checkwriter

She taught at Ballet Academy East in NYC for several years, just before she left to head the Balanchine Foundation. A number of the blurbs say she was an 'administrator' there, which she was, but her main role was as a teacher in the graded level program. IMHO she was one of the best that they had there at the time, and the MCB dancers are in for a treat. It also helps that (contrary to what some stories say) she wasn't so much a 'prodigy' as a dancer as she was smart, hard-working, and of course talented. In terms of "teaching" certain qualities, I think it's easier to learn from someone who had to fight to figure things out for herself than from someone to whom they came naturally. It's like trying to work with a math tutor - I'd rather work with someone who had to grind it through and can show me several ways to attack the same problem than with someone who instantly sees one way to get it done but has trouble doing it other ways.

Well if we're going to think about her ability to appeal to the masses, let's not forget her work with Jock Soto on . What makes this really fun to watch is knowing -- and I haven't seen this in print but I've heard it from an extremely reliable source, and so may be bending a BA rule here -- that the choreography is by a young NYCB dancer with a keen interest in choreography. Named Christopher Wheeldon. And the theme -- "Cooperate" -- is oddly appropriate given what the next year is likely to bring . . . .

Gee, I can't imagine who would have leaked it. Wait, the article quotes "A company staffer who did not want to be named." (Different from the "MCB spokesperson" who confirmed the leak.) So it makes sense to assume that the leak originated with someone with the company. Now note that Villella is reported to have been promoting Kronenborg for the position. You do the math.

Well at the time he held the title of "Founding Artistic Director/Chief Executive Officer" (this according to the Internet Archive's various captures of the administration screen from the MCB website during the 2010-2011 time period). He is now listed only as "Founding Artistic Director." I don't know that he's 'taking the fall' so much as sharing the responsibility consistent with his leadership position. There's no doubt that artistically the company is in great shape. But you have to keep the lights on or nobody's going to see all that talent.

Good insights, Helene - I did some digging and found this Palm Beach Post article from 2010 that discusses a number of the exact points you raised in the context of the MCB's 2010-11 season! In particular, a reinvigorated board, underwritten premieres, and a nice big challenge grant.

The Guidestar website now has the MCB form 990 for its fiscal year running from May 2010 through April 2011. It makes for some really interesting reading, particularly when viewed against the context of MCB's location at the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis in one of the worst economies of the past 50 years. For example: - Total expenses increased from $11.8 million to $15 million. - While ballet-related expenses increased from $8.5 million to $11 million (so, by $2.5 million), ballet-related revenues increased from $4.75 million to $5 million (so, only by $250,000). That means there had to be a lot of extra fund-raising. - Another way of looking at it: the ballet-related deficit (ballet-only expenses over ballet-only revenues) was $3.8 million in 2009-10. It increased to $6 million in 2009-10. - The school ran a $350k deficit, up from $250k the previous year. - Villella's salary increased from $321k to $365k; Linda's increased from $62k to $70k; and Crista's increased from $43k to $53k. - The executive staff all received salary increases. - The company paid a fundraising consultant $229k, up from $176k the previous year. The consultant raised $862k, up from $791k; but $50,000 of that $70,000 increase went to the consultant's pay increase. I have no idea whether that is a good rate of return (spend $229k to net $633k; or pay a 26.5% commission on the total funds raised of $862k) in the fundraising world, but that net to MCB of $633,000 is a fraction of what the company had to raise in total. - Fundraising contributions increased from $5.4 million to $8.1 million. - Over a five-year period, the total of "Gifts, grants, contributions and membership fees received" looks like this: 2006: $5.66 million; 2007: $5.35 million; 2008: $5.69 million; 2009: $5.89 million; and 2010: $8.62 million. It seems unusual that the company would depart so significantly from past years in 2010; that's a 46% increase in a single year. While admirable when viewed as a snapshot, you have to wonder whether the increase was akin to sprinting in the middle of a marathon; while you might gain some ground in the short term, it will leave you lagging in the long run. - A board member loaned the company $700,000; the loan is unsecured, due on demand, no interest rate, and not reflected in any written agreement. - At least at that time, Villella appeared to have quite a bit of power. According to the form 990, "The CEO's [Villella is listed as "CEO/Artistic Director"] contract was negotiated by Board President and Chairman with reference to comparable CEO salaries, and ratified by Board. The CEO determines compensation for Executive Director with reference to comparable data." Also, "The Executive Director and General Manager recommend compensation for other key employees with reference to comparable data and submit to CEO for approval. The CEO determines compensation for General Manager with reference to comparable data."

