Longtimelurker

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

Like so many NYCB videos, this one is done very well (they really are a leader in the performing arts when it comes to video content). But the ending even creeped me out when the video was first released. It basically states that money buys you access to young, pretty dancers. The ending is edited to feel like a meet cute from a rom com. This would have been mitigated if they had either LeCrone or the man in the company of other men and women in the final scene.

I also remember when this video was released and thought the last scene could be interpreted in a way that likely was not intended. However, I don't think it would be fair to cast the entire Young Patrons group in a negative light because of the actions of one of its members and this video. I closely follow the dancers on social media and especially since the advent of Instagram Stories, one can see that their social interaction outside of the company is minimal. I am not saying that is a healthy thing, but mention that to point out that the social interaction between dancers and Young Patrons is minimal. I had also previously noticed through social media that one of the Young Patrons was quite close to Finlay and Catazaro and will just say that his posts were quite unlike others who interact with company members or involved in the arts in general. I also noticed that this individual deleted a number of posts which tagged Finlay, Catazaro and Ramasar after the company announced they had identified the Young Patron who was referenced in Waterbury's legal claim.

I think the company has done a laudable job of cultivating a younger audience with initiatives such as the Young Patrons, Art Series nights and their programming, and I think that doing so is critical to the future of the company and ballet. I have met a number of the Young Patrons over the years and their interest in ballet is encouraging for the future of the art form. Those interactions coupled with what I said above, lead me to think this is a case of one bad apple rather than the bunch. I hope the company continues its efforts in broadening its audience and that this unfortunate episode does not derail the positive momentum that they have created with the younger generation.

Also I hope that the management at NYCB has shared what they know regarding this individual with their counterparts at ABT, since the content of his messages would indicate that he is likely involved with their company as well.

4 minutes ago, aurora said:

No remorse and noting he was poor and is minority. Not what I would call moving.

I agree, and Catazaro’s defense that his activities were not done on company time nor specifically to Waterbury don’t evoke any sympathy from me.

3 minutes ago, Helene said:

Life doesn't guarantee "happy endings," and there's no requirement for justice to be pretty.  The "happy ending" would be one-sided if there was not legal system through which to get remedies.  And there's no reason why someone shouldn't be paid for the work they do or be rewarded and follow the incentives: it's what people do in the workplace, even where those workplaces are controlled centrally.  And perhaps the people involved in the communications could have prevented all of the negative emotional aspects of their actions had they not shared the images? 

The more I think about it, the smarter this action seems: NYCB has expanded this to a workplace issue, although they don't believe they are responsible for creating an environment in which the behavior was encouraged or tolerated once brought to their attention.  Now AGMA is in the same position as the CBC union was with Ghomeshi:  responsible for advocating for both sides, the men who've been fired and the employees who have to work there, some of whose images were shared and commented on with complete disrespect, and their hand is forced, as they must choose.   By taking the side of the men, they are on the wrong side of the zeitgeist.  If AGMA prevails in this, then NYCB can claim that their hands are tied, and it's the union's responsibility.  If AGMA fails, then AGMA is weakened, and that's the best news for an arts organization that has to negotiate with them. 

If AGMA prevails, can NYCB simply buy out their existing contracts and not renew them?  Do they have to give cause and/or long notice in general for Principal Dancers to be not renewed?  (There could be dancer-specific terms as well.)  Do they have to cast them, or can they just deposit the paychecks and leave them on insurance and benefits until the end of their contracts?

My thoughts exactly when it comes to the dynamic between AGMA and NYCB. It was definitely a smart move by NYCB to shift the onus onto the union.

And I also had similar thoughts regarding contract buyouts should AGMA prevail. I was assuming that the contracts would be bought out in that case and therefore thought that the last paragraph of Catazaro’s statement was naive in believing that he could rejoin the company. However you bring up some valid questions regarding contract details which could effect how this plays out.

1 hour ago, Drew said:

Even a well-known principal dancer can be phased out through casting decisions etc. There will always be "artistic" ways to explain those decisions. No-one is irreplaceable especially in a field as competitive as classical ballet and a company as over-brimming with talent as NYCB.  Add to that the conflicted and often very unpleasant reactions of the public when artists speak out on any controversial issue -- reactions which may also have career consequences for those who speak out.

So,  I think there is always a risk of repercussions...it may be less serious for some than others--if you are planning to retire or can pick up guest star gigs (and find those reasonably satisfying) then maybe you are risking less than someone just beginning a career, but nothing seems risk-free here. Though...perhaps collective action and collective voicing gives some protection: if all the companies women principal dancers or soloists could agree on a statement or some such. Even there, I think one shouldn't under-rate how hard it is to speak out publicly; and in the face of  group action company management might still decide that dancer x or y was the "ringleader." (As far as this particular case goes, some of the company's dancers are probably--like many of us here--not confident they know exactly what happened, who was involved etc....and that may influence their decisions about speaking out as well.)

