Just for the record, that was Leigh.
It wouldn't hurt Pennsylvania to look into its own history
This planning of a relatively small company's rep isn't so easy, it seems. There are so many different routes a company can take. Amy's post points how that there are arguments in favor of any number of possible routes.
About developing new choreography from within the company: I agree with all the advantages mentioned. However, when you have just 5 programs a year (excluding Nutcracker) you don't -- alas -- have lots of time and room for experimentation and failure. There's also the danger of developint a company style that does not reinforce or support the other works in the repertory. Or attempting too many styles with too little time and preparation.
The example of Miami might be appropriate here. In the early days of the company, Villella relied quite a bit on a company choreographer -- Jimmy Gamonet de los Heroes -- whose work was quite popular, apparently, with local audiences. (Those "standing ovations," everyone talks about.) However, as the company expanded its goals, and increased its touring, Villella claims he found that Gamonet's choreography did not travel well. Nor did it stretch and strengthen the company's technical skills when it came to its basic Balanchine rep, or to new works by Taylor, Tharp, etc.. In the end, the Gamonet ballets disappeared from MCB's rep.
It would seem that an AD might need the wisdom of Solomon to balance all the possibilities, each of which comes with its own set of dangers.