An unfortunate tactic, in my opinion. By sharing their 'no-confidence' letter with the press, the artists immediately escalate the dispute to a 'crisis' level before giving management a fair chance to deal with it internally. It doesn't help their cause any, particularly in a country where (as here) layoffs by the thousands are reported in the press weekly. One wonders exactly what they want. Part of the problem may be that in Hubbe they have a director who brings with him a kind of work ethic and insistence on quality that was missing in some of the past directors. No one likes it when their flaws are pointed out . . . at least until they overcome them.

From the Miami Herald's review of "Giselle": "Artistic director Edward Villella, who normally sits in the orchestra section to mix with the ballet company’s patrons on a program’s opening night, instead sat in another area on Friday. Rather like the evening’s heroine, it seems that he feels rejected and disrespected by powerful ballet backers who have pressed for his departure."

Well very simply before Villella there was no MCB. He was brought in in 1985 to start the company, and there is no denying that he has done great things with it. There is a new ED, appointed in November of 2011. My understanding is that he reports to the Board, which might be a cause for some friction, particularly given that his predecessor - who was hired by Villella - is still on staff as EVP of Artistic Affairs. Oh, to be a fly on the wall over at Liberty Avenue . . . . It's interesting that the Miami Herald article states that MCB's budget for this year is $14.5 million, when its most recent form 990 (for the 2009-10 season) showed its expenditures of $11.8 million. That's a big increase in a two-year period during which the country - not to mention south Florida - has been struggling through one of the worst economies since the 1930s, and it's about $1 million more than the two big deficit seasons of 2007-08 and 2008-09. Could be another big deficit is on the near horizon. The article included an interesting quote - one that can fairly be read to highlight both sides of this dispute. It reads as follows: "One of Villella’s supporters on the board said the executive group was letting legitimate practical concerns outweigh questions about the company’s quality and identity. 'They’re worried about the future of the company and Edward’s age,' said the board member, who asked that his name be withheld from publication. 'They are not understanding a true artistic vision... It’s all about the money.'" Of course, it's about both. Without the money, the vision has no venue. And without the vision, the money is wasted.

I think it's worth noting that the company has had repeated budget problems, all with Villella at the helm. While its artistic success is undeniable, it seems to lurch from year to year facing budget crisis after budget crisis. And while the 2009 FY showed the expenditures to be closely aligned with receipts, the two years before that showed deficits totaling almost $3.5 million. The Huntington Post article suggests that the deficit demons have returned. With an aging demographic, an aging AD with limited management skills and no apparent succession plan, the board can be forgiven for looking ahead to a change that, while uncertain, may be in the best long-term interests of the company.

One of the 990s mentioned that in addition to salary, Villella has a 'discretionary account' that he had to date never exhausted. It did not state what the amount of that account was. I'd hear rumors of other benefits, but nothing definite enough to post here. That shouldn't be an issue if a successor is Balanchine-trained; further, ballet mistress Roma Sosenko is Balanchine trained. Villella's teaching style (I've seen him teach a number of classes) is best described as inscrutable. Though that can be said for many. I don't think technique is his strong suit. My point was that the company needs to be looking to Florida and South America for support, to wean itself off of or at least substantially supplement the snowbirds/retirees. There is a tremendous energy in the community, and it's a business gateway to South America. To date, the MCB has not fully taken advantage of that, despite having that great roster of dancers with ties local and further south.