Because it's so hard/risky to speak out in situations like this one, I'm not too quick to condemn people who don't speak out publicly, but sometimes speaking publicly has an important role to play in bringing about a better system--maybe even a necessary role.

I want to clarify that I wasn't condemning anyone for not speaking out, but we will have to disagree regarding the risk of repercussions for select individuals such as Lovette. I think if she really believed there was a systemic issue that put her and her colleagues at risk as is alleged in the court documents and spoke out about it, then the public reaction would not be negative especially in this #metoo environment. I also don't believe she would become marginalized and have that explained away by artistic reasons given the said environment along with her value to the company as both a dancer and choreographer.

24 minutes ago, nanushka said:

That interpretation doesn't seem to fit at all with what @Olga above quoted Lovette as writing in the comments on her post:

 

I interpreted what Lovette said in a similar fashion to On Pointe above.  I guess the problem with such vague posts made by Lovette and others is that they can be taken in differing ways. My interpretation could also be colored by the fact that as someone who has followed them for years, I would expect strong and outspoken women like Lovette, Bouder and others to take a strong stance against systemic injustice if one needed to be made. They also have the necessary clout to do so without any repercussions.

14 minutes ago, Helene said:

Bloomberg, a highly reputable source, aligned with what he wrote.

Bloomberg is a reputable source in the same way that other financial press such as Barron's, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes are, and like their financial press brethren, not immune from making mistakes. Financial, tax and regulatory filings on the other hand are not only reputable, but definitive sources in showing that there is a clear separation between SAB and NYCB.

As others have pointed out, the legal complaint was sloppily written if accuracy was Merson's intent, but it was also expertly written if drawing attention from traditional and social media was his intention. Other than her social interaction with company members, an accurate portrayal of Waterbury's relationship with the actual institution of the NYC Ballet could have been construed by the media as someone who had worked for most of her life to try to be accepted into the company and was unsuccessful in doing so.

1 hour ago, abatt said:

NYCB does not need this kind of a donor, no matter how much money he was contributing.

Given that he wasn’t identified as a major or significant donor, it is likely that money wasn’t a factor in his continued interaction with company members. 

The content of his messages also indicate that he is likely involved with ABT. I hope they have identified him and also severed any relations with them.

1 hour ago, balanchinefreak said:

@Olga, you don't need the authority of an AD to tell an employee don't come to work drunk or we suspend you.  If you violate a 2nd time, you are fired. 

We don’t know what if any action was taken if and when management knew about a substance abuse problem. The company does not publicly disclose every disciplinary action. 

4 minutes ago, minervaave said:

According to the complaint, the donor actually hosted parties and gave speeches at them, including one where the microphone had to be cut because he was so drunk.  That doesn’t sound like a couple of friends getting together and having a party - microphones and speeches and someone else cutting the mike strongly imply that this was a formal event.  And I can guarantee you that no major non-profit in NYC lets a low level donor host one of their events.  That is a privilege exclusively limited to VIPs. 

This is definitely not necessarily true.  Like many arts institutions, NYCB has a junior committee called the Young Patrons.  The organizers of events for the Young Patrons give speeches at their events and they are not those who are the biggest donors, but rather, those who put forward the most effort to be involved.  If one had looked at the Instagram accounts of Chase, Zach and Amar before they had been taken down, one could see that those three in particular had a friend or two who were heavily involved in that particular donor group.  This part of my post may be deleted as speculation, but I have a strong suspicion that the "donor" is one of these individuals and not a major donor to the company.

1 minute ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If this suit goes to trial, I assume both sides will use discovery to either substantiate or defuse the claims. I think we can safely infer that Ms. Waterbury has the receipts when it comes to Finlay's emails and texts. For the rest, her evidence may be little more than hearsay. 

That doesn't mean that there isn't truth to the claims, but rather that she and her lawyer might not be able to provide any documentary evidence or witness testimony regarding them until they've deposed the relevant parties or subpoenaed the relevant documents, which, I believe can only be done if the parties proceed to trial.

I think the way I quoted Helene's response created some confusion as to exactly which claims I was referring to.  I was referring to the claims that a male principal raped a female soloist in Vail and assaulted a female corps member. 

20 hours ago, rkoretzky said:

Yes hopefully. I’m not feeling too trusting. There are allegations against a donor, a board member and a principal dancer who allegedly committed rape. These need to be addressed as well, at least for me to regain my confidence in NYCB. 

There have been no allegations against any board members.  

