New Administration Structure?

by:

Joe Patti

There is something interesting/puzzling going on locally with the Honolulu Symphony organizational structure. I was going to let Drew McManus over at Adaptistration because he is the authority on the strange world of orchestras. But dang it, the whole thing is making me curious so I gotta say something.

And if Drew doesn’t like it, well he is 5,000 miles away 😛 What’s he gonna do? He has friend here though. If you hear I got killed in a freak oboe accident, you will know it is him!

Anyway, enough jabbering here is the story.

Honolulu Symphony President Steven Bloom is stepping down apparently to leave symphony management altogether. The chair of the board will be taking over administrative duties until a replacement can be found. Here is the interesting part–they are going to appoint a volunteer CEO of the Symphony who will oversee whomever the replacement is.

According to the Honolulu Advertiser:

“As the symphony’s CEO, Cayetano would “oversee the administration of the symphony and … the president of the symphony would report to and be accountable to her,” Jackson said. “But her main role will be building the board and working on fund-raising.”

The interesting thing is this. Usually, the president/executive director of a non-profit answers to a volunteer board of directors of which there is a chair. The board sets policy and approves plans for the general direction of the organization. The president/executive director oversees the staff efforts in the execution of these general policies. Often he/she may go to the board for approval of a program the staff has proposed that will help in the pursuit of the organizational mission.

As the top administrator, the president/executive director is usually paid. However, the symphony is proposing an unpaid CEO position to whom this person will report. Presumably, the CEO will report to the board.

A bunch of questions come up. Since it ain’t easy running a symphony, how much time a week will the CEO be devoting to the job? Is the president pretty much doing the same as before, but essentially under more direct supervision of a board representative? Will the CEO oversee the staff then as well?

Is current president leaving because he resented the fact someone was being appointed to be his personal watchdog? (According to another article, the CEO position was the suggestion of an outside consultant.) If the person is only supervising the president, it could have that appearance.

But that might be better than the alternative where the CEO is supervising the whole staff. Since it is an unpaid position, the CEO might be part time and some decisions might have to be deferred for her return. Either that or any decision made by the president in her absence could end up conflicting with hers.

This is all wild speculation though. Knowing as little as I do, I wouldn’t normally give voice to it. However, I did want to take the opportunity to talk about possible pitfalls in such an arrangement since exploration of management decisions is part of the blog’s purpose.

Given that the board chair is only a part-time resident, it might be that they are just looking to have a consistent representative of the board authority on the island.

I am interested to see what the full story is. The articles talk about this person focussing on board development and fundraising. If the CEO is taking some of these responsibilities away from the President, I might applaud the move given my entry on how leaders don’t have the time to focus on the organizational future for all fundraising they must do.

Between Drew and myself, I am sure we will get the full story out sometime soon. (Actually, I shouldn’t speak for him. I don’t know if he is intrigued enough to pursue it himself. I am sure I will end up consulting him to put what I learn in context in any case.)

More Things Change…

by:

Joe Patti

I was reading today about how companies are trying to use graphic novels to get kids interested in reading. I was briefly filled with some hope, thinking that perhaps a child who read a graphic novel of a great work might become interested in seeing a play based on that work too.

Then I remembered it has been tried before.

In the 1940s, Classics Illustrated tried to turn great works into comic books. According to an entry on Toonopedia “The idea behind Classics Illustrated may have been to use the methods of the “enemy” against it, to expose young comic book readers to great literature, and thus awaken their intellectual appetites.”

According to Toonopedia, it didn’t work. There was too much book to squeeze into too few pages. Unfortunately, kids used the books as a substitute for reading the books. A woman who gave me some old Classics Illustrated told me they were the Cliffs Notes of her generation. (Ironically, Cliff Notes were the internet term paper mills of my generation.)

According to the graphic novel article, there seems to be a greater attempt to stay true to the stories and so readers should get more from them than the Classics Illustrated. Though I suspect kids will still hand in papers based on the adaptation rather than the original.

On the other hand, if it provides a degree of cultural literacy where none might exist without them, then bring on the comic books!

I was a monster reader to begin with, but I will admit, I first learned about Crispus Attucks (A black man, he was the first casualty of the American Revolution when he was killed at the Boston Massacre.), George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman and Johnny Cash’s destructive alcoholic life before he found Jesus because I picked up anything that looked like a comic book.

In the 30 years since I picked up the comic book on his life, I have seen Crispus Attucks named mentioned in books maybe 4 times. So in some regard, the medium might actually be more effective at communicating information about important, but generally overlooked people and subjects. The visual format might help students remember the subject matter too. I still remember that Attucks was very mechanically inclined because I can still recall the picture of him working on a clock.

