Oregon Ballet Theatre: Showdown at the No-K Corral
UPDATE: Barry Johnson takes the story further on his Oregonian blog, Portland Arts Watch, with this post on Friday. This appears to be very much a hot issue. Keep watching Portland Arts Watch.
Ever since last spring’s remarkable bailout from its equally remarkable tumble down the financial rabbit hole, Oregon Ballet Theatre has been trying to assure everyone that things are really OK now — and rumors have been rumbling that they most decidedly are not.
Bet on the latter. Willamette Week’s Kelly Clarke reported online Thursday that 41 members of the company — including many of the dancers, highly respected school chief Damara Bennett, ballet master Lisa Kipp and artistic director Christopher Stowell’s executive assistant, Rebecca Roberts — have signed a letter to the board asking for reviews of the leadership of both Stowell and executive director Jon Ulsh. Our good friend Barry Johnson joined in with this report on his Portland Arts Watch blog for The Oregonian. Do read them both to understand the background.
Although Stowell’s name is mentioned, it seems clear that Ulsh is the focus of what amounts to an anguished cry from the ballet’s rank and file — a mutiny, almost, in a business that takes its traditional hierarchy as a matter of fact.
“Either (Ulsh) does not have the skill set” to deal with the multiple challenges of his job, the letter stated, “or he does not have the capacity to handle all of them at once. It seems to me that if he did, we would not be in such deep difficulty after three years under his leadership.” The letter, composed by company historian Linda Besant, continues: “… I do not feel that the organization can afford to be a training ground for its executive director in this very crucial year.”
Harsh words. And it seems odd that they were written by someone as relatively on the sidelines as the company historian. You could dismiss it as internal grumbling except that so many major players took the extraordinary step of signing it, potentially putting their own jobs on the line.
I want to make it very clear that I haven’t talked with Ulsh, Stowell, or any member of the board about OBT’s administrative troubles since the letter was sent. My thoughts are based on the news reports I’ve read, past observations, and second-hand reports from people close to the scene. I’m hoping to start a conversation here, not end one, and I hope people inside the company will feel free to respond openly.
It seems telling that while the actual artists in the ballet company are underpaid and thus prone to unrest, so are the musicians in the Oregon Symphony — and from what I can tell, most of the symphony musicians, who have accepted stiff pay cuts and reductions in benefits to help cope with the orchestra’s own fiscal troubles, are solidly behind their leaders, music director Carlos Kalmar and and president Elaine Calder.
So what’s the difference?
Hard to say, except it appears that while the symphony musicians have faith in Calder’s efforts to rethink how the orchestra presents itself to the community, a significant and perhaps majority percentage of the ballet dancers and staff have no such faith in Ulsh’s abilities. The letter, in fact, amounted to a vote of no confidence in Ulsh’s ability to carry out his duties.
Is there an element of scapegoating here? I don’t know. Maybe. I do recall that after the ballet’s emergency call last spring to raise $750,000 to keep it from folding (an astonishing outpouring of generosity brought in more than $900,000) one person extremely close to the company told me, “There’s going to be a scapegoat for this, and it’s going to be Jon Ulsh.”
And here we are. I’ve heard other theories, as dark and murky as a Dan Brown book plot, circling: Ulsh has stacked the board with his own supporters, and Stowell will take the fall. I see no evidence of that. I’ve known Ulsh casually for several years, and he seems both an honorable and an earnest man — and as even Besant notes in her letter, a man committed to the company’s success. Stowell has gained deserved recognition nationally for transforming this small company into a rising force in the American ballet world, and if the board doesn’t understand that, it ought to just give up the ghost and disband. Boards aren’t social clubs. They have strict duties, and the first is to understand the nature of the organization they oversee. The nature of this organization is this: Stowell has reshaped it into one of the most exciting small ballet companies in the nation. Period.
So what’s the trouble? M-O-N-E-Y.
No surprise there. Nonprofit organizations across the country, from museums to major universities, are in deep trouble, and sometimes because they got caught up in the go-go Wall Street frenzy themselves, as Stephanie Strom reported in the New York Times today. That’s surely no problem in Portland, where no nonprofit I know of has enough money in reserve to play the market. Arts groups here are in trouble (partly) because of the market, not because they play the market.
