WSJ Article on Possible Misty Copeland Promotion

[Helene]

Promotions in North America are not awarded by concours, where there's a fixed place and time and a structured series of performances, then a decision, and only if there are a set number of places to be had. There isn't a fixed date on which she'd be promoted or not: it could happen any time or never. McKenzie could decide he needs to see more of her in other roles and/or see if she continues to be box office before making the decision, while, at the same time, checking to see what's available in the marketplace for Principal dancers.

Were he to promote another in-house soloist to Principal and not promoted Copeland, then there would be an uproar, just as people here have pre-announced their uproar if Copeland is promoted. If he does nothing, there's still always that chance for another season.

[kfw]

I think we need a Ballet Alert countdown clock!

[Helene]

Without a predetermined end-point, that's not possible, but if I were a programmer, I could imbed one of those constantly increasing counters, like the amount of polar ice that is melting as we speak.

[vipa]

Promotions in North America are not awarded by concours, where there's a fixed place and time and a structured series of performances, then a decision, and only if there are a set number of places to be had. There isn't a fixed date on which she'd be promoted or not: it could happen any time or never. McKenzie could decide he needs to see more of her in other roles and/or see if she continues to be box office before making the decision, while, at the same time, checking to see what's available in the marketplace for Principal dancers.

Were he to promote another in-house soloist to Principal and not promoted Copeland, then there would be an uproar, just as people here have pre-announced their uproar if Copeland is promoted. If he does nothing, there's still always that chance for another season.

Since ABT just lost or pushed out (depending on what you believe) 3 principal women I think KM will promote soon. Not promoting Copeland or promoting only Copeland would look bad to many people, although I have no idea if he cares. I figure he'll promote Copeland & Abrera (long shot Lane since he doesn't like her but Ratmansky seems to) to principal. And maybe move some corps members up to soloist.

[nanushka]

My money's on Copeland and Kochetkova becoming ABT principals. I will be very surprised (though, in either case, happy) if either Abrera or Lane is promoted.

[Kaysta]

Not that it matters, but last year's promotions were announced on 6/30

[vipa]

My money's on Copeland and Kochetkova becoming ABT principals. I will be very surprised (though, in either case, happy) if either Abrera or Lane is promoted.

I think Kochetkova will continue to straddle both worlds. She'll be a SFB principal and an ABT "company principal" at the Met.

[alexL]

Not that it matters, but last year's promotions were announced on 6/30

Yes, I remember that as well. Gorak performed in Coppelia few days after the announcement was made- he looked extra happy! I hope to see Abrera with that expression on her face when she performs Cinderella next week!

[DeCoster]

Kevin McKenzie has been artistic director of ABT for quite some time, and Misty has been a soloist there for quite some time. It's not like there has been a change in administration at the top of ABT's artistic direction recently. So one has to ask why McKenzie pretty much ignored her for lead roles up until very recently. I'm talking about roles where she had to carry the evening on her shoulders, like O/O and Juliet. Helene posts that perhaps the veil of racism was lifted from McKenzie's eyes. (Not a direct quote, but a paraphrase of the idea mentioned in Helene's post.) Another explanation is that Misty's relentless assertions in the media that she has been the victim of racism, combined with the fact that ABT has been her only artisitc home, meant that in effect she was claiming discrimination at ABT. When faced with these assertions, McKenzie had no choice but to give her lead roles and ultimately promote her. Otherwise certain members of the public would conclude that ABT is a racist employer.

Stella Abrerra (who was made soloist in 2001, I believe) is only recently taking on the roles you speak of as well. How do you explain this?

I think it's a bit much to suggest that just because Misty is only now being cast in as Odette and Juliet, it is due to her rising publicity. Her publicity swelled with Firebird, a principal role for which she was selected by Ratmansky and received critical acclaim. Unfortunately, she was injured badly during that season.

It's often hard for soloists to get that first chance at ABT, particularly in the Spring season with the guest stars. I give credit to both Copeland and Abrerra for dancing leads (Odette/Odile and Giselle respectively) with other companies while they waited.

With the three retirements this season, I think both Copeland and Abrerra will dance more leading roles in the future. And I predict they will be promoted together, with Hammoudi, very soon.

