Jump to content
abatt

Finlay Resigns, Catazaro and Ramasar Suspended -- Update: Catazaro and Ramasar Fired

Recommended Posts

It really depends. Tiler Peck entered the company in February 2005 when she just turned 16. 

Share this post


Link to post

I know very little about electronic devices beyond the basics.  Can someone tell me,  considering that according to the interview,  Ms. Waterbury had her phone with her and the battery was not dead (she was able to take screenshots) why would she need to access Finlay's computer to "check her email?  From the interview,  it appears that she was suspicious of Finlay cheating on her with other women and took the opportunity to search through his email to find evidence. 

As I surmised,  the "underage girls" referenced were dancers in the company,  not teenage groupies, which the language suggested.  I don't  see how it's significant that "the one thing that ties all these people together is NYCB and SAB."  (It's also inaccurate - there were dancers at ABT and PNB involved as well.)  That's where her boyfriend worked.  The same thing could have happened if he worked at Google. 

Edited by On Pointe
Corrected autocorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, On Pointe said:

I know very little about electronic devices beyond the basics.  Can someone tell me,  considering that according to the interview,  Ms. Waterbury had her phone with her and the battery was not dead (she was able to take screenshots) why would she need to access Finlay's computer to "check her email?  From the interview,  it appears that she was suspicious of Finlay cheating on her with other women and took the opportunity to search through his email to find evidence.

I'm not sure why it matters in the least what her particular reasons were — what matters first and foremost, so long as she wasn't breaking any laws, is what she found there — but as has already been explained on this thread it's very conceivable that she preferred to read and respond to emails on a laptop rather than on her phone, perhaps knowing that there would be a good number she'd need to deal with in a thorough manner (e.g. professional emails pertaining to her modeling work, etc.). That's just one possible explanation.

Share this post


Link to post

I read e-mails on my phone often enough, but if at all humanly possible, I prefer to respond on a keyboard. It's just much easier than tapping on tiny letters. When I'm on the move I'll use the phone. When I have access to a computer, I prefer to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I know very little about electronic devices beyond the basics.  Can someone tell me,  considering that according to the interview,  Ms. Waterbury had her phone with her and the battery was not dead (she was able to take screenshots) why would she need to access Finlay's computer to "check her email?  

If given a choice between dealing with my email on my phone and dealing with it on a computer with a keyboard, I would choose the computer every time, and I'm pretty adept at typing on glass with my thumbs. 

Share this post


Link to post

[Admin Mallet in Hand]

I will not explain this again:

Public-facing social media may be posted here if they are public-facing at the time it is posted.   Whether or not they were once public, they may not be raised, posted about, or discussed for the first time when they are no longer public, unless they are disclosed/discussed through official news.

The post with the violation has been removed, along with the rest of the discussion.

[Still Holding the Mallet]

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

So again about the hotel room...if this is true, NYCB has some 'splainin to do.  They should have fired him then.  How does destroying a hotel room not violate the code of conduct??

Accidents can happen,  which is why you have insurance.  Only water can do that amount of damage in a hotel setting.  It's possible that Finlay fell asleep with the water running.  If the destruction had been deliberate,  the insurance carrier would not have covered it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 

As I surmised,  the "underage girls" referenced were dancers in the company,  not teenage groupies, which the language suggested.  I don't  see how it's significant that "the one thing that ties all these people together is NYCB and SAB." 

That they were apprentices would tie her allegation that it's all one big happy connection within the Company more strongly, especially for a party held in a hotel room arranged and paid for by NYCB during a NYCB tour.

 

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

  (It's also inaccurate - there were dancers at ABT and PNB involved as well.)  That's where her boyfriend worked.  The same thing could have happened if he worked at Google. 

The complaint states that the PNB dancer is a former SAB student.  There are SAB-trained dancers at ABT, as well as other connections, such as Longhitano, but not exclusively.

 

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 From the interview,  it appears that she was suspicious of Finlay cheating on her with other women and took the opportunity to search through his email to find evidence. 

