IBJNews

Another symphony contract deadline passes without a deal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra musicians’ contract negotiations remain stalled and another week of concerts has been canceled after a Saturday deadline passed with no resolution.

ISO executives and American Federation of Musicians Local 3 negotiators have agreed to many of the financial details in a potential five-year agreement that management announced last week, but they're stuck on a clause that would allow early contract termination.

Musicians had until Saturday evening to decide on the offer.

As part of an agreement in principle, musicians would accept a 32-percent pay cut in the first year of the pact. Starting salaries would drop from $78,000 to $53,000. Pay then would increase every year, reaching $70,000 in year five.

At issue is a management-proposed clause that would allow either side to cancel the contract after the third year.

Use of the clause hinges on the ISO’s ability to boost its fundraising by millions of dollars every year.

The organization usually takes in about $6.5 million every year through its governing body, the Indiana Symphony