[dirac]

If Copeland doesn't make principal - a huge if - and she then calls that racist - another huge if - I'm sure her claim will get tons of attention, although I'm not sure what a 60 Minutes story on it would consist of - interviews with critics illustrated by video clips that could clearly show the non-dance public how much better she is than Hee Seo?

That's what I'm asking. Of what will this "huge and immediate" groundswell consist? Where will the "tons of attention" come from?

I also note that you've added "if she then calls that racist." That really is a pretty big if.

[nanushka]

That's what I'm asking. Of what will this "huge and immediate" groundswell consist? Where will the "tons of attention" come from?

I also note that you've added "if she then calls that racist." That really is a pretty big if.

Nowadays the "legacy media" is not all that matters -- not by a long shot. Just because something's not on network television or in mass circulation through print media doesn't mean it doesn't have impact and authority. I know that here on Ballet Alert there are still strictures against citing "non-professional" critics, bloggers, cultural commentators, etc. But in the world at large, those voices really do matter. One doesn't need an editor or a magazine/newspaper byline anymore to play a big role in the broader cultural conversation of issues such as this. And if enough of those sorts of voices begin responding -- well, yes, a groundswell can occur.

[kfw]

Copeland is of interest to the media and to the non-balletomane culture at large because she’s breaking ground racially, because she’s perceived as triumphing over racism in the ballet world. (I assume we can all agree on that. Of course her story is interesting in other ways as well, and she’s lovely and personable too, but outside of the hardcore dance community, the racial angle is the root of her appeal). If she’s not promoted, and if she chooses to chalk that up to racism, it stands to reason that the same people initially drawn to her by this narrative won’t suddenly lose interest in her, but will instead be angry on her behalf. I think it’s safe to say that even if she doesn’t, a lot of those same people, journalists and the other commentators nanushka mentions among them, will think they smell a rat. A lot of dance fans will anyhow, and McKenzie’s the subject of enough criticism right now for other things. I can’t image he’d invite more. Anyhow, would anyone here bet against her being promoted next month?

[Helene]

There are many non-professional voices that can impact politicians, governments, social policy, and businesses, for example that can be impacted by groundswells. Far less so, if at all, for arts organizations that are funded primarily by ticket sales + private donations. Unless not promoting Copeland will make major donors walk, the worse case scenario if Copeland is not promoted is that her audience will stop buying tickets, and then ABT would be back to business as usual. Or maybe some will picket the Met.

Were there to be a groundswell against ABT, who would those people be, and why would ABT care? Do you think that the core ABT audience is going to walk -- if you read BA! you might think the opposite would be true, that it would walk if she is promoted -- or that the board members are going to resign, if the general blogosphere or twitterati create a groundswell or a Senator to weigh in, about which I have doubts ? I don't even think Oprah would make a statement, unless Copeland were to retire, because that could backfire. This isn't the Met where there are board members who are affiliated with conservative Zionist groups who could quash the HD "Death of Klinghoffer," and that was hardly a popular groundswell.

This isn't an election with a finite date, or a position that is limited, like a CEO, where if person "A" is chosen, person "B" is rejected. If Copeland isn't promoted now, she can be in the future. ABT can always take the "not ready yet, maybe later, we look forward to the day we can" stance.

As far as thinking McKenzie wants to avoid more criticism, he's proven that he's impervious to it so far, and I have no reason to think this will push him over the edge.

[kfw]

Helene, I think my answer comes down to one word, racist. To not be called racist is a powerful motivator. Especially so in this, ABT's 75th anniversary year. It's true she could always be promoted later, but the spotlight is on the organization now. People expect it now.

ETA:

Were there to be a groundswell against ABT, who would those people be,

As I said, the people initially attracted by her triumph-over-racism story. Really now, she's a big celebrity because of this story, and McKenzie's feeling no pressure not to ruin the ending?

[nanushka]

There are many non-professional voices that can impact politicians, governments, social policy, and businesses, for example that can be impacted by groundswells. Far less so, if at all, for arts organizations that are funded primarily by ticket sales + private donations. Unless not promoting Copeland will make major donors walk, the worse case scenario if Copeland is not promoted is that her audience will stop buying tickets, and then ABT would be back to business as usual. Or maybe some will picket the Met.