The latter, especially, is supposition stated as fact.   In the interview she describes these as texts, not emails, and people here have explained more than once the technology that would have made them visible when she logged onto his computer, so there was no need for her to search to find them.

If I were cheating on my partner, whether or not they were suspicious, or had confronted me before with their suspicions or evidence, I would be sure to have my devices on lockdown, not only to protect myself, but also the person on the other end of the conversations.  There would be no logical reason to give out my password.  If I did, I couldn't complain if I were nominated for the Darwin Award.

15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Accidents can happen,  which is why you have insurance.  Only water can do that amount of damage in a hotel setting.  It's possible that Finlay fell asleep with the water running.  If the destruction had been deliberate,  the insurance carrier would not have covered it.

The complaint said that Finlay and others had been fined $150,000 for damages to the hotel.   That would typically happen when the hotel's insurance wouldn't cover it.  Whether NYCB had insurance for incidents that happen when the Company is on the road hasn't been disclosed.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Helene said:

 

That they were apprentices would tie her allegation that it's all one big happy connection within the Company more strongly, especially for a party held in a hotel room arranged and paid for by NYCB during a NYCB tour.

 

The complaint states that the PNB dancer is a former SAB student.  There are SAB-trained dancers at ABT, as well as other connections, such as Longhitano, but not exclusively.

 

The latter, especially, is supposition stated as fact.   In the interview she describes these as texts, not emails, and people here have explained more than once the technology that would have made them visible when she logged onto his computer, so there was no need for her to search to find them.

If I were cheating on my partner, whether or not they were suspicious, or had confronted me before with their suspicions or evidence, I would be sure to have my devices on lockdown, not only to protect myself, but also the person on the other end of the conversations.  There would be no logical reason to give out my password.  If I did, I couldn't complain if I were nominated for the Darwin Award.

The complaint said that Finlay and others had been fined $150,000 for damages to the hotel.   That would typically happen when the hotel's insurance wouldn't cover it.  Whether NYCB had insurance for incidents that happen when the Company is on the road hasn't been disclosed.

What's wrong with NYCB dancers, including apprentices,  having a party?  Touring companies in particular tend to develop one big happy connection,  and there's nothing wrong with that either.

I agree that Finlay allowing Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer was a dumb move,  if it happened the way she describes.  So far,  we only have her version of events.

The complaint says the dancers were "fined";  in the interview,  Ms. Waterbury claims that NYCB's insurance carrier paid for the damage.  Neither version has any bearing on Finlay sharing photos of her.  Plenty of guys who do that kind of thing are otherwise upstanding citizens.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 

I agree that Finlay allowing Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer was a dumb move,  if it happened the way she describes.  So far,  we only have her version of events.

 

I think we can all agree giving passwords to anyone is a dumb idea yes. It will be interesting to hear his version of events. I wonder whether he has any contrasting evidence to her story.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Neither version has any bearing on Finlay sharing photos of her.  Plenty of guys who do that kind of thing are otherwise upstanding citizens.  

I'm sure plenty of guys who share photos are otherwise upstanding citizens.  Given the statistics on the number of boys and girls who will be abused sexually by the age of 18, for example, there are plenty of otherwise upstanding citizens running around town. 

Whether having had to have the Company's insurer pay out for damages to a hotel on tour indicates behavior that should have been a red flag to NYCB that they were fostering an environment where otherwise upstanding citizens were encouraged to behave badly, that's for Merson to establish in court. 

The kind of insurance NYCB contracted hasn't been disclosed.  There are many kinds of insurance covering many kinds of situations, some specific and/or time-limited, and some more general. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I agree that Finlay allowing Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer was a dumb move,  if it happened the way she describes.  So far,  we only have her version of events.

I think it's fairly common between couples to use each other's computers depending on what room they're in. (Purses in the old days – I once heard Susan Sontag, in a bookstore in New York, giggle and say to her partner, "oh Annie, I think my card is in your purse!") Anyway a friend of mine had a version of the Waterbury revelation happen to him when he looked at his email on his partner's computer – which was in the kitchen – and when he opened the first screen, his partner's emails and arrangements for secret dates immediately popped up.

