Here's the "party line."<P>AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PUBLIC FROM<BR>NYCB'S CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD<P>I believe it is necessary to explain to our public and to all of our employees, especially our<BR>musicians, what the New York City Ballet has been attempting to accomplish in its<BR>negotiations with the musicians' union.<P>First, we all understand that ballet is a marriage of music and dance. It is the music that<BR>inspires the choreographer. Balanchine was himself an accomplished musician.<P>Second, our orchestra consists of highly skilled musicians who, when they perform music<BR>they have all rehearsed together, play beautifully and enhance both the dancers' performance<BR>and the audience's pleasure. We believe our musicians care deeply about their art. And we<BR>think it is tragic that they are not playing Tschaikovsky's glorious music right now.<P>Third, most musicians in most orchestras supplement their income with teaching and other<BR>performing assignments. Those activities, however, are expected to be scheduled around the<BR>musician's primary commitment to the regular orchestra in which they perform. Every<BR>orchestra contract so provides-except for ours.<P>Fourth, over the years, the members of the NYCB orchestra have decided on their own<BR>whether or when to attend either rehearsals or performances. Many of our musicians are<BR>consistently conscientious about attending both; some are not, with the result that some<BR>performances are not satisfactory, either because some musicians are unrehearsed or<BR>because substitutes are likewise unprepared. No dancer ever appears in a performance<BR>without rehearsing his or her role.<P>Fifth, we want to present the finest possible performance to our audience, which has grown<BR>in size and sophistication, and which knows excellent dancing and excellent musicianship.<BR>We realized it would be unrealistic and unfair to expect musicians to give up a pattern to<BR>which they have become accustomed, and which might affect their income or lifestyle. And<BR>so we sought a compromise with two basic ingredients:<P>1. As an incentive, we proposed to pay more money to those musicians who would<BR>voluntarily adhere to more conventional performance work rules.<P>2. We agreed that any present member of the orchestra who does not elect to accept the<BR>new work rules could continue under the old rules and receive the same compensation as<BR>heretofore, including negotiated annual increases. Money is not an issue in this work<BR>stoppage.<P>We realize that this means a significantly higher orchestra cost for NYCB, but we were<BR>prepared to incur that expense as a way of assuring consistent quality in performance. We<BR>also proposed that all new orchestra members would have to accept the new work rules. We<BR>realized that it might take years before we could achieve our ultimate objective, but we felt<BR>this was the fairest and most acceptable way of improving our performances without taking<BR>anything away from the present orchestra members-which we have no desire to do.<P>So why did our musicians go out on strike? The union negotiating committee appears to have<BR>misled its own members by not telling them that the new system would not have to apply to<BR>them unless they volunteered for it. We find it difficult to believe that the committee's position<BR>represents the best interests of the orchestra, which is composed of serious musicians,<BR>whom we know take pride in their artistry and can so skillfully perform the most intricate<BR>scores that NYCB uses for its ballets. Why hasn't the musicians' union seriously discussed<BR>with us the proposed work rule changes and given us the benefit of their views, if they think<BR>the proposal is too onerous in one way or another, instead of subjecting a dedicated arts<BR>organization to a totally unwarranted strike?<P>After the sudden unnecessary walkout at our gala opening last week, is it unreasonable for<BR>the NYCB to ask for a commitment that the musicians not arbitrarily walk out again during our<BR>performance year, either by agreeing to compulsory arbitration or a no-strike pledge for our<BR>winter and spring seasons?<P>Haven't we demonstrated our respect for our musicians and showed utmost good faith by<BR>asking for no concessions at all from any of them and offering them unprecedented<BR>inducements?<P>I wish someone could answer these questions. In the meantime, we want to assure Peter<BR>Martins and our management that the Board fully supports them. We also want to thank our<BR>wonderful dancers and stagehands and all the other staff who are enabling us to perform<BR>George Balanchine's The Nutcracker, and to share the joy and beauty of that masterpiece<BR>with the more than 120,000 grown-ups and children who will enjoy it this holiday season.<P>This is a stand for artistic quality. We are grateful to all those who have stood by us in this<BR>time, especially our audiences for their loyalty and understanding.<P>Howard Solomon<BR>Chairman of the Board<BR>New York City Ballet<BR>
|