22 hours ago, Helene said:

They are far more than rumors: they are the substance of a legal complaint. 

Yes but even in the legal complaint those instances of alleged domestic violence are described as "claims" with nothing substantiated.

1 hour ago, vendangeuse said:

There have been comments on this thread questioning the role NYCB as an institution should or can play in this situation—eg, how accountable is the employer for the behavior of their employee, especially if that employee's behavior is consistent with broader, societal issues?

Now, I have not yet read the entirety of the complaint (I admit I had to stop part of the way through) but it seems to suggest that Finlay's behavior was part of a broader pattern of abuse. In the first few pages, if I recall, there are allegations that at least two instances of domestic and sexual abuse have been brought to NYCB's attention. Personally, I don't care if it happened on NYCB property, or at a NYCB event; if an NYCB dancer is assaulting other members of the company, that person shouldn't be allowed to continue dancing there. And if this is true—if there is a history of assaults occurring and those responsible being allowed to return to work? Yes, that creates an environment that emboldens behavior like the kind Finlay is accused of, and that is NYCB's fault, IMO.

Of course, none of this has been proven yet. But I do feel that NYCB has an obligation to provide a safe work environment for all its dancers, and part of that includes not hiring sexual predators.

We do not have any details to judge the veracity of those claims, nor do we know what actions were taken to investigate any claims that were made at the time.  If management and the board buried their heads in the sand as the lawsuit alleges, then there are serious issues that need to be addressed.  But until we know more, they are rumors and nothing more.

3 minutes ago, Tapfan said:

Will the resolution of these troubles result in real and lasting change?  As is the case with many august arts institutions,  when you get outside the nexus of it's biggest fans and supporters,  NYCB can seem hopelessly insular and so concerned with the preservation of the Balanchine and Robbins legacies that other issues are given short shrift. 

I think the first question that needs to be asked is if there needs to be real and lasting change from an institutional standpoint.  I think that is far from clear at this point.  If anything, I ascribe to the theory posited by others above regarding a general culture throughout ballet where straight male dancers continually need to prove and advertise their sexual orientation.  I think that is a societal issue and not something the company can change.

15 minutes ago, tarantella2000 said:

I wonder how long all of this has been going on and, especially, how much the (past and present) leadership knew and turned a blind eye to. What is puzzling that Jon Stafford, according to the disposition, must have known about at least the drinking aspect of Chase Finlay. Why did he not react or perhaps was he told not to from the board?

I think the fact that he pointed out an issue shows that he did react.  We don't know the details of what was said between them or what further action was taken.

13 minutes ago, abatt said:

This may be completely true, and it's possible NYCB has no legal liability or exposure in connection with Waterbury's claims.  However, the damage to NYCB's public image is already done and won't easily be undone, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit.

You are probably correct and makes me worry where we are headed as a society.  I would also say that the company has more than a legal obligation to its employees but also an ethical one.  And in this case I can't see how they are culpable by either standard.  However, as you say, the damage is done.

23 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that when it comes to Miss Waterbury's situation, what's material here is the extent to which NYCB (in particular, the management and board) knew about Finlay's and Ramasar's reprehensible behavior towards her (as well as that of the unnamed dancers toward her) and condoned it. It might also be material how much of it took place on NYCB premises or other work-related premises or took place on NYCB-provided devices, if dancers have access to such a thing. Otherwise we're talking about bad behavior on the dancers' own devices and own time. Is that their employers' responsibility?

I think you have touched on the most important aspects of this situation regarding the potential of any systemic issues within the company.  What did management and the board know and what should they have known?  Based on the allegations detailed in the complaint, it appears that Waterbury's disclosure to the company is when they were made aware of this behavior, at which point an investigation was conducted.  To me, that seems to be the most reasonable course of action.

Regarding what they should have known, I don't see how the company could have or should have known what a small group of their employees were discussing in their private communications.  How could they have known the content of their employees' private discussions without blatantly breaking privacy laws?

29 minutes ago, Emma said:

This is so much more disgusting than I could have imagined. And to think City Ballet knew of these allegations back in June, but only chose to dismiss Chase and suspend Ramasar and Catazaro (just for a season!) after reading the complaint days before it filed. I'm honestly shocked and incredibly disappointed in the leadership. And I feel so much for all of the female dancers.

The chairman of the company said they started an investigation when they were made aware of the allegations and took action after the investigation had concluded. One could argue that the action they took wasn’t severe enough but I think that conducting a thorough investigation based on an allegation was the most reasonable course.

It is not difficult to discern who the so-called “donor” is through social media posting.  

Based on my reading of the complaint, I think it is unfair to state that Alexa Maxwell was definitively complicit.  I think what is stated on page 13 article 61 regarding the matter is unclear.