OBT spent some months last year without a development director — a crucial position in a company of the ballet’s size. I asked a board member over the summer how the company was approaching fund-raising. It wouldn’t have a development director, he told me: That was one of the positions cut in the ballet’s budget belt-tightening. Then how are you going to raise money? I asked. Ulsh and Stowell will do it themselves, he replied. Most big donors want to talk with the artistic director, anyway: It’s a big part of his job.
True enough. But the artistic-director shmooze is supposed to seal the deal, not start it. He’s the artistic director, after all, and while pragmatics dictate that he or she has a role in bringing in the bucks, other people (including the board) have to do the major hauling.
I noted with both optimism and pessimism that when the ballet raised more than $900,000 in its emergency drive last spring, no single donation was over $25,000. That meant a huge number of people were sending in their $10, $50, $250 checks. It also meant the big-bucks crowd was keeping its pockets buttoned — and no arts group can hope to thrive in the long term without some deep-pocket supporters. Where are OBT’s deep pockets? And if they don’t exist, why not? I don’t know.
This maybe-divorce proceeding is also significant because, in a sense, OBT has seemed reborn since its emergency bailout in the spring. The company seems to have rediscovered that it’s part of a local community, and that that’s a good thing. OBT dancers have been all over town, taking part in events by other companies, dancing and choreographing in fund-raising events for the beleaguered contemporary-dance center Conduit. Stowell’s been everywhere, shaking hands, giving talks, supporting other groups, being part of things. People have begun to feel that the ballet is connected, and they’ve appreciated it. Why risk that good will? Apparently, because so many members of the company feel it’s necessary.
On a personal level, I want to be very clear here. The rise of OBT to its current level of performance has been one of the most encouraging and thoroughly pleasing arts stories that I’ve covered in the past 15 years. I would be devastated if this gutsy, talented, polished, personality-laden company lost the momentum it’s worked so hard to achieve.
In July I was talking on other matters with Paul Nicholson, executive director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, which has seen a steep decline in its own endowment but has maintained its institutional stability. The subject of OBT’s recent bailout came up.
“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” Nicholson told me. “And it would be a shame if Oregon Ballet Theatre did not take this and use it as a springboard to build those stronger relationships with those donors. If they just said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and that was the end of it. … Think of the incredible data base they’ve now compiled. There’s not much more signal that those donors can send to the theater that they care.”
A whole lot of people care, deeply. Can we now please try to solve this thing?
September 25th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I bet if someone were to look up how many raises Jon Ulsh has received over the last couple years compared to the amount of downsizing OBT has done the numbers would be astonishing. I would also be interested in what information a newspaper could produce on how many six digit salaries most non profit ballet companies with OBT’s budget keep on payroll. A little research in the mans past could probably reveal similar failures. OBT needs relief from crooks like Ulsh who put themselves before the good of the company and need a leader who at least has some previous background in ballet and successfully managing people.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:58 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by John Martin. John Martin said: Art Scatter » Oregon Ballet Theatre: Showdown at the No-K Corral http://tinyurl.com/y8syow2 [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Thanks for joining in, Ralf. Certainly the issue of pay needs to be considered. I haven’t seen recent figures on the salaries for either Stowell or Ulsh, but my sense in the past has been that they’re not out of line compared to leader positions at similarly budgeted performing companies nationally. I believe both took pay cuts during the recent crisis, but I’m not sure from what to what.
I would like to set a ground rule for this discussion. I’m fine with anger, with sharp disagreement, with passionate argument: We’ve had a few pretty prickly disagreements in the comment section of Art Scatter in the past, and that’s a good thing. But Art Scatter has never been and never will be a forum for personal attacks: There are lots of other places in the blogosphere for that. I see utterly no evidence that Jon Ulsh is a “crook,” and in fact my sense of him is very different: He’s seemed earnest, enthusiastic and hard-working. If his effectiveness is in question — and apparently people inside the organization think it is — that’s a very different matter. I don’t mean this post to be a bash-Jon Ulsh forum. People who want to disagree with what he’s done in the job, or support him, are welcome to post their thoughts. But no name-calling or unsupportable accusations, please. Mr. Administrator will be forced to delete them.
