In March, while the fight was still raging between Parsons and the musicians over a 23% pay cut for the musicians as well as some other issues surrounding outreach and community involvement, Parsons got her contract extension with the DSO board wrapped up and then kept under wraps, waiting until after breaking the strike and the spring concert series to announce her contract extension. And who could blame her considering that announcing the fact that she was being brought back for exactly the same pay would have given the musicians even more resolve to wait out Parsons and the board?
Parsons reportedly makes close to $300,000 per year along with a long list of fringe benefits, not the least of which is the house she lives in. I haven't looked deeply into top-tier orchestra management salaries of late, but that doesn't sound out of the ordinary, for better or worse. So by pure market value of experienced top-level management, I'm sure that it's reasonable for the level of management talent we're discussing. Of course, the argument that Detroit would lose its status as a first class orchestra if it made such drastic cuts was summarily dismissed by management, so why would the market for management talent be different? But this isn't purely a factor of economics.
Parsons already has an image as a union-breaker given her role in the strike and her intransigence in negotiating, even when top politicians and mediators came in to try to help put an end to the long dispute. The loss of Emmanuelle Boisvert, the long-time concertmaster of the DSO, to Dallas where she will be willingly taking a demotion to associate concertmaster, as well as the loss of other musicians towards the end of the strike, showed the lack of trust and confidence already prevalent among the musicians.
So now, how can these musicians that finally bowed to time and accepted that huge 23% cut in pay possibly feel to this latest slap in the face that Parsons will force them to take hugely painful cuts without bothering to take any of her own?
Would $69,000 make everything at the DSO better? Of course not. But one of the constant refrains before and throughout the strike from Parsons was the need for more outreach and community programming, a fact I strongly supported. $69,000 would certainly make an impact on expanding such programs. I could still think of many interesting things to do with $69,000 that would help reach out to new audiences.
More important though is the sense of shared sacrifice that was asked of the musicians that Parsons abandons completely here. After all, if the average musician was making just over $100,000 (about a third of what Parsons makes), each individual musician's share of about $23,000 that they sacrificed won't make or break the orchestra either. It's the shared sacrifice together that makes it possible for the orchestra to realign itself, but it's not one that Parsons contributes to in any real sense.
This is why artists rail against arts management so often. This is where the accusations that we're exploiting their work to make money for ourselves comes from. Parsons shows with such a simple misstep that she doesn't believe in supporting artists, just institutions. This makes it just a little bit harder on the rest of us that are working to ensure that starving artists are a thing of the past to earn the trust of the artists we work so hard to support.
This comes down to my favorite topic on this blog, loyalty. This move shows a complete lack of leadership on Parsons' part, and in the aftermath of the strike, she needs to be rebuilding loyalty if the rest of her programming has a real chance to help rebuild the audience base and expand into new audiences. She needs willing and enthusiastic collaboration with the musicians that decide to stick it out.
Let's assume for a moment that her salary is deserved for those "deep connections within the national funding community" among other things. Fundraising is going to be a critical part of rebuilding the orchestra's position in Detroit and the world stage. There's still a chance for her to lead here, to make a very substantial commmitment to the orchestra and its musicians.
So I call on Parsons to donate 23% of her salary back to the orchestra as long as the musicians also must sacrifice for the health of the organization. Parsons is already a donor, as I'd hope all arts managers would be to the organizations they love and support, but at a more modest 3-7% level according to the article.
This is a chance for her to make a powerful statement to the musicians, to donors spooked by the strike, to those national funders to which she has deep connections that she believes in the orchestra, in the city, and in the long-term strength of the organization and its mission. This would allow her to match action to her words. And as it would be a voluntary effort, it may even mean more, in the end, than had the DSO board done its fiduciary and moral responsibility and reduced her salary through negotiations.
If you also believe that Parsons should donate an amount equal to the sacrifice she asks of her musicians, say so in the comments below. Show your support to have Parsons donate her shared sacrifice, and maybe it can convince her that she needs to take action to earn back the loyalty of the musicians.
Subscribe to ArtsAppeal and have it delivered right to Google Reader or your favorite RSS feed here.
$300,000 in salary and benefits does not get Parsons into the top ten orchestra managers. But despite all claims to the contrary, it's hard to imagine Detroit as a top-ten orchestra, ever again. She should give back a sizable chunk of her salary, because it should now be benchmarked against the second tier.
ReplyDeleteThat said, she will have earned it if she can again spur on the revenue improvement they enjoyed in Atlanta.
When I took over as the ED of a struggling museum a month ago and had to make cuts, I took those cuts (20%) alongside my staff. Then, I bought two (cheap) bottles of champagne. I labeled one "$50,000 operating reserve" and the other "$100,000 operating reserve." When we hit $50k in the bank, we'll open the first one and go up 10%. When we hit $100k, we'll open the second and we'll all go back up to full salaries.