Okay, I went back to the form 990s. These are very interesting documents, and I recommend them to anyone who is interested in learning more about the nitty-gritty of running a not-for-profit company. First, a comparison of AD compensation, ranked by % of what the AD earns as compared to the company's expenses (the forms don't reflect what the companies' budgets were, but do show revenues and expenses; I elected to use what was spent as a uniform base measure). I've included the salaries. To try to compare apples to apples as much as possible, I've used the returns filed for 2009; keep in mind that the companies' fiscal years may not be the same as calendar year (MCB's, for example, begins on May 1 and ends on April 30, roughly paralleling its season). Here is what I learned (I can’t figure out how to insert a table). The following is the company; expenditures; AD salary as a percentage of expenditures; and AD salary: MCB / $11,864,700 / 2.73 / $321k Joffrey / $12,940,715 / 1.74 / $225k SFB / $41,581,034 / 1.56 / $649k PNB / $20,247,642 / 1.32 / $267k Boston / $26,670,953 / 1.3 / $347k Houston / $18,914,204 / 1.18 / $224k NYCB / $61,429,513 / 1.15 / $705k ABT / $36,025,653 / 0.79 / $283k As for Linda Villella - she earned $62,283. In addition, Crista Villella earned $43,559 as ballet mistress. Some other interesting points. The company had a 1.7 million deficit (expenses over revenues) in each of years 2007 and 2008. Perhaps in response to that, Villella reduced his salary from $350k to $321k. Of course during the 2008 fiscal year he also fired a number of dancers. The company paid Twila Tharp and Elvis Costello each $90,000 during fy 2007 for "Nightspot." I'm not sure the company's money problems are over. According to this article in the Huffington Post, the currently-stalled reality series "En Pointe" highlights the company's money issues - even after the Paris tour. What's also rather disturbing is this quote from a dancer: "'Have you seen Black Swan? That happens all the time. It really does,' referring to the violent psychosis of the young rising star played by Natalie Portman." I hope that is just one dancer's opinion and not a reflection of the atmosphere that prevails at the company. Also, for what it's worth, the ABT form 990s were particularly interesting; for 2010, Ratmasnky was paid almost as much as McKenzie.

Given that the press so far (not just Miami Herald, but a local gossip column too) have been very pro-Villella, it's safe to assume that he or his supporters are fueling those fires. So the reports need to be taken with a grain of salt - as with all disputes, there are other sides to the story. But commenting on some of the above posts: - I don't see the Balanchine Trust issue to be an issue. Look at the many companies of arguably lesser rank currently performing Balanchine ballets. Typically, the Trust will assign a repetiteur to stage the ballet (and usually that's NOT Villella), and with the high quality of dancer at Miami, I imagine that no matter who is running the show, Balanchine is going to be one of the company's strengths for years to come. I'm not sure, by the way, that I would give Villella all the credit for bringing in those "originators" to stage the Balanchine works; it's just as likely that the Balanchine Trust is responsible for that. (There are a whole flock of former NYCB dancers who supplement their incomes nicely by staging Mr. B's ballets all over the world - you do have to give the Trust credit for that and for making genuine efforts to preserve and promote the dances it's responsible for curating). - The well-received series of performances over the summer in Paris did not come without great expense. You don't simply pick up your company and take it on the road for a month in an expensive European capital for free. I've not seen any figures on whether the company made or lost money on those shows. So the unanswered question there is whether this has contributed to whatever financial difficulties the company may now be facing. - To the point that much of the MCB audience consists of people from the northeast: how sustainable is that model? These snowbirds/retirees are an aging demographic, and for the company to focus its energies on courting an increasingly elderly group of supporters does not seem to be a strategy that will promote success in the long run. Meanwhile, there is a very large and growing group of full-time residents, many of whom are Hispanic, that the MCB has all but ignored. While the company was undeniably started and built on support from the north, for it to grow and thrive it may need to look to Florida and South America for its future. Presumably if Villella ever intended to do that, he would have started long ago. - Assume that if Edward leaves the company, Linda will leave the school. I don't believe she teaches any classes, so it's safe to assume that a good administrator can be hired to replace her. Don't forget - she did not work for free. According to the 2009 MCB form 990 (publicly available for free at Guidestar.org) she was paid for her services (the 990 lists the amount, but I know some people are not comfortable with salaries being posted so I'll refrain from doing so). - Let's also not forget that Villella is unusually well paid for someone in his position. According to the 2009 MCB form 990 the amount he was paid in 2009 represented about 2.7% of the MCB's total expenditures (again, I'm refraining from posting salaries). While that doesn't seem like a lot, compare for the same year Peter Boal at PNB (1.3% of PNB's expenditures, which were greater than Miami's) and Peter Martins at NYCB (1.07% of NYCB's expenditures, which were almost double PNB's and Miami's put together). Put another way, Villella's pay was about half of Martins's; while MCB's expenditures were about one-fifth of NYCB's. My point is that a new AD would probably cost the company less. Depending on what that person brings to the table in terms of idea, continuity, management skills, and fund raising ability, the net benefit could be quite positive.