What seems key to this controversy is this: To what extent are OBT’s financial troubles a result of the collapsed American economy, which has ravaged nonprofit groups across the country, and to what extent are the ballet’s difficulties self-inflicted? In the aftermath of an emergency like OBT’s, people naturally want to lay blame. It’s important that blame land not just in a convenient spot, but where it’s actually justified — and that the conversation doesn’t end with finger-pointing, but moves on to solutions. I don’t know where that spot of blame is in OBT’s case. But now that the staff has gone public with its frustrations, it’s time to find out — rationally and dispassionately, for the good of the company, the art form, and the city itself.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I think the historian, “relatively on the sidelines” is an interesting place to begin thinking about the internal dilemma OBT currently faces. Linda Besant, unpaid volunteer, leads OBT’s education, outreach, and archives. Besant’s position is one that should be an organizational priority, one that in an arts organization of OBT’s stature, should be financially compensated. I believe her anonymity as a volunteer gave her the opportunity to bravely bring company concerns to OBT leadership. Unlike employees, Besant did not have a paycheck at risk, thus she became the voice for all who felt they could not. The people of OBT clearly are passionate about their organization and are rightfully questioning a leader who has made no REAL changes to the overall organizational management in the face of financial instability. The Nutcracker was a weather bust, the economy tanked, Dance United triumphed, but the roller coaster will not stop under John Ulsh leadership. As long as the board stays noncontributing, development directors don’t last, and budget cuts compromise artistic integrity, OBT will continue to fumble. Dance United was a miracle, one that OBT should flourish in and grow from. Under Ulsh I worry that Dance United will only become a model for future bail out needs to come. OBT needs new leadership that can support the artistic growth and build on the momentum of the communities outpouring support. Portland needs OBT and OBT needs a new ED in order to reach their ripe potential and be the Ballet Company Portland deserves.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Thanks, Concerned Supporter. You’re obviously familiar with the company from the inside (whether you’re on staff or not) and this seems like a fair statement of the case being put to the board. These are the tough issues that the board will have to sort out. Thanks for stating them so well. The key question for the board: Was the roller coaster inevitable, or should it have been better managed? The focus has to be on the future. But past performance inevitably plays into that.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Great points, Bob. There is plenty to work with here without resorting to personal attacks.
Three comments.
One, Do people realize how extraordinary it is for dancers to speak up on any matter involving a higher authority? This is completely against their training and their DNA. Professional dancers are required to be quiet and compliant, enduring long hours under conditions that most ‘other career’ workers would balk at. Their concerns must truly be extraordinary for so many to speak up. I can only guess they feel a high loyalty to the survival of their art, and a duty to those who came to the rescue of it several months ago. I applaud their courage, and as one who contributed, am grateful that SOMEONE has a sense of duty about my investment. Frankly that attitude is exactly what’s required in order for OBT to earn repeat gifts from donors, as they must, for financial survival.
Two, aren’t key executive reviews customary nowadays in this size of operation (even nonprofits)? I was a little surprised to learn the staff needed to request this, and surprised the Board hadn’t already insisted on it (if for no other reason than to cover their own derrieres legally!). As experienced non-profit Board members know, D&O insurance is no substitute for careful stewardship of an organization’s finances, as required by Oregon law. One would think when a majority of staff - especially a disciplined, professional staff not prone to whining and whistle-blowing - comes forward with allegations involving financial management, that they must be checked out. Misters Ulsh and Stowell ought to embrace this kind of scrutiny for the opportunity to learn, improve and better their organizations. Indeed, we need people in leadership who welcome scrutiny!
Last, there is a great chapter in Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers on causes of airline crashes. The summary version is, contrary to popular belief, a catastrophe is never one large incident, but several seemingly inconsequential ones conspiring in succession. Applied to organizations, and OBT, of course the economy played a role. I am doubtful about the Nutcracker revenue as most tickets are sold in advance and there is a ‘no refund’ policy on tickets anyway. Someone in the know, please challenge me on this if you can- with real data - and I’ll drop that gripe. No, it is more plausible that OBT could have survived these events if not for the organizational failure points unfolding in parallel. A la Gladwell: another crash could be just a few seemingly inconsequential circumstances away, if nothing is done to shore up the failure points.
I don’t want to end on a negative note- there is far too much talent, promise and positivity at OBT. I am confident this will lead to an appropriate and just conclusion for those who work hardest and best on behalf of this amazing organization.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
It’s hard to imagine any Executive Director remaining at OBT under these circumstances. Jon Ulsh has clearly lost the support of most of his co-workers, and he cannot succeed without it.