Were there to be a groundswell against ABT, who would those people be, and why would ABT care? Do you think that the core ABT audience is going to walk -- if you read BA! you might think the opposite would be true, that it would walk if she is promoted -- or that the board members are going to resign, if the general blogosphere or twitterati create a groundswell or a Senator to weigh in, about which I have doubts ? I don't even think Oprah would make a statement, unless Copeland were to retire, because that could backfire. This isn't the Met where there are board members who are affiliated with conservative Zionist groups who could quash the HD "Death of Klinghoffer," and that was hardly a popular groundswell.

This isn't an election with a finite date, or a position that is limited, like a CEO, where if person "A" is chosen, person "B" is rejected. If Copeland isn't promoted now, she can be in the future. ABT can always take the "not ready yet, maybe later, we look forward to the day we can" stance.

As far as thinking McKenzie wants to avoid more criticism, he's proven that he's impervious to it so far, and I have no reason to think this will push him over the edge.

You may well be right, Helene, but let me offer a brief example of just one possible impact I can imagine.

In this time of aging audiences and donor bases, arts organizations need to be thinking about ways of attracting new, younger audiences and donors. This is precisely the demographic that is most attuned to the sorts of non-professional voices I described above. And this is also the demographic that, particularly in a place like NYC, is most attuned to social issues such as race. If ABT in particular, and ballet more generally, gets bad press (and I use the term broadly -- again, to include voices beyond the legacy media) about being racially exclusionary (as opposed to just being racially exclusionary -- which of course it has been all along), it's not unreasonable to think that those potential audiences and donors may be turned off and keep away in larger numbers than they otherwise would. This has the potential not just to put ABT "back to business as usual" but to inhibit future growth. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think that McKenzie and the board are cognizant of that possibility.

You've said several times that there is no "finite date" for Misty's promotion. But in the world beyond those who are in-the-know about the workings of ABT, the sense of a finite date has indeed been established, for example by articles such as the WSJ one that began this thread. (That's one of the things that I think is unfortunate about that article's appearance.) If others are promoted next week and Misty is not, there will be a sense that she has indeed been passed over, denied promotion. McKenzie could certainly say, "not ready yet, maybe later, we look forward to the day we can." But we all know that an organization rarely has complete control over its message. Those other voices I've discussed could well write the narrative that gets heard -- and, again, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it's at least possible McKenzie and the board are aware of and concerned about that possibility. I'm not saying it's a sure thing that this is something they're worried about. I'm saying it's not unreasonable to think that it is.

Do I believe that Misty deserves to become an ABT principal? No. Do I believe that, if she does, it will be solely or even primarily because of race-related pressures that McKenzie et al are experiencing? No. Do I believe that it's at least possible they are feeling such pressures? Yes.

[California]

Whatever happened to Project Plie, which ABT announced in September 2013: http://www.abt.org/insideabt/news_display.asp?News_ID=460

I would guess that Payless Shoes and the Boys and Girls Clubs sponsors would be among those sorely disappointed if she doesn't get the promotion - soon!

[Helene]

Helene, I think my answer comes down to one word, racist. To not be called racist is a powerful motivator. Especially so in this, ABT's 75th anniversary year. It's true she could always be promoted later, but the spotlight is on the organization now. People expect it now.

I don't think there's any proof that it's been a motivator to date.

Really now, she's a big celebrity because of this story, and McKenzie's feeling no pressure not to ruin the ending?

I never claimed that he's feeling no pressure. I simply think that his behavior and decisions to date have shown that he has not made it a deciding factor.

In this time of aging audiences and donor bases, arts organizations need to be thinking about ways of attracting new, younger audiences and donors. This is precisely the demographic that is most attuned to the sorts of non-professional voices I described above. And this is also the demographic that, particularly in a place like NYC, is most attuned to social issues such as race. If ABT in particular, and ballet more generally, gets bad press (and I use the term broadly -- again, to include voices beyond the legacy media) about being racially exclusionary (as opposed to just being racially exclusionary -- which of course it has been all along), it's not unreasonable to think that those potential audiences and donors may be turned off and keep away in larger numbers than they otherwise would. This has the potential not just to put ABT "back to business as usual" but to inhibit future growth. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think that McKenzie and the board are cognizant of that possibility.

