economic history teaches us that there there are cycles, and we are in a trough right now. It would be entirely mature, responsible, and future-looking to draw on the endowment during downturns and launch major capital campaigns during upswings â IN SERVICE OF THE MUSIC.
Something I forgot to mention in my previous comment...
Were you at the Grammy celebration concert, and if not, why not? I was shocked at the number of board members who attended (only a handful came out of 80). And I was REALLY upset when it came out that the day the concert was announced, Mr. Henson sent out a note dismissing Judy Dayton and Mayor Rybak's attempts to create a safe space for everyone. http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2013/02/political-leaders-unusual-silence-speaks-volumes-about-complexities-orchestr Apparently the MOA feels they were represented fairly in that article, because they posted it on their website! Do you really think it's okay for a CEO to treat a major political figure and his orchestra's single largest benefactor in this way?
How are we supposed to trust the individuals on the orchestra board when they are so busy that they turn down the mayor's - not to mention the orchestra's biggest benefactor's - special invitation? Or who refuse to harshly condemn a CEO who dismisses an entire city? Upon reflection I'm sure you understand the difficult position we the audience are in, and why there is so little public trust in the board.
Mayor Rybak went out of his way to invite you all to the show, and your presence would have been so welcomed. I came from Eau Claire to see the concert, and I'm not even involved in an official capacity with the orchestra. So I'm curious, what kept your colleagues away in droves?
Please talk to us about this.
Like many commentators above I am glad to see Board members sharing publicly their thoughts on the lockout. However it appears the Board is not sufficiently challenging Managements strategies and tactics, which seem to overweight financial strength. The appearance of a strategic misrepresentation of the MO fiscal strength through targeted excessive endowment draws at the time the MO needed state money, followed by a planned deficit (with anticipated PR messaging and anticipated leverage in labor negotiations) bothers me and many others. As I'm not in the business I can't pass judgement on the many, many other proposed contract changes but it does not appear that management has approached this in good faith. Hopefully the Board - the whole Board not just a select few - will engage and ensure that the right decisions are made - in particular can the Board reach out to their peers in other cities like Cleveland which have been much more successful than our Board and Management team in striking a fair agreement and most importantly building community interest and support in the Orchestra product? I don't get the sense we have the best and brightest working the issues here.
Given the inability of the MOA Board to stand up to the scheming of the management team (Davis, Campbell and Henson) and act in the best interests of our outstanding orchestra it is time to consider forming an entirely new orchestra organization that would employ the musicians currently being locked out. The new organization would recruit a fresh group of individuals who understand music and the requirements for a first-class orchestra . Fund-raising which has been undermined by the untrustworthy current leadership would revive. Venues such as the State Theater, the Minneapolis Convention Center or Ted Mann could be quite suitable. A law suit aimed at recapturing the current endowment could be initiated by the many families who donated money and have clearly been misled by the current MOA troika.
Funny how the lawyerish arguments aren't pleasing the court of public opinion here very much . . . perhaps this ISN'T all about "economics", or at least how lawyers and bankers understand it.
Would those be the same "beloved buses" you plan to use to transport the accomplished, professional musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra to concerts several hours away from the Twin Cities? (Just one of the 250 work rule changes proposed by management.)
After re-reading this article, I realized there was a critical sentence missing. "Because management steadfastly refused to honor the reasonable request
of conducting an independent financial analysis made 6 months ago by the musicians, thus withholding vital information needed to make an offer, the only logical conclusion at which the musicians could arrive, was that management had no intentions of negotiating in good faith and were intentionally dragging their feet. How in the world do you trust anyone who does this?
As a former and potential donor and life-long supporter and fan of the Minnesota Orchestra (as a musical institution rather than association or venue), I can promise I'm more moved to respond with a contribution by musical excellence, vision, and perceived value of an institution to the community, than I am by "a responsible and sustainable budget" on its own.
I wrote an entry running some calculations, and it turns out the Minnesota Orchestral Association has more than enough money to pay its musicians at their previous levels of compensation until June.
http://songofthelark.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/the-moa-can-afford-to-play-and-talk/
Can the board get behind playing and talking? If not, why not? The lockout has gone on so long, and the MOA has saved so much money, finances are not the stumbling block any more. Playing and talking would enable those buses to get running again while we wait for the results of the financial analysis and for the musicians to submit a counterproposal. What would be the downside?
As a recent transplant to North Dakota, I was so thrilled by the quality of the Minnesota Orchestra peformance that I caught in Jan 2012 when I was in Minneapolis for a work-related meeting, that I promptly stayed in town another night and caught the next concert. I purchased a subscription this year, and my wife and I were looking forward to traveling to Minneapolis for concerts. We attended the Sibelius concert and both of the Beethoven concerts put on by the musicians - they were fantastic. I was initially sympathetic to the economic arguments made by the board (it sounded reasonable), but it has become very clear that this entire situation could have been completely avoided. Donors and subscribers were never told that unsustainable draws were being made to the endowment (instead, Michael Henson boasted about the financial strength of the orchestra), and thus fundraising capacities were never fully realized. Further, funds were foolishly diverted to a wasteful building project - I understand the need for some updating to the facilities, but spending $50 million when you don't have money for your musicians is ridiculous. The board must remember that it is the quality of the ensemble that makes it worthwhile for people like me to drive 6 hrs (one-way) for concerts (and to donate). If that quality is lost, the drive is no longer worth it, and I will donate to other ensembles. For an orchestra to be financially healthy, artistic quality is paramount.
Mr. Kepple, you claim that "It takes two parties to create a work stoppage", but then put all the blame on the musicians and none on management. You seem oblivious to just how outrageous the proposed cuts to the musicians' salaries in management's first proposal were, and act as though you think that after offering to cut off the musicians' arms and legs, the musicians should counter-offer by only having one arm and one leg each cut off. You also seem oblivious to the cognitive dissonance of being willing to pay for lobby and building renovations, but not being willing to raise even $1 for the musicians to play in said building. You unwittingly show where your priorities are. It's clearly not with the orchestra musicians, who actually do the real work of making the music.
We in St. Louis went through a similar financial crisis over 10 years ago. Unlike your board, we embarked on a massive fund-raising campaign to shore up the SLSO's then-much-too-small endowment, over a period of several years. We succeeded. Why can't you do the same kind of fund-raising for the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra? Unless, of course, that's not what you really want to do. Given the tone-deaf statements of Michael Henson, not to mention your commentary, I can but sadly wonder, from a distance.
Your language and anger keeps board members away in "droves." I appreciate your dedication to this issue, but the vitriol you choose to extol is polarizing and not helpful to the musicians that you are, quite genuinely, trying to help.
I would urge those posting to "be civil, brief and relevant" as the website asks. As frustrating as this stalemate is, vilifying either side is neither accurate nor productive.
Lloyd's choice to humanize the management side was a brave one, even if you disagree with the content of his message. I urge both sides to try to consider WHY the other thinks as they do. BOTH SIDES. Doing this is not a concession of their points, rather a mechanism to reach a thread of commanilty and, ultimately, advance as much of your own agenda (and rightly so) as possible.
If this post leaves you seething, take a listen to This American Life's Red State, Blue State. It may help...if not...it's, at least, entertaining.
Hi Kate,
I'd appreciate clarification of your viewpoint. Please come to my blog and talk with me! I need more people there who understand management's perspective.
Emily
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