Since his success directly affects OBT’s success–indeed, its survival–it seems clear that OBT needs a new ED if it is to continue in the growth and excellence it has experienced over the last six years.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Thanks, BB and OBTfan. I haven’t read “Outliers” but I’ve read about it and I like the thesis. Even a huge natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina wouldn’t have had the disastrous effect it had if it hadn’t been for a series of bad decisions and plain old hiding of heads in the sand at the city, state and national levels. When disaster strikes, a well-ordered organization ought to be able to at least minimize the losses.
Way back in early June, when OBT’s emergency fund-raising drive was going like gangbusters, Mighty Toy Cannon posted a plea for transparency on the blog Culture Shock. (http://cultureshockpdx.blogspot.com/2009/06/oregon-ballet-gadflys-view.html). I agree. Non-profits need to be out in the open about their finances and their stewardship. And an organization the size and importance of OBT simply can’t play by the seat of its pants.
An issue that needs to be addressed: Where has the board been while all of this has been going on? That’s a tough one, because it’s the board itself that’s going to have to take a tough and clear-eyed look at its own actions or inactions. Guaranteeing stability, of course, is essential. And if you aren’t either raising money yourself, or making sure you have an excellent development department, or preferably both, you aren’t meeting your obligations. I’m NOT saying the board has been asleep at the wheel. I’m saying it needs to check its own history and, if there have been failures, figure out how to solve them.
It’s also important for the board to understand that, while organizational stability is essential, it’s not the REASON the organization exists. OBT is an ARTS organization, and its ultimate reason for being is to create the best art it can possibly create. That means that in addition to its lawyers and accountants and business leaders, all of whose points of view are essential to a healthy board, the board MUST also include several members who think like artists, who understand the distinctive nature of arts organizations, and who can help keep the board’s focus on the ultimate goal, which is to create an atmosphere in which art can flourish. That’s what it’s all about.
In Christopher Stowell, the board hired the right artistic leader at the right time. But how can he and the dancers succeed without a consistent business structure? Did he miss signals of impending trouble on the business side? That’s a fair question for the board to ask, even as it asks the same question of itself. Perhaps — and I don’t know this to be true — the relationship between business and artistic leadership was too casual, and Stowell simply assumed things were going well. There’s a learning curve here: A great artistic leader must also be canny about the business side of his or her organization. Still, in the clinches, the artistic leader is the artistic leader, and Stowell has been stellar in that role. Ultimately, he’s in charge of artistic decisions, and he’s done that superbly.
Business disarray, for whatever reasons — internal or external or both — has a direct impact on artistic success. The loss this season of the full orchestra, a cutback whose importance I’ve heard second-hand that some board members are downplaying, is critical: It injures the art.
There are practical things to consider. If Jon Ulsh leaves the company, will it go into another free-float that would encourage the sort of fiscal recidivism that BB alludes to? How long would it take to find a replacement? What would happen to fund-raising in the meantime? And, crucially, does the board know what to look for in a replacement?
Yes, these are tough times, and it’s not just prudent but necessary for non-profit organizations to be patient and concentrate on what’s essential. That’s why the board must act responsibly and wisely, even if it has to be tough. And even if it turns out it’s been part of the problem itself.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Just a clarification on the Nutcracker: OBT did have to cancel some performances because of the weather and under those circumstances, patrons who already have their tickets are given free tickets to later concerts I believe,which means those tickets can’t be sold. And while certainly many tickets are sold in advance (I would hope so since flowers start waltzing and snowflakes dancing, at least musically, starting in July on radio) quite a few tickets are bought at the last minute.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Actually, OBT didn’t cancel any ‘08 Nutcracker performances, even during the worst of the snow.
Of course, they did realize that a lot of ticket holders wouldn’t be able to make it to the Keller, and they went to extraordinary lengths to accommodate those people in whatever way worked best for the ticket holders.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
My mistake, I thought they did. If I remember correctly however (and obviously there ia an even chance that I don’t), they did give people the option of going to a later performance.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
In case anyone missed the link to the actual letter written by Linda Besant, and signed by 41 staff members, many of which are dancers, it’s here : http://media.wweek.com/attach/2009/09/24/OBTletter.pdf. It’s important to read it yourself to clear any fog about who is saying what about whom.