If only that were so. ABT has made no effort to capture that audience with a website that was barely current when Bill Clinton was President, or to have a robust social media presence. I see no real effort whatsoever to capture that audience.

And for those who argue there was no money, in the late '90's and early 00's, Francia Russell said several times in Q&A's that the PNB camera used to record archive performances was on the brink of extension, and they didn't have the $10K to replace it. Fast forward to 2008, and PNB got a $750K grant from the Wallace Foundation "for website re-design and expansion" as part of $7.7m granted to Seattle arts groups for new media and audience building projects, which they leveraged to include a robust video program and social media presence, was the subject of a young audience building study, and just received another $565K for the first cycle of a six-year Wallace Foundation initiative "to test the efficacy of creative involvement and cultural associations with new work, to generate a greater affinity among the millennial audience. PNB will build from a highly successfully program that has previously engaged teen and young adult audiences." There is money out there, perhaps not nearly enough, but a lot, and for those organizations who have strategy, vision, and initiative, ie. for those whose strategy for building young audiences is more than "Let Misty bring them in, and let's hope they stick."

If ABT is called "racist," the only new audiences/potential donors that ABT stands to lose are Copeland's new audiences and people who stray in on their own, due to lack of a strategy to actively build audiences. Donors are trickier, because, typically, younger people attend first and donate later, after they have more discretionary income, and it's an investment game.

But in the world beyond those who are in-the-know about the workings of ABT, the sense of a finite date has indeed been established, for example by articles such as the WSJ one that began this thread. (That's one of the things that I think is unfortunate about that article's appearance.) If others are promoted next week and Misty is not, there will be a sense that she has indeed been passed over, denied promotion. McKenzie could certainly say, "not ready yet, maybe later, we look forward to the day we can." But we all know that an organization rarely has complete control over its message.

The WSJ isn't the only one talking about this: most major critics have said, in effect, "Just do it."

I agree that the biggest risk would be to promote another ballerina, but not Copeland. (Were McKenzie to promote Hammoudi, for example, I don't think it would have the same impact.) I think it would be a mistake on McKenzie's part, but there are only a few numbers to count: donation $/trends, board composition, and ticket sales for Copeland's performances, before and after.

How do you calculate potential audience? The data isn't there to know whether generations earlier than baby boomers will follow the patterns on which arts organizations have come to rely and whether race is a big motivator? Before Copeland's story was prominent in the press, how many protests by allegedly socially liberal 20-somethings were there about the racial composition of ballet companies? There are better measurements of how this audience feels about gay rights, and if there was a groundswell accusing ABT of homophobic practices, and no gay Soloist could make Principal with the company, there's enough research to show that a groundswell could be expected.

When was the last time ABT has been in control of the message?

[nanushka]

Helene, I think this latest phase of this discussion was initiated when you wrote:

Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?

I've tried to offer one answer to that question.

ABT has made no effort to capture that audience with a website that was barely current when Bill Clinton was President, or to have a robust social media presence. I see no real effort whatsoever to capture that audience.

Yes, it's true that ABT has not made much of an apparent effort to attract younger audiences, and they're certainly far behind other many other arts organizations in attempting to do so. That doesn't mean it's not on their radar.

If ABT is called "racist," the only new audiences/potential donors that ABT stands to lose are Copeland's new audiences and people who stray in on their own, due to lack of a strategy to actively build audiences.

Certainly they stand to lose Copeland's new audiences, but I think they also stand to lose additional potential audiences in the future -- those who may not be actively drawn to ABT by Copeland's story but may yet be turned away from ABT by a taint of presumed racism. And again, just because we haven't seen obvious signs of a strategy doesn't mean that there is no strategy or that attracting new audiences in the short-to-medium-term isn't something they're thinking about.

How do you calculate potential audience? The data isn't there to know whether generations earlier than baby boomers will follow the patterns on which arts organizations have come to rely and whether race is a big motivator? Before Copeland's story was prominent in the press, how many protests by allegedly socially liberal 20-somethings were there about the racial composition of ballet companies?

You can't calculate potential audience, but that doesn't mean you don't think about it as something you want to attract or that you don't think about factors that may inhibit that attraction. Just because something is incalculable doesn't mean it's not a consideration in an institution's overall strategies.

