JSPA Response to Symphony Board President’s Dec. 18 Update

Dec. 19, 2007

At the last negotiating session on December 14, the musicians’ negotiating committee made an offer which constituted a reduction in their previous position amounting to $1,250,000, abandoning increases and moving within $65,000/year of the Association’s proposal, or $330,000 over five years.   On the symphony’s website, Mr. Van Vleck wrote, “The fiscally responsible annual transfer from endowment to each year’s operating budget is 5% of the endowment’s June 30 balance.”   However, the record shows that the draw was less than 5% in four of the last five years.   And the 2007 endowment draw was 4.5% ($650,000 out of $14,427,228).   The difference between a 4.5% and 5% draw is $72,000, more than enough to bridge the difference between the two positions.

Mr. Van Vleck also states, “In support of this purpose, the Board continues to honor the endowment donors’ intent by limiting the draw to 5%.”   This implies that the Board has never drawn more than 5%, which is clearly false.   In 2004, for example, the draw was 7.2%, and in 2001 it was 7%.

The reason given for the lockout was to save money.   According to the Association’s own figures for musician expenses, the lockout as of this date has saved $346,000.   In spite of this, they now state that there have been no savings.   Because of concessions in the last contract, salary increases need to be viewed in the context of the one before that one.   In 2002, the base salary was $32,528.   In the Association’s proposed contract, the ending salary in 2012, would be $40,156, or an increase of around 2% annually over an 11 year period.   Over the same timeframe, this amounts to a total of $7,628, or $694 per year.   Even at the end of 2012, the salary of nearly two-thirds of the musicians would be well under the $43,660 that Mr. Van Vleck claims to be the current average.   It is quite insensitive of Mr. Van Vleck to discount a bold move on the part of the musicians’ negotiating committee to forgo holding the line with inflation with modest salary increases and instead offer to accept a pay freeze for three years, and a reduction in pension that does not rebound at the end of the five years.

The musicians never claimed they took two pay cuts, only that they accepted two.   The failure to agree on concessions in 2003 represents some of the residual mistrust the musicians have regarding the Board.   That year, musicians agreed to concessions in the amount of $200,000, yet were blindsided at the Annual Meeting when it was inaccurately announced that they had not agreed to concessions.   Though the two parties had reached a tentative agreement, no one from the Association bothered to tell the musicians that they had changed their minds, or offered a counterproposal for consideration prior to this announcement.   In the four intervening years until September 2007 no explanation was given by the Association for its rejection.   Even then, the Symphony Association’s negotiating team changed its rationale for the 2003 reopener rejection, first saying it was because of onerous working condition demands, then saying two days ago it was because it did not achieve their desired balanced budget.

Mr. Van Vleck stated, “To surrender to an outside third party arbitrator the decisions that will shape the future of our Symphony is an irresponsible abandonment of the joint responsibilities of the Association and Musicians to reach agreement...”   In light of how close our positions now are, the association’s threat that it might cancel the season would be an even greater form of “irresponsible abandonment” and would be a betrayal of the community’s cultural heritage.