ReplyDeleteI did this to support my staff and to have a visual reference point for the fact that we are all in this together and that we'll be transparent about what happens next. But it's also a great fundraising strategy. People come in my office, see the champagne bottles on the desk, and I have an easy way to start talking with them about the sacrifice we're making as a team and what we're trying to achieve. Never let a good crisis go to waste, right?
Great post David. there's another angle to view here in that an organization with a substantially lower budget means lower executive responsibilities. So when factoring in those variables, a pay freeze can actually become a raise due to lowered expectations.
ReplyDeleteFor Anonymous and others:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Crain's Detroit Business article on Anne Parsons renewed contract, Anne's total benefit package for 2009 was $414,541.
While that figure is not out of line with other Top Ten Orchestra Compensation packages, the Detroit Symphony is no longer a Top Ten Orchestra if that ranking is based on salary.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110606/FREE/110609919#
One can argue that Ms Parsons has the right to negotiate the best possible contract she can.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find inexcusable is that the DSO Board of Directors gave her this contract! The musicians should be furious.
Oh Ann!!! This is downright shameful in the extreme. Seriously? You are taking all that money after what you did to our orchestra?? What in the hell is going ON here?? Whoever allows this sort of thing to go on has no regard for the DSO.
ReplyDeleteInstitutions like first tier orchestras develop a "brand" from the ensemble's artistic product. So-called managers like Parsons seize the brand and try to label and sell other product with it. There is nothing wrong with that - except when the original product becomes subsidiary. The LAO has a proclivity for "managers" that don't have the creativity to figure out how to sell a first tier orchestra, but have the charisma to convince boards that they know what is best.
ReplyDeleteMost boards want to believe they are hiring managers that will do what is best, but I question that in Detroit. They basically threw the musicians under the bus. Since the institution's brand and reputation was already established, they could now sell product that was cheaper to produce.
None of them seem to have the foresight to determine that the brand and reputation is going to suffer if they pursue the "new model". They think that the typical audience member is not going to know the difference between a first tier orchestra and a second tier - and perhaps they are correct. While the typical audience member does not determine the reputation, you can bet they are influenced by it. I've been to three DSO concerts since the strike. They are nowhere near first tier performance, which is due mostly to the large number of subs being used. If things stay this way, the reputation will suffer - and all the other products being branded as part of a first tier organization will loose their luster.
Thousands of people came to DSO concerts to hear Emmanuelle - and her colleagues. No one ever showed up to hear Anne Parsons.
If Parsons did "donate" some of her salary back, I for one would be skeptical that she would recoup it by some other means. The best thing she could do for the DSO is to leave before she can do any more damage.
This article hits the nail on the head. There is so much wrong with the DSO Management in Detroit, and Anne Parsons is the symbol of it all. The hidden contract, while the musicians were taking deep cuts; the six month strike; the complete failure to appreciate the musicians who made up this once great orchestra. I will just say that the 'deep roots' to the funding community cited in the justification of her contract, fails to note the fact that the DSO has lost 80% of its donor base in the last 15 years or so. Primarily the small and middle donors. How they expect to get them back after this is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mary Ann Arsenault. Anne Parsons is a failure. Why the board agreed to her salary is an absolute mystery to me. She is responsible for enormous damage to the jewel which is Detroit Symphony Orchestra.
ReplyDeleteAnn Parsons!! You have failed the DSO, and the DSO lovers of Detroit. You have failed in everything you have done related to the orchestra. How do you justify taking this money, particularly when you forced those much more talented than you to take huge cuts? You really have mighty gaul taking that salary. I despised what you have done up till now, but now I must say, you really need to creep off into the night. You are shameful in the extreme.
ReplyDeleteAfter the strike was finally settled, I was all set to begin making yearly donations to the DSO in order to build the orchestra. Until the news of departing musicians hit the news. Then Emmanuelle. And now the announcement regarding Ms. Parson's contract. Guess what? There will be no new revenue coming from my pocket until Parsons gives back financially as a sign of respect for the musicians who earn her salary for her.
ReplyDeleteI am completely in support. She should take a pay cut, like the musicians. World-class musicians should be paid the same as world-class management, in my opinion. They have been practicing their instruments since childhood, have invested in expensive instruments, they have to maintain those instruments at their own expense, and have to prepare regularly for their work. If I were one of these orchestra musicians, this would be the last straw in a situation that is already unfair, unpleasant, and probably irreparable. Unfortunately, as a musician myself, I know how hard it is to move, otherwise I think you would see more of them announcing that they are leaving.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked that the strike was resolved with Parsons still in charge. I thought for a time that the only way forward was going to be with a new management team. If this contract had been made public when it was signed, I don't think she could have done anything to get the orchestra back to the table with her.