There were no protests (so far as I'm aware) about the racial composition of ballet companies before Copeland's story became prominent -- nor have there been any of note since then (again, so far as I'm aware). (And I'm certainly not just talking about 20-somethings. I'm talking about any potential audience under the age of, say, 50. ABT, like every other arts organization, needs to do serious work in drawing in that demographic.) But I think it's at least possible that this could become a problem for ABT if Copeland is not promoted and if there's a sense out there that she has been denied the historic opportunity that many now believe she deserves. You seem to agree, when you say this:

I agree that the biggest risk would be to promote another ballerina, but not Copeland.

But I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

As you say:

The WSJ isn't the only one talking about this: most major critics have said, in effect, "Just do it."

And I didn't mean to imply that the WSJ was the only one -- not by a long shot. My point was precisely the fact that there's now a sense that a finite date is approaching -- even though, as you've pointed out, that sense is false. But there is a sense that, if Misty is not promoted as part of the season-end round of promotions, she will have been passed over and denied the promotion. My criticism of the WSJ article was not meant to suggest that they had created this sense -- just that they'd added to it and made it even more prominent than it already was.

Finally, you write:

When was the last time ABT has been in control of the message?

Not in as long as I can recall. But again, that doesn't mean they're not trying or that they have no strategy to control the message. It just means they're not successful. (And how often is any such entity wholly successful in that? That doesn't mean there's no attempt.)

So, to return to your question:

Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?

Those are some of my reasons why I think they would.

[kfw]

I don't think there's any proof that it's been a motivator to date.

I never claimed that he's feeling no pressure. I simply think that his behavior and decisions to date have shown that he has not made it a deciding factor.

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us.

If ABT is called "racist," the only new audiences/potential donors that ABT stands to lose are Copeland's new audiences and people who stray in on their own, due to lack of a strategy to actively build audiences.

If ABT is not just called but successfully labeled racist, then I think it's safe to say good people will run from it like they run from anything else racist.

[nanushka]

I don't think there's any proof that it's been a motivator to date.

I never claimed that he's feeling no pressure. I simply think that his behavior and decisions to date have shown that he has not made it a deciding factor.

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us.

The absence of proof is not proof of an absence.

[kfw]

The absence of proof is not proof of an absence.

That's right.

[Helene]

I don't know it could ever be proved, or could shown to be a deciding factor, unless he told us.

That he hasn't promoted her means he hasn't succumbed to pressure in the five years since the media has paid attention to her story, and in the 18 months since her book began to be publicized. In the last season his actions support a plausible alternative narrative that he is giving opportunities to her -- and not her exclusively -- that puts the performance quality in her hands on the biggest stage and allows him to evaluate them. Several major critics have weighed in to say she shouldn't have to reach a higher bar than recent promotions, and one said she's been auditioned enough already. If he promotes her, all of the groundwork has been done, and the stage is set.

Yes, it's true that ABT has not made much of an apparent effort to attract younger audiences, and they're certainly far behind other many other arts organizations in attempting to do so. That doesn't mean it's not on their radar.

And again, just because we haven't seen obvious signs of a strategy doesn't mean that there is no strategy or that attracting new audiences in the short-to-medium-term isn't something they're thinking about.

"On their radar" is irrelevant if they haven't even announced a plan, other than Project Plie, let alone put anything into action. Typically savvy arts organizations publicize their outreach and community efforts as much as possible, partly to justify foundation funding and individual donation requests.

The new audiences are not going to know that ABT is interested in them through telepathy or because of the misguided assumption that if you build it, they will come.

Certainly they stand to lose Copeland's new audiences, but I think they also stand to lose additional potential audiences in the future -- those who may not be actively drawn to ABT by Copeland's story but may yet be turned away from ABT by a taint of presumed racism.

It's possible, and it's possible that ballet lost additional potential audiences in the past because of discussion of eating disorders, and how many people did NYCB lose when it was published that Peter Martins was arrested for beating Darci Kistler? As to whether a charge of racism would be fatal in today's climate, the last year, Eric Garner was killed by the NYPD, and while removing the Confederate flag from state premises in SC is a promising development, I'm not as optimistic that it would matter as much as you fear.

I also think were McKenzie to hire three outside ballerinas, and there were feature articles about them, there would be people who wouldn't care about allegations of racism and would go see them. More Russian dancers hired? More tickets sold in the NY Russian community who won't buy a ticket to see Copeland, Abrera, Lane, Seo, or even Murphy.