I don't disagree at all that if cuts must be made from the artistic staff, then it is the AD's responsibility to make those cuts with an eye to what he believes will work best for the company under his leadership. So it's probably the case -- and would make sense -- that cuts were made based on his artistic preferences. My question is whether cuts to the artistic staff were necessary - the last resort, so to speak - or whether there were other savings that could have been implemented but weren't. I don't imagine we will have any definitive answer to that question, because that level of detail will never make its way public. However, it will be interesting to see whether the other branches of the theater - which are due to announce their cuts on Monday - were able to ameliorate the toll on their artistic staff and, if so, how they did it. Remember that the Opera was set to lose 16 of its 56 chorus members, a significant cut. Stay tuned . . .

As is clear from the Politiken article (Google translate works pretty well), Hubbe has used this as an opportunity to clean house. It will be interesting to see on Monday whether the other branches of the theater do the same, or whether their chiefs (I'm thinking of the Opera in particular) are better able to reduce the toll on the artistic staff. Meanwhile, I'm sure all who do remain will be happy to know they'll still have a cafeteria. Because that's what running a theater is all about - Swedish meatballs on Tuesdays.

There is a popular and funny YouTube video series titled " ." (I've cleaned up the title for the forum.)Now there is a . Enjoy!

It is interesting to contrast the public behavior of the head of the Opera (on his knees in front of a concert audience asking "Please, can I save my choir?") with that of the head of the Ballet. Here is what one dancer had to say about that: "People are scared, insecure, nervous and worried. We have not been informed about what is going on. There have been more in the newspaper, than management has told us. And we have the feeling that there is no fighting spirit of the ballet management. Our management has not even taken the initiative to talk with us, Nikolaj Hübbe came to a meeting shortly before Christmas, because Ballet Association demanded that he came. But he did not say much, although it would be natural that he tried to reassure and inform us about what will happen." If Hubbe is doing anything behind the scenes, he's keeping it a secret even from his own company. All of the public statements about the firings at the ballet have come from the dancers - mostly via their spokesperson, veteran dancer Byron Mildwater, some via interviews in the press. And while the dancers are doing a great job of promoting their own cause, they don't seem to be getting help from their own management. Which is unfortunate.

Today the theater performers published an open letter to Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller asking for help. Mærsk-related foundations spearheaded and funded the construction of the new opera house on the island of Holmen, across from central Copenhagen. It's a gorgeous facility, but has proven expensive to maintain. As the letter points out (Google translated version): "In this desperate situation we can not help but think about what you, Mr. Møller, I wonder feel to see your house on the other side of the water quietly languish, see the lights turned off and hear the music silenced." Link to the letter, and to a related article. Meanwhile, the silence, at least in the press, from Mr. Hübbe is deafening.

Plus some 38 additional jobs to be lost due to attrition. The management appears to be treating the job cuts as a fait accompli, instead of really working to find ways other than cutting artists to deal with their budget issues. (For example - does a facility located in the heart of Copenhagen really need its own fully-staffed canteen providing discounted meals to performers and theater workers?) Today the Opera chorus (which stands to lose 16 singers) held a free concert at the Old Theater that, by all reports, was packed to the rafters and included an impassioned plea from the director to save those positions. Nikolaj Hubbe, on the other hand - who as recently as this past summer was in very hot water as a result of a leaked management consultant's report - has been strangely silent about the proposed cuts. Of course, he just signed a new 5-year contract, so his nest is nicely feathered no matter what happens. The tactic of starting with a big number when a smaller one will do, then announcing the smaller number and declaring victory is a common one in negotiations. It allows the management to give the illusion of progress when in reality all they've done is arrived at the number they intended to get to all along. Very often 'negotiations' such as these are just an illusion.

Tonight at the opening of the RDB's run at the Palais Garnier in Paris - and on the occasion of an EU gala - dancers handed out flyers to the attendees expressing their concerns at the planned layoffs. From Politiken (translated via Google): "Ballet dancers at the Royal Theatre conducted this evening an unusual action in Paris turned against planned layoffs and cost savings of ballet. "Before a performance on the occasion of the Danish EU presidency attended by among others Queen Margrethe and several peaks from France and the EU were ballet dancers dressed in costumes and training wear right out on the stairs in front of the French National Opera at the Palais Garnier, where they shared out leaflets to Prominent among the guests." View the translated article here.