ReplyDeleteBut Drew, while I theoretically understand what you're saying, it is impossible to imagine anybody in the DSO administration working less as they go forward. There is so much lost revenue base to rebuild, the same debt service, still a structural deficit, etc...
@ Anonymous (June 10, 2011 9:56 AM) I understand your point but would say that it is very easy to confuse effort with responsibility. Working more or less is a variable in the overall equation but that's all. Likewise, the amount of work at hand is the result of what may be arguably best described as self inflicted.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, every executive, mid-manager, and staffer in the business has a great deal of work to do, now more than before. So you can begin to see that the amount of time involved to accomplish those tasks doesn't necessarily correlate with overall duties and responsibilities for any given position.
I found the timing of the announcement in extremely poor taste, coming as it did on the heels of the decision of the concertmaster to leave precisely because the environment is so hostile. This CEO's performance has produced economic and artistic disaster and her reward is a contract extension. As a long time subscriber I am left will very litlle trust in management, the board, and the direction of the organization. We will probably renew our subscription, but I do not trust any donation I may give will be used wisely.
ReplyDeleteI can only presume that Parsons herself has no idea what the difference is between a top-tier orchestra and a pick-up band. If she DOES know the difference and simply did not value it, there is no reason for her to be in her position to begin with. All very, very sad.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify the pay cut controversy, it is important not be be comparing dissimilar numbers. My understanding is that Ms. Parsons' present pay, which will not increase through 2014, is 10% less than her full-year 2008 pay. The musicians, however, had pay increases in the summer of 2008 and 2009 to reach the level from which they took their 23% cut. And their new contract apparently includes pay increases in 2012 and 2013. So, unless all the musician pay changes result in their 2014 compensation being more than 10% below their 2008 pay, it appears that Ms. Parsons has sacrificed as much a percentage-wise as they have. Any comment on this analysis from the musicians?
ReplyDeleteThat's a very useful clarification, Arleigh.
ReplyDeleteI don't presume to speak for the musicians, Arleigh, however, your analysis is flawed. The numbers I used were reported numbers from during the strike which placed the average musician pay between $105,000 and $116,000 depending on the source, not 2008 numbers. Additionally, you gloss over the fact that the musician's salaries do not come back to 2010 levels at the end of the current contract. Finally, I was extremely generous with Ms. Parsons' compensation seeing as she gets use of the house reserved for her use and owned by the symphony, a company car, and other benefits not given to the musicians. As the Crain's article linked above notes, her 2009 compensation (after the cut that both you and the article I linked to quoted) actually tops out well over $400,000. The 3-to-1 ratio I use in the post is, if anything, low.
ReplyDeleteMr. Zoltan, I'm sorry that you dismiss my use of 2008 as the base-line for an "amount of sacrifice" comparison. Ms. Parsons and her administrative staff took a pay cut in March 2009, when the economy and the DSO's financial results were in free-fall from the late 2008 financial and stock market shock. The musicians declined management's request to participate in the sacrifice at that time, insisting instead on maintaining the terms of their contract which, I believe, called for a base pay increase in mid-2009. An honest debate about the relative sizes of Ms. Parsons' and the musicians compensation reduction must take the 2009 changes into account.
ReplyDeleteThose factors have been accounted for throughout this discussion in spades. If anything, Ms. Parsons has been given the better benefit of the doubt here.
ReplyDeleteThe questions at hand remain why the board of the DSO agreed to this contract in view of their fiduciary responsibility if the musicians required an immediate 23% pay cut, and what effect will that have on the loyalty of the musicians and other staff at the DSO, knowing that their leader has taken a contract that flies in the face of their own sacrifice and that after a brutal and damaging labor dispute.
I will once again call for Parsons to willingly donate a full portion of her salary back to the orchestra to match the sacrifice of the musicians on behalf of that storied institution, to show her dedication to the art being produced, and to show her respect for the musicians that create that art and for which we arts managers ultimately create these grand institutions.
Arleigh: your assessment that the musicians "declined to participate" in the sacrifice you refer to in 2008 is not fair or accurate. The musicians elected a negotiating committee in March 2009 to address the economic situation and met 12 times with management through January 2010. according to the musicians website, they sought cuts comparable to peer orchestras while management sought permanent severe cuts.
ReplyDeleteI am not a musician and do not pretend to speak for them. I only reiterate what is on their website. It appears it might be more appropriate to say an agreement was not reached between the parties, although efforts were made.
Anne Parsons = Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Check out the DSM4 .
ReplyDeleteThe board of directors is responsible for approving , and allowing , her new contract.
Ann, please donate a portion of your salary back to the orchestra to match the sacrifices made by the musicians . They are the ones who make the DSO a great symphony.
If this happens, I will resume donating to the DSO.