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently Waterbury and Finlay had a volatile relationship - in the interview she says when she first confronted him,  she wanted to know "if he was going to lie to me again".  He had to have known that she was already suspicious of him,  making the idea that he gave her his password even more stupid,  or more unlikely.  They had been together for some time at that point.  One would think he might have given it to her before the date she cites.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Apparently Waterbury and Finlay had a volatile relationship - in the interview she says when she first confronted him,  she wanted to know "if he was going to lie to me again".  He had to have known that she was already suspicious of him,  making the idea that he gave her his password even more stupid,  or more unlikely.  They had been together for some time at that point.  One would think he might have given it to her before the date she cites.

She says in the interview that she has the text in which he gave her the password.  If how she got into his computer becomes an issue in court, the existence or not of this text should come up in deposition and/or trial.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, nanushka said:

One of her interview responses would seem to clarify that "underage" means under 18 (given that they were apprentices):

ETA:   @tutu has corrected me on this, it seems "underage" may indeed have meant under 21.

According to the SAB website (below) apprentices are between 16-18 years old and can only remain apprentices for one year. The website may be old (it says Peter Martins invites the dancers to be apprentices). I also remember Unity Phelan saying in an online interview that you now had to be 17 to be an apprentice.  That would make the apprentices at the party somewhere in the 17-20 year old range.

https://www.sab.org/winterterm/career_planning/nycb_apprentice_program.php

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If given a choice between dealing with my email on my phone and dealing with it on a computer with a keyboard, I would choose the computer every time, and I'm pretty adept at typing on glass with my thumbs. 

Which makes it all the more curious that evidently the very first time Ms. Waterbury asked to use Finlay's computer,  he was in a cab on his way to the airport.

I think we all agree that Finlay was a cad and Ms. Waterbury has every right to be angry with him and make him pay to the fullest extent possible.  I just don't  buy the idea put forth in her suit that the supposed culture of NYCB and SAB make them responsible in any way for what he did.  The investigation into the background of SCOTUS  nominee Brett Kavanaugh  describes a "frat boy" atmosphere and antics at his all-boys Catholic prep school,  and at Yale University that far outstrip anything the ballet dancers got into regarding alcohol and maltreatment of females.  Yet Dr. Ford is not blaming Georgetown Prep,  Deborah Ramirez isn't blaming Yale for their alleged treatment.  (It's telling that previous nominee Neil Gorsuch  went to the same school,  but has never been accused of misbehavior.  Schools and employers can only control so much.  It's individuals who are responsible for their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Which makes it all the more curious that evidently the very first time Ms. Waterbury asked to use Finlay's computer,  he was in a cab on his way to the airport.

It's not all that unusual to forget something important when someone is getting ready to get out of town, but that would have given him the perfect opportunity to ignore her request, since it's easier to ignore an electronic request than a face-to-face one.

Regardless of our viewpoints, we're not going to be determining whether institutions are responsible, though: it's the court, at least on the current trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Which makes it all the more curious that evidently the very first time Ms. Waterbury asked to use Finlay's computer,  he was in a cab on his way to the airport.

From the interview:

"AW: I was literally just checking my email. I had slept over the night before, and he had to leave for the airport early in the morning. He had given me the password to his computer — I have the text where he sent the password to me. A message popped up on screen and it was…pretty vulgar."

I dunno. It doesn't sound to me like this was necessarily the first time Waterbury had asked to use Finlay's computer. Nor does she say when he texted her the password: it could've been that morning, it could have been some other morning. Or, it might have been the first time he wasn't around to enter the password himself to unlock it for her. Or, she might have forgotten it and had to ask for it again. Or, he might have changed it and forgotten to give her the new one before he left. 

