Hubbub

[This is the second in a series of posts about my experience with the Federal Way Symphony. The previous post is: Federal Way Symphony Part 1: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.]

Over the 25+ year reign of the music director, the Federal Way Symphony became known throughout the Seattle-Tacoma region for mistreating musicians, particularly wind players. The orchestra’s reputation was so infamous that it had difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified players both in sub and regular positions. Too many good musicians had been abused, handled unprofessionally, and purged. For those of us who remained committed, particularly in the woodwind section, the enjoyment of playing regularly with other fine musicians won out–barely–over frequent mistreatment and abuse.

Circumstances changed radically midway through the 2006-07 season when the personnel manager was fired. She had shielded musicians from many of the music director’s capricious and ill-conceived demands; that the wind section had any consistency of personnel was a testament to her management abilities. In contrast, the newly hired personnel manager proved shockingly deficient in a variety of critical skills including: communication, understanding of employment law, and contracting and managing an orchestra.

Within this context, a chain of events started that culminated in the loss of three quarters of the woodwind section along with players from other sections, details of which are described in a subsequent post. What follows below is a timeline that begins shortly after the new personnel manager took over and ends with a dramatic walk out at the first rehearsal of the 2007-08 season.

• First concert of 2007 was scheduled for early March. Two weeks prior to start of rehearsals, the woodwind section became aware that the personnel manager had replaced a flute player who had been contracted months earlier. The replacement was made without consulting any wind principals (or other players) and the replaced player was never compensated. Through a flurry of communications involving the winds and personnel manager, we asked that principals always be consulted prior to hiring subs and that the orchestra honor its commitments to players. No structural changes were made to prevent a similar situation in the future.
• About 10 musicians (20% of orchestra) participated in discussions on how to improve the situation. The concensus was that a contract with industry-standard definitions, policies, and procedures was critical to improving working conditions. We had no illusions about the organization’s financial situation and so it was universally agreed that the contract should be revenue neutral. I was nominated to speak with the Board and the music director; to ask for a contract; and to offer help writing a contract that would be in the best interests of musicians as well as the organization.
• I called the executive director to get guidance on contacting the board. The executive director said that this was considered an artistic issue and that the board would not get involved. I would need to speak with the music director.
• Next I called the music director. We had an amicable conversation during which we agreed it was in everyone’s best interest to have a stable roster of musicians and an employment relationship backed by a contract. However, my offer to help craft a contract was firmly rejected and the MD said he would create the contract.
• Leading up to the final regular concert in April, the personnel manager was more collaborative and responsive. I was not aware of any further replacements.
• The orchestra’s next performance was an August fund-raiser–an outdoor pops concert. The personnel manager checked players’ availability by email but did not contact the regular second oboist. Once again the wind section was disturbed to find that a regular player had been slated for replacement without apparent reason or communication with other wind players.
• Less than four weeks before the first concert (October) of the 2007-08 season, the personnel manager sent an email to the entire orchestra that included a date/rate sheet and “General Player Contract.” The pay rate was left blank and we were asked to sign and return the contract with the understanding that the rate would be filled in later. Aside from this absurd request, the General Player Contract was a poor excuse for a contract. It contained none of the industry-standard definitions, policies, and procedures that are customary in musician contracts.
• An anonymous email was sent to the entire orchestra detailing problems with the contract. For the record, I did not initiate the idea, send the email, or cause the email to be sent.
• A group of (primarily wind) players, including me, sent responses to the executive director and the personnel manager. We stated our availability and wish to continue playing with FWS but respectfully declined to sign the contract. Several of us included the bullet points explaining problems with the contract. The Board ignored us and again refused to get involved.
• At this point, each musician’s experience is somewhat different. Some were sent a new contract proposal that was a vast improvement over the first, but still far short of what was needed. In my case, the music director assumed that I was responsible for the anonymous email and, for that reason, that I was to be replaced (although this was not communicated to me until I arrived at the first rehearsal). The second contract was not sent to me and the personnel manager ignored my daily emails asking how to obtain music and to know the repertoire, which was not posted on the website or communicated by any other means. It is very important to know that the personnel manager had a history of not replying to email queries from musicians. Thus the lack of response was not considered unusual and no inference could be made.
• Three days before the first rehearsal, the personnel manager sent me and several other musicians an email which contained an open letter from the Board president. This letter was addressed to “Federal Way Symphony Orchestra players” and seemed to re-confirm my status with the orchestra. Since one player I knew had received music, I knew that Tchaikovsky Fifth Symphony was programmed and I spent time on the weekend preparing from a personal copy of the part.
• Monday evening, I drove the 50 minutes from Seattle to Federal Way, walked into rehearsal, and found a replacement player sitting in my seat. The same happened to the second oboist.

It was obvious that the music director planned to purge the people he perceived to be responsible for “stirring up trouble.” What was inexcusable was the manner in which it was done, which was designed to humiliate and belittle us. We were led to believe that our status with the orchestra had not changed and that we should attend the rehearsal. Upon finding our chairs occupied, we would disappear and thereby serve as an example to the rest of the orchestra.

We did not disappear silently. See the next post in this series to find out what happened that evening.