I understand why you think it would be a risk for McKenzie to not promote Copeland after calls for her promotion, but it's the summer, and people have short memories. There's always something new to hijack the news. The press moves on, no matter how good a person's PR agent is.

However, while I don't think it is, sadly, much of a risk, I think of the scenarios, the biggest risk is one in which McKenzie promotes another female Soloist to Principal, but not Copeland.

[nanushka]

"On their radar" is irrelevant if they haven't even announced a plan, other than Project Plie, let alone put anything into action. Typically savvy arts organizations publicize their outreach and community efforts as much as possible, partly to justify foundation funding and individual donation requests.

The new audiences are not going to know that ABT is interested in them through telepathy or because of the misguided assumption that if you build it, they will come.

No argument here. My point was not that they're doing a good job of it. My point was merely that, like every other arts organization in the country right now, ABT is undoubtedly thinking about the problem of attracting new, younger audiences and donors. They may not be succeeding, and they may not be coming up with good strategies, and they may not be savvy enough to communicate those strategies even if they are coming up with them (I think we can all agree that ABT is not very good at marketing and outreach) -- but again, the absence of proof is not proof of an absence.

It's possible, and it's possible that ballet lost additional potential audiences in the past because of discussion of eating disorders, and how many people did NYCB lose when it was published that Peter Martins was arrested for beating Darci Kistler? As to whether a charge of racism would be fatal in today's climate, the last year, Eric Garner was killed by the NYPD, and while removing the Confederate flag from state premises in SC is a promising development, I'm not as optimistic that it would matter as much as you fear.

Again, no argument here. My point is not that failing to promote Copeland would be "fatal" to ABT. My point is that it's reasonable to think that ABT is concerned about the consequences of not promoting her.

I understand why you think it would be a risk for McKenzie to not promote Copeland after calls for her promotion, but it's the summer, and people have short memories. There's always something new to hijack the news. The press moves on, no matter how good a person's PR agent is.

I'm not so sure about this. The way media work today, things can flame up in unexpected and uncontrollable ways. But again, my point is not that that will happen; my point is that it's reasonable to think that it might, and that it's reasonable to think that ABT fears that it might. (Again, I'm answering the question, "Why would ABT care about certain members of the public concluding it was a racist employer?")

However, while I don't think it is, sadly, much of a risk, I think of the scenarios, the biggest risk is one in which McKenzie promotes another female Soloist to Principal, but not Copeland.

I'm honestly not sure of the extent to which it is, in fact, a risk -- but I agree that if there's a risk, this is it. [Edited: "if there's a risk, this is the possible outcome that poses the biggest risk."]

So what does this all add up to? For me, it goes back to kfw's earlier statement, much-disputed, which I think led us into this:

One doesn’t need to have seen someone dance to know a PR offensive [note: kfw has since said he would rephrase this to "PR campaign"] that includes accusations of racism and a false claim to singularity is an appeal to something besides merit, or to know that accusations of racism and racial groundbreaking are highly effective today. Copeland may have earned a promotion solely on merit (i.e. in McKenzie’s opinion may deserve it), but now we’ll never know. I think that’s unfortunate.

Is it reasonable to think that ABT is concerned about the impact of a failure to promote Misty at this time (particularly, as you've said, if another female soloist is promoted)? I think it is.

If Misty is promoted, will I assume that it is primarily due to those fears? No.

Will the true, full reason for that promotion, should it come, ever be known or even knowable? No.

Will there continue to be a belief, in many minds (note: I don't say mine), that Misty's promotion is due to ABT's fear of racist accusations? I think there will be.

Is it unfortunate that those beliefs will remain and will be basically impossible to dispel? I think it is.

Has Misty's PR campaign made it more likely that those doubts will linger? I think it quite possibly has.

[vipa]

I think KM with promote a number of people at once. There will be promotions to principal and soloist. Promoting only Copeland would raise questions on the part of many ballet goers (IMO). Promoting others but not Copeland would be noticed in a negative way by the press (with a little help by Copeland's PR machine). Anyway it really is past time fro some real movement in the ranks at ABT.

[Helene]

Amen to that.