Longtimelurker

I hope that the company can figure out a way to get around whatever it is that is preventing them from streaming footage from past performances. I also agree with many of the negative sentiments here regarding the online gala, but I also hope that we are in the minority and that the company was successful in their fundraising efforts.

Well said as I also felt like there was something "off" about the tone of this event. It just seems like a gimmicky attempted cash grab. Other companies have been demonstrating the artistic value that they bring to the world and subtly letting people know how they can support the future of those institutions. I wish ABT would do something similar. Did the company not record some of their performances? I would think that they would have in order to have content for advertisements and have archival footage for future reference. Also, although they are not as well-funded as NYCB, I would think that ABT would be able to survive since they have significantly cut their costs by not paying their dancers. Although that's not a decision that I agree with, since they own their rehearsal studios and won't be paying rent for the Met and Koch while not performing, the only significant fixed cost I can think of is their administrative staff. I can't imagine that the staff costs even over an extended period would be more than their endowment and other sources of funds. Perhaps I am not seeing the whole picture, however, and I'm not a financial expert, particularly in the arts and non-profits.

I received this too and was confused as to what it is as well. I really hope that they start streaming some of their performances soon.

Why will not see an 8 week Met season again? Very sad if true

Thank you for such a detailed recap of ABT’s financial situation. Hopefully the company can get to a point where it is more easily able to weather economic downturns.

Why is that to be expected? Some others have mentioned that NYCB is stronger financially, but is the difference so large that not paying the dancers is necessary? I recall that some smaller companies are paying their dancers during their cancelled seasons (Colorado Ballet for example), so I would have a hard time believing that those companies are stronger financially than ABT. I think that not paying dancers should be an absolute last resort for a dance company. Perhaps ABT is being penny wise and pound foolish in the message it is sending regarding the value that it places on their dancers, and this could result in the company having more difficulty in attracting top talent in the future. They work too hard and are too skilled to be treated in a disposable manner. Is the financial situation at ABT really that bad?

They weren’t supposed to be on a lay-off as they had tours to Chicago, Detroit, Durham and the Abu Dhabi scheduled for the spring that were canceled. That’s a significant amount of income for the dancers to lose if the company is not compensating them and would be financially devastating if that sets a precedent for how they would handle the cancellation of the Met season. nanushka, I just noticed in the NYCB Spring Season Cancellation thread that you posted that they would continue to pay their dancers. I truly hope that ABT is taking care of their dancers in the same manner!

Does this mean that the company is not paying its dancers during this period?

I am happy I didn't see any of those performances as Jane Eyre was the worst thing I have seen at ABT and am surprised that Mackenzie chose to stage this. I agree on most of the criticisms that have already been posted, but I also found the choice to have 2 different dancers play Jane to be confusing and unnecessary.

I also think his remarks are probably based on insider information that many of us are not privy to. For example, I think that most of the public didn't know that Finlay had previously been suspended until the article in the New York Times today. I don't think it's a stretch to think he probably has known about that for quite some time.

That was a incredibly strong statement of support regarding the values of the company made by the dancers. The narrative that Waterbury needed to speak out because the female company members were unable to themselves must have been insulting. I'm glad that false narrative has been put to bed with this statement. Bravo to Tess and the whole company for making this stand with their moving words!

These posts don't sound like what I would expect to hear from women working in a dangerous workplace where rape, sexual assault and domestic violence are rampant and tolerated by management -- especially Lovette's video where you can feel the sincerity of her comments in a more visceral way than you can when reading a written post. This sets up an interesting contrast between what is alleged by Waterbury versus the increasingly public support conveyed by the women of NYCB. Although the courts will have final say, for now I am inclined to side with the women who work in the company and have a better understanding of the workplace environment and culture.

These accounts further confirm my negative opinions and suspicions about this individual. One can see from his post on February 11, 2013 that he was involved with an event for ABT.

Yes I understand they may have to amend that part of their defense, but does it actually matter from a legal sense if the messages were exchanged during work hours? From a logical point of view, I don't see how the timing or location of where personal messages were sent would change the company's responsibility for their content.

Thank you for pointing this out. I admire the attitude she is taking toward this situation, especially in light of her comment at the end that there is much to this situation that the public is unaware of. I think many of us who only have publicly available information have been quick to judge the dancers and condemn the company.