It took guts, people! Maybe it’s time for a different kind of OBT Exposed!
While I think the blame for OBT’s difficulty in having enough money can be mostly blamed on the economy and the weather-induced losses, there are factors that may be made more evident due to the present conditions. It is when we are the most stripped of support, that we may see what things may need to be changed.
Did the executive director take a pay cut like the other staff? Did he set an example of sacrifice? I have heard that OBT does not have an endowment. This must be a top priority. Such yearly endowments help companies weather the unplanned for storms, literally and figuratively. I noticed many CEOs stepping down this year, because it’s traditional for the top brass to take some responsiblity when their company is not profitable. It is expected. I heard, but I don’t know if it’s true, that the Board actually passed a motion disclaiming responsibility for raising funding for the budget! Scary kinds of statements. If that’s true, there is not much confidence and support voiced there.
I have been observant and knowledgeable about company cutbacks. I have been aware of what these kinds of sacrifices have cost our dancers and staff members, especially those who already don’t make a lot, and have to support families.
While it is interesting to speculate about the idea of “scapegoat”, I don’t see this group as having gone that route…but rather willingly cut out many things considered necessary for a world class dance company. Everyone seemed to look at ways they could do more with less. There has been some ‘true grit’ that I have observed that is inspiring. Everyone had bitten some kind of bullet and gotten involved in trying to raise money, the way they are able to do so. Whether it is talking, performing, teaching and outreaching, it seems that group as a whole has rallied. The school is doing very well, and as I understand it, the company and the school must march together financially.
I was amazed to hear that all Nutcracker performances were performed last December. But even if they had canceled, there are usually no refunds for canceled shows. OBT gave out vouchers, for a future Nutcracker or another performance.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:27 am
My understanding is that Jon Ulsh, like most everyone else, took a 28 percent pay cut. It was a significant sacrifice for everyone involved. And, yes, the lack of an endowment to speak of is one of the company’s biggest long-term challenges.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am
As for an endowment, Jacqueline Martin Schumacher gave the company seed money, a small amount, to start an endowment last spring. Let’s hope that gets watered with a great many liquid assets, and soon.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Yes, but “OBTsd&sp” is asking whether that pay cut was universally applied; there is some scuttlebutt that that is not the case. I wish the question could be resolved, definitively and soon. Shared pain has been a big part of OBT’s public message throughout this crisis and, as a donor, I want to be confident that the pain is truly shared.
On a related issue, I hope the percentage of the cut was not universally applied: losing 28% of a salary near or above $100K, while tough, certainly leaves the employee in much better shape than losing 28% of a salary in the twenty-K range. It’s a mystery to me how some of the dancers and lower-level staff can even afford to stay at OBT. Their commitment to the organization is commendable.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Sorry, MUW–my “Yes, but…” was in response to Bob Hicks’ post #13.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Now that the situation at Oregon Ballet Theatre is being widely discussed in the press and other forums we see no need to withhold comment as we have done for several days. At this point there is really only one relevant issue as to the executive directorship of OBT: Mr. Ulsh has lost all leadership credibility. Regardless of his remuneration, regardless of his earnestness, regardless of the external causation; Mr. Ulsh can no longer lead the organization. A clean and swift exit is the only viable solution and the only way that Mr. Ulsh can recoup something of his reputation.
As you have so aptly pointed out the signing of The Letter by so many bred and disciplined to a culture of compliance is extraordinary. Mr. Ulsh simply has no standing left from which to run the organization.
Consider: What artistic director would prospectively want to work with Ulsh, should he survive in these circumstances? Alternatively, there would likely be any number of business leaders who would be willing to manage OBT’s operations with Stowell at the Artistic helm. The choice is, in the words of a friend of mine, “a no brainer.”
Ulsh is mortally wounded and according to our sources to retain him is to loose Christopher Stowell and his cohort. I think you will agree that that is tantamount to the destruction of the company at this point. This is something the board cannot do and meet its fiduciary responsibilities. You are correct to point out the strict duties (and liabilities) of the board. There may be more to the “dark theories” than you believe. Many of the board members are Ulsh recruits we understand. Divided loyalties can pose difficult personal conundrums for board members in such a situation. Nevertheless, for the board, there is simply no choice but to ask for Mr. Ulsh’s resignation and begin an orderly transition, perhaps with an interim executive as The Letter suggests. Moreover, the board itself may well need some reformation and recruitment of “deep pockets.”