Hard to weigh the pros and cons though. Promoting academic laziness by implying that a graphic novel can replace a book vs. offering visual stimulus to reinforce the information being learned.

Competing For Funding

by:

Joe Patti

One of the plusses about working for a university is that your position is more generally secure than comparable ones in other arts organizations. On the other hand, I have quite a few people working for me on a regular basis who aren’t in a funded position looking to their job for some degree of support.

In some cases, it is worse being part of a state funded institution because no one thinks you need donations. Because you are competing for government funding, it is rather difficult to cultivate one person from whom you can make an ask since there are legislators, governors and levels of college administrators who all get a say in how much you end up getting.

In my case, it is even worse. Today I had to make a pitch before faculty and staff as to why the priorities in my strategic plan action items deserve funding. They in turn get to vote on whether my suggestions get to be college priorities.

My problems are twofold:

1- There were only two people I counted at the assembly who weren’t pitching their own action plans. Thus I was talking to people who were going to vote for their own priorities. There wasn’t anyone in the room that there was any chance of convincing.

2- There were people there pitching to fund life altering programs like getting enough staffing to enable the rural poor to attend college. Even though I was looking to do rather worthy things, the least of which was to get the office clerk reclassified so that she is paid properly for the responsibilities she has been handling for 15 years, I couldn’t help but think my requests were frivolous.

Recalling that I had read something similar in Artsjournal.com’s “Is There a Better Case for the Arts” discussion, I hopped over there. It was pretty much the exact same story, an arts person went before a city council to ask for funding immediately after a group trying to reduce infant mortality rates.

Theatre Communication Group’s Executive Director, Ben Cameron, address this:

…pitting the arts against other causes IS a trap. For a healthy society, it should be a both/and and not an either/or. Many of the past questionnaires ask us to prioritize how we spend money–e.g. which is more important between infant mortality and the arts–rather than asking us to describe those characteristics that comprise a healthy society. If we could look at the latter, there would be room and a necessity of a creative approach to policy–one that seeks to promote a more holistic sense of national health in which the arts MUST be counted–rather than the traps of competing causes.

Going back and reading that won’t make me any more likely to be funded, but for me it provides a view of the world to advocate and work toward shaping.

Creating Your Competition

by:

Joe Patti

Ever on the look out for harbingers of change that may some day translate into problems or solutions for me, I have been following articles about the demise of Rock radio stations of late. A recent article in the NY Times has chronicled how the new rock format has disappeared from the largest radio markets in the country these last few months. At this point, NYC and Philly (and people are keeping on eye on LA) don’t have a new/alternative rock station because the Arbitron ratings were dropping and the station owners decided to change formats.

Now having lived in the NYC and Philly areas, I wasn’t an avid listener to either station. (I feel compelled at this juncture to make a shout out to listener supported WXPN in Philly) It is what has happened since that has aroused my interest.

When I said that NYC and Philly didn’t have new/alternative rock stations, I was sort of misstating the situation. It is more truthful to say they both don’t have terrestrial stations with that format.

The old crew from Y100 in Philly is now broadcasting over the internet from their bedrooms essentially at Y100Rocks.com They are scrambling to get funding to keep their shows streaming. Despite being out of work DJs with no physical radio station, they have attracted some fairly significant names to play a concert so they can make money and stay on the air. (I don’t believe they are a non-profit so it isn’t a fundraiser per se.)

In NYC, Viacom/Infinity took a different tack and moved their alternative rock programming to the internet at KRock2. I think KRock was a little smarter because they get to keep a segment of their listenership which they can now advertise to visually instead of just aurally because you have to go to their webpage to listen in.

The other reason is because I am thinking that internet/satellite radio is going to be the next phase of music delivery. iTunes provides you with the ability to buy music you already listen to, but the new stuff is gonna come from someone programming a mix.

FM may not even get the chance to become AM and have to find a format like talk radio to fill the airwaves because no one will be using AM/FM radio wave receivers anymore. This isn’t a matter of deciding you can afford to lose some of your customers to a competitor. This driving people to another delivery mode where there is no chance of them hitting the scan button and deciding to listen to your station again.

I can see has bits of this story makes it a metaphor for the arts in some respects and I will probably explore them in future entries.

There is another tale of possible unintentional self-sabotage in this story. Two of Y100s morning DJs left the station and were under a 6 month non-compete clause. However, a court just handed down a preliminary ruling that since the station changed formats the DJs can work in the market before the 6 months has elapsed because Radio One doesn’t own a competing Rock format station in Philly anymore.