What troubles me is the way that 'downstream' press sources feed off of the original stories in Jyllands-Posten and then completely ignore what few facts those stories provide. Even JP is not contending that cocaine abuse is "rampant" in the RDB. But that doesn't stop many other publications from using that word, or similar words. The press is lazy; I've seen it time and time again, where reporters and press reports don't bother to get the facts straight. It's not just this situation. But in this case, these irresponsible third- and fourth-hand news stories are completely unfair to the many, many dancers who work their butts off to push themselves - through pain, injury, and long rehearsals - to do what they love, to better themselves, and to bring some beauty to the world. Here's a (Google translated) quote from a recent JP article interview with a former Royal theater communications director: "In my time I have known for several employees who had a substance abuse problem. It was something we talked very openly about, and actually I think we had fewer problems with cocaine than anywhere else in the world of culture, because we were good to address it," says Kresten Schultz Jørgensen. So where are the headlines touting "Fewer Cocaine Abuse Problems at Royal Theater than Elsewhere; Care and Attention to Blame"? For those interested, here is a link to a listing of the 16 or so articles that Jylland-Posten has published on the topic.

Another post worth a read, this one about Hubbe from corps dancer Charlotte Amand (Again, c/o Google Translate): "But if you give a hundred percent of what you now put down on stage to give is there no end to the support you get, and the inspiration he accrues to you. If you are injured, he helps you. If you have personal problems or challenges, he gives you the space to solve it. Just you're honest. But if you meet the tired and listless and almost burps a piece of pastry into his head and your colleagues if you are busy talking with side companion or drink coffee when you are met for training, he gets angry."

That was not my point. Both are entitled to the same levels of protection. But goals of the two organizations are markedly different and the two groups need to be managed quite differently. I was not implying, as your post seems to assume, that I consider Wal-Mart employees to be "not worthy of the same protections afforded to dancers." And from what I can tell from the many news reports I've read - in particular, the two that I most recently posted, which are worth a read if you haven't yet bothered to inform yourself with anything except the posts on this thread - it's not being 'shrugged off.'

Does that sound logical to anyone? Is it against the law to investigate a complaint if the accused deny the behavior? If the law obliges taking people at their word, why didn't Jacobsen treat the complaints, the first words given here, as if they were true? Regardless of what is or isn't going on in the company, that statement makes Jacobsen sound less than confident that it's nothing. That concept is charmingly illustrated by Garrison Keillor in his monologues on A Prairie Home Companion. I think if you read both the article and the interview, there was an investigation conducted. But keep in mind this is a workplace, and certain rules apply. Many court battles have been fought in the US about where the employer's right to investigate employees ends and the employee's right to privacy begins. And what is he to take as true: the anonymous complaints made to a consultant by dancers (many of whom may have an agenda, given that Hubbe has raised standards since he arrived and introduced a NYCB-level of accountability and discipline to the corps in particular); or identified responses made to direct questioning? The RDB has had a well-established support system for dancers, and those who have problems are given both the resources and the time to remedy them. This is by no means a cut-throat company. So is the answer to abandon that in favor of a "let us search your dressing room" and "fill the cup" sort of regime? This is a dance company here, not Wal-Mart. There must be a high level of trust or the dancers won't grow and take chances as artists. And yes, I was thinking of Keillor's Norwegian Bachelor Farmers even as I was typing my post . . .

There is an interesting concept in Danish society known as "Jante Law" - I won't pretend to have a complete understanding of it, but the gist of it seems to be that you're not supposed to get too big for your britches; the individual is not supposed to rise above the general population; that even if you're successful at what you do, you should be made to understand that you are no better than anybody else. The attacks on Hubbe in the press - particularly given their origins in a less-respected tabloid - could be a manifestation of Jante Law in action. The Royal's Chief Administrative Officer has a thoughtful and measured response in today's "Politiken." The link is to a Google Translate version. His point is that the consultant's report covered a number of management issues (it was not a report that was focused on drug abuse) and, in particular that "The report's author can not, although directly asked, provide documentation of its claims." There is also a detailed Q&A that provides even more detail, and is also worth reading. As for any suggestion that any poor reviews during the US tour had anything to do with cocaine abuse - that is a perfect example of heaping supposition on top of hearsay, and is exactly the sort of thing that has made Fox News and its ilk so successful over the past few years. It is irresponsible to raise loaded questions and then not bother to seek, let alone provide, the answers.