I'm not sure why it matters. He appears to have given her the password willingly and she used it. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, On Pointe said:

  Yet Dr. Ford is not blaming Georgetown Prep,  Deborah Ramirez isn't blaming Yale for their alleged treatment.  (It's telling that previous nominee Neil Gorsuch  went to the same school,  but has never been accused of misbehavior.  Schools and employers can only control so much.  It's individuals who are responsible for their actions.

This gets us far afield from the precise issues in the Waterbury case. And the particular cases you mention would have to look at those institutions some 30 years ago ... but in fact there are all kinds of institutional criticisms/discussions and even title 9 investigations around sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape on college campuses. (Some people reading here may know the film the Hunting Ground which deals with a range of sexual misconduct on college campuses and institutional responses to those behaviors that have allowed the worst of them to persist. And it discusses Title 9 suits brought by students. The same filmmakers made a film about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape among personnel in the military and the military's responses to it--The Secret War; the Secretary of Defense at the time (Panetta) had a screening of it; he didn't say, "well, that happens everywhere so we don't need to look at how/why it happens in the military." Nor did he claim military exceptionalism "well, you can't be surprised that soldiers rape.")  

And systemic critique has never meant that everyone who attends a school or every employee at a workplace participated in problematic behavior.

But whatever one's own view of institutional (or systemic) criticisms, it would be incorrect to think that there have been no attempts to pursue them AND reforms -- sometimes through the courts or through government -- when it comes to universities. It has led to mandated Title 9 training and such-like.  In universities, that is, many people and institutions are looking at systemic issues around sexual misconduct that impact women especially -- though not exclusively. Of course, under the current administration Title 9 is being handled differently than under the previous one. (I don't know the details about the differences; but have seen articles addressing it.)

I think everyone understands that it is tricky to find the right balance in all these issues--what is useful reform, what is useless hand-wringing or government/institutional over-reach; what is helpful and what, in fact, perpetuates the problems it sets out to solve. (I've at least once seen what I think of as the last...) But I also think that a complete absence of systemic/institutional critique stands no chance of leading to better workplaces and schools. Especially when you can show that workplaces/institutions often have been protecting the individuals that create the problems and, in some cases, commit crimes--as I believe has been shown in the case of universities. Edited to add: Institutions are shaped by individuals--absolutely--but one doesn't have to be a sociologist (or a dialectician) to understand that it's "vice versa" too. Both can be true.

What's any of that have to do with Waterbury's case and NYCB? What I wrote above was exclusively a response to the remarks I quoted, not a comment on her case.  Still...

Does one have to wait until actual sexual assault is involved before it pays to look at larger issues in any institution? Does the fact that problems occur in all kinds of institutions mean that no institutions have any responsibility ever? And are there really no systemic or broader issues at New York City Ballet that might be addressed? As we all have repeated ad nauseam the courts will decide on the legal standing of the suit against NYCB and the three dancers named. As for moral or professional issues that may not rise to the level of legal ones...I hardly think it's an outlier position or...uh...."fascist"  to hope that NYCB is doing some internal review and self-interrogation in the wake of this mess and the coming change of leadership. Perhaps SAB as well. The fact that these are GREAT artistic institutions--essential ones as far as I am concerned--seems to me to make it more not less important.

(I'm assuming the allegation about rape in the suit, though it may represent something Waterbury heard and therefore believes to be pertinent, would be difficult to prove, and I prefer to leave it out of this discussion until/unless there were to be a lot more information.)

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Drew said:

This gets us far afield from the precise issues in the Waterbury case. And the particular cases you mention would have to look at those institutions some 30 years ago ... but in fact there are all kinds of institutional criticisms/discussions and even title 9 investigations around sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape on college campuses. (Some people reading here may know the film the Hunting Ground which deals with a range of sexual misconduct on college campuses and institutional responses to those behaviors that have allowed the worst of them to persist. And it discusses Title 9 suits brought by students. The same filmmakers made a film about sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape among personnel in the military and the military's responses to it--The Secret War; the Secretary of Defense at the time (Panetta) had a screening of it; he didn't say, "well, that happens everywhere so we don't need to look at how/why it happens in the military." Nor did he claim military exceptionalism "well, you can't be surprised that soldiers rape.")  