OBT is a gem. Performance after performance whether in an art gallery or at Keller the talent and style of the company shine. Christopher is our guy, but who could blame him if he left for greener pastures. We spoke with him about this once. He wants to stay here. It is incumbent on the community that rallied to save OBT that we follow through with support at the box, in the gift envelope, and in the realization that we have someone and something unique to clamor about. Let us be about that now and let Mr. Ulsh demonstrate his commitment by leaving gracefully.
We append here our earlier comments posted to WW, for the sake of continuity. Thanks for a fine article.
@pdxculture has been both advised and asked to desist from stirring the pot regarding the internal dissention @oregonballet. All in all this seems to us a wise course at this point, now that some modicum of truth and transparency has been forced upon OBT’s administration and board. However, before leaving the subject to the internal workings of the organization we do want to get a few final observations into the record.
During this summer’s funding crisis many, many supporters in the community rallied around OBT, giving extra time and money according to their ability and packing the Dance United concert to put OBT over the top of its emergency fundraising goal. At the time much was said about the need for more transparent administration and community engagement. Indeed much has been done on the latter score due largely to tireless efforts of company members throughout the summer. The current Nixonian stonewalling, deliberate misleading of the press, threatening meetings with staff, and general circling of the wagons is however, sadly, short of the mark on the transparency factor. We believe that the community that rallied to save OBT deserves better than this. The attempt to portray the above letter as being equally critical of Christopher Stowell’s leadership as of Jon Ulsh’s was calculated disinformation. It is clear that the staff and company have expressed an unequivocal vote of no confidence in current administrative (i.e. not artistic) management. As Willamette Week pointed out the full letter shows a majority of employees endorsing the views expressed by Linda Besant. It is not inconceivable that there were more potential signatories, too afraid for their livelihoods to sign. That so many did take that risk is notable.
That OBT exists today to celebrate its 20th Anniversary must be credited in large part to Christopher Stowell. His personal contacts across the country made Dance Untied possible and the strong audience support engendered by his programming and direction lent credibility to OBT’s claim to future viability. Without those components OBT fails to survive the crisis. Mr. Stowell’s work is ably supported by the dedication and talernt of the company in turn fostered by Damara Bennett in the school and Lisa Kipp, Ballet Master. Nearly without exception the improvement in the company and the diversity of the repertoire during his tenure has been noted by critics and reviewers alike.
What should be clear to the board at this point is that many people are watching. No attempt at whitewash will be successful or tolerated by this community of observers. The ultimate fate of Mr. Ulsh is neither here nor there. The end of the toxic atmosphere at OBT, the fostering of true transparency, and an end to a barricade mentality is what is called for. Whether Mr. Ulsh or someone else is the engine for these reforms is for the board to determine. OBT must settle down to the next 20 years and follow Mr. Stowell’s lead to destinations only he can discover. His loss at this time means mass exodus and a decade long setback rather than a decade of accolades. The community will be watching for the low tactics of reprisal and disinformation and for the ugly face of crony –ism, and shortsightedness. We expect transparency and disclosure when all is said and done. Collectively we have earned it. Now go to, go to.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
As a former OBT employee, I have to say that even if all performances of the Nutcracker were fully attended and everyone could get to the Keller, it still would not fulfill the budget of OBT. Ticket sales are a portion of the budget (and occasionally a “pie in the sky” portion) The real problems are a lack of a cohesive Development department for many years, a completely non-contributing board (unique in the by-laws of an Arts Board!) and a naive attitude that “everything will work out”. OBT has lost so many opportunities through mismanagement and a myopic board that isn’t willing to work for the donors and grants and doesn’t know how to retain them once they do get them. I will say that Christopher is an excellent artistic director and has done so much to bring up the level, but he isn’t a businessman, and needs to be supported in what he does by a committed and focused board and a fiscally prudent Executive director.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:55 am
[...] to how to end the repeated cycle of money problems. This past fall, tensions were enough so that a letter written by OBT staffers called for OBT Executive Director Jon Ulsh’s expulsions after the [...]