I understand that it would look bad for the company if they had to backtrack on their claim that the communications were sent off hours and off premises and it would bolster their reasoning for firing Catazaro and Ramasar in their dispute with the union, but is there a legal ramification related to the Waterbury case if they had to backtrack? Employees at every company send personal texts during work hours on company premises as well as on off hours and off premises and the ability of the employer to know what the content of those messages doesn't change with the timing or location of when those messages were sent or received.

That is a valid point and underscores the importance of validating some of the most incendiary claims made in the legal complaint such as the claim that a principal raped a soloist. Until we have evidence to the contrary, I am still giving the company the benefit of the doubt as I cannot believe that the company would have turned a blind eye to that if there was some merit to such a serious charge. If it turns out that the company dealt responsibly with that type of situation, then all you have evidence of is reprehensible and in some cases illegal behavior in private text messages which the company did not and could not have known about.

Some of the worst behavior alleged in the suit are attributed to Catazaro including circulating explicit photos of a former SAB student and discussing an aggressive sexual proposition to one of their colleagues with Finlay.

So if that is the case then is there also a systemic issue at the employer of the Craig Hall named in the complaint? And then if we consider Longhitano as he is also a donor at ABT? Some of the most vile actions and comments in the complaint are attributed to Hall. I truly feel for the soloist whose pictures he circulated. Based on the additional details disclosed in the revised legal complaint, it is not difficult to deduce who she and she must feel violated and betrayed.

I agree with nearly everything you said. I also don't think that ABT's inability to protect its dancers from these predators demonstrates an institutional failing at ABT, just as I equally think that NYCB's inability to protect someone who isn't in the company doesn't demonstrate an institutional failing. I also hope that ABT takes similar actions to NYCB as regards Longhitano. I also looked through old playbills and noticed that he is not listed on NYCB's Young Patrons board. Perhaps that was another inaccuracy or the company removed him from that position. Longhitano could have also stepped down, but that seems unlikely given his Linkedin profile and other information he posted on public websites. In my opinion, NYCB has arguably been the most proactive company in instituting what your friend calls "ballet's real affirmative action program". The female principals are their most valuable assets and treated as such. There are also less of them in number than the male principals, even after 3 of them were fired. I cannot speak to how this is handled at SAB one way or the other however. I also am extremely skeptical that any such actions could have prevented the Waterbury situation.

Yes and Longhitano was or is an ABT donor as well. Longhitano aside, if the logic is that NYCB has a systemic issue because it can't protect someone who is not affiliated with the company, does ABT also have a systemic issue because it can't protect its own dancers?

Longhitano's association with YAGP is most disturbing. His Linkedin profile says he is the founder and head of the Young Patrons Group at YAGP. In previous posts, I have lauded NYCB's efforts in expanding its audience to the younger generation through initiatives such as the Young Patrons, and this does not change my stance on that -- the arts need to continue to build on these efforts. However, why does an organization such as YAGP even need a junior committee? The amended complaint (as others have said, not for the faint of heart) also alleges that Finlay, Longhitano, Catazaro and Ramasar referenced in conversation or traded explicit pictures of dancers in ABT. For those who feel that NYCB has done an inadequate job of protecting its dancers, do you also feel the same could now be said about ABT? As more details of this situation come to light, I am more convinced that this is a case that could not be prevented by rules set forth by an institution. Luckily in this case, Waterbury has come forward to let the world know about their misdeeds so that the problem can be rooted out. Although I disagree with her about exactly where that problem lies, I applaud her for that.

Then I am confused. I assumed that discussing her possible motives was within the rules of this board as it is something that has been discussed and not deleted. My response was not related to what is allowed by the rules on this board but rather whether discussing it was something that added substantively to the topic. I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue, her motives for both suing the company and why that relationship was not accurately reported is something worthy of discussion. Apologies if that or anything else I have said is against the rules of this board.

I agree with most of what you said except for the third point. I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.

Couldn't Catazaro be one of the unidentified principal dancers referenced in Waterbury's claim? In his carefully worded defense, he only specified that his transgressions were not specific to Waterbury and not during company hours. There are a number of text exchanges referenced in the legal claim that could be attributed to Catazaro even if what he says is true.