And systemic critique has never meant that everyone who attends a school or every employee at a workplace participated in problematic behavior.

But whatever one's own view of institutional (or systemic) criticisms, it would be incorrect to think that there have been no attempts to pursue them AND reforms -- sometimes through the courts or through government -- when it comes to universities. It has led to mandated Title 9 training and such-like.  In universities, that is, many people and institutions are looking at systemic issues around sexual misconduct that impact women especially -- though not exclusively. Of course, under the current administration Title 9 is being handled differently than under the previous one. (I don't know the details about the differences; but have seen articles addressing it.)

I think everyone understands that it is tricky to find the right balance in all these issues--what is useful reform, what is useless hand-wringing or government/institutional over-reach; what is helpful and what, in fact, perpetuates the problems it sets out to solve. (I've at least once seen what I think of as the last...) But I also think that a complete absence of systemic/institutional critique stands no chance of leading to better workplaces and schools. Especially when you can show that workplaces/institutions often have been protecting the individuals that create the problems and, in some cases, commit crimes--as I believe has been shown in the case of universities. Edited to add: Institutions are shaped by individuals--absolutely--but one doesn't have to be a sociologist (or a dialectician) to understand that it's "vice versa" too. Both can be true.

What's any of that have to do with Waterbury's case and NYCB? What I wrote above was exclusively a response to the remarks I quoted, not a comment on her case.  Still...

Does one have to wait until actual sexual assault is involved before it pays to look at larger issues in any institution? Does the fact that problems occur in all kinds of institutions mean that no institutions have any responsibility ever? And are there really no systemic or broader issues at New York City Ballet that might be addressed? As we all have repeated ad nauseam the courts will decide on the legal standing of the suit against NYCB and the three dancers named. As for moral or professional issues that may not rise to the level of legal ones...I hardly think it's an outlier position or...uh...."fascist"  to hope that NYCB is doing some internal review and self-interrogation in the wake of this mess and the coming change of leadership. Perhaps SAB as well. The fact that these are GREAT artistic institutions--essential ones as far as I am concerned--seems to me to make it more not less important.

(I'm assuming the allegation about rape in the suit, though it may represent something Waterbury heard and therefore believes to be pertinent, would be difficult to prove, and I prefer to leave it out of this discussion until/unless there were to be a lot more information.)

All that you posted is sadly too true,  about colleges and the military.  However Ms. Waterbury  and Merson could not cite even one comparable case,  even anonymously,  at SAB.  There is little evidence that there is systemic,  widespread sexual misconduct occurring at the school.  Just because it happens elsewhere does not mean the SAB staff needs to do some kind of soul searching and interrogation at their school.  Any sexual activity at the school appears to be entirely consensual,  between students,  and while the school may frown on it,  there's little they can or should do about it.

And no,  I don't  think  there are any systemic issues at NYCB that can be addressed by management.  Adults are going to behave like adults,  which means they will sometimes behave badly.  It's got nothing to do with the "culture" of ballet.  Ms. Waterbury's  personal problem with a boyfriend who happens to be a ballet dancer is not a ballet issue.  It's a Chase Finlay issue.

Edited by On Pointe
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, tutu said:

Shiffon, a jewelry brand “for good,” has posted a Q&A with Waterbury. The interview has more context from Waterbury’s perspective, including some discussion of why she filed and the way the events and lawsuit have impacted her life.

2

This is such an odd locale for an interview - if Waterbury really wanted an audience, I'm sure digital outlets like Teen Vogue, Bustle, Jezebel or Babe.net that are popular with young feminists would have been more than happy to speak with her and bring her message to many more people.  

The article reads like a way to get out in front of Finlay's upcoming response to her lawsuit. Clearly Waterbury expects him to claim invasion of privacy because she shuffled through his computer. 

I also noticed that she put Finlay's struggles with drugs and alcohol on the public record. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

I also noticed that she put Finlay's struggles with drugs and alcohol on the public record. 

 

The complaint included his alcohol use and providing alcohol and drugs at the hotel party.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Helene said:

The complaint included his alcohol use and providing alcohol and drugs at the hotel party.

Yes, but usage at a single party is very different than someone who has "drinking and drug problems" to quote Waterbury's interview. 

Addiction is a medical condition, and disclosing someone else's medical condition can run afoul of privacy laws. It's similar to saying NYCB "knew he had ADD" or "knew he had cancer." 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Yes, but usage at a single party is very different than someone who has "drinking and drug problems" to quote Waterbury's interview. 

Addiction is a medical condition, and disclosing someone else's medical condition can run afoul of privacy laws. It's similar to saying NYCB "knew he had ADD" or "knew he had cancer." 

If they were a couple for that length of time, she would have also known about his 'drinking and drug problems' too.

I wonder why she didn't get him help or why she stayed with him if he was such a bad person allegedly.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, KayDenmark said:

This is such an odd locale for an interview - if Waterbury really wanted an audience, I'm sure digital outlets like Teen Vogue, Bustle, Jezebel or Babe.net that are popular with young feminists would have been more than happy to speak with her and bring her message to many more people.  

But maybe they wouldn't offer her (and her lawyer) complete editorial approval and "Shiffon" would. 

The article reads like a way to get out in front of Finlay's upcoming response to her lawsuit. Clearly Waterbury expects him to claim invasion of privacy because she shuffled through his computer.

 

Waterbury has been featured before as a representative for the Shiffon brand--I assume as part of her modeling career. At least I found something from April 2018 for a series called "What's in my Jewelry Box." It's marketing but the format is an interview that discusses Waterbury's life as well as her jewelry.

On their website Shiffon says: "More than just a jewelry brand, Shiffon aims to be a supportive, powerful network for women." If they want to promote their business that way, then it's not entirely surprising they would do another feature on Waterbury now, especially in view of other ways they have promoted themselves, including a "duet pinky ring" that is supposed to symbolize their message and which Nicole Kidman and Shailene Woodley wore at the 2017 Emmy's. They say they "are donating 50% of the sales of the rings to seed grants for start-ups around the world whose mission it is to support, uplift, educate or promote the well-being, safety, health and general advancement of women and girls."

I only know this because I looked them up and stumbled across the following article which describes the company as a collective of 8 undergraduates  (as of the date of the article which is September 2017): 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccasuhrawardi/2017/09/18/hollywood-a-listers-are-part-of-a-quiet-movement-and-its-supporters-are-wearing-this-ring/#7e9a6d7c5d68

46 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

If they were a couple for that length of time, she would have also known about his 'drinking and drug problems' too.

I wonder why she didn't get him help or why she stayed with him if he was such a bad person allegedly.

Does it really puzzle you that she would stay with him even knowing about drinking and drug issues? I'm thinking that if I had a nickle for every person I knew who stayed in a problematic relationship hoping it would get better, I could afford to see a lot more ballet than I do...maybe even start my own ballet company....

Especially when the problems are related to drugs or drinking, people overlook, hope things will get better, excuse etc. ...I don't have to add in all the other factors (age difference, former SAB student and principal with New York City Ballet), because it's just very common. One sees even sophisticated, experienced, older people who stay in relationships that have serious problems. For all kinds of reasons, good and bad. (Sometimes it IS worth it to stick out a tough time in a relationship.) From what she says, she got out of the relationship when she found out about the texting and photo sharing etc.

Who knows if she tried to get him help or not? Or if she fully grasped how serious his drinking/drug problems were when they were together (assuming his problems were serious)? Given the age and life-experience gap, it's always possible--I myself think more than possible--that there was a power imbalance in the relationship as well and there are dozens of other possible reasons why things would play out the way they seem to have done. 

Finlay a "bad person allegedly"? Not necessarily -- he did bad things "allegedly" -- that's a little different.

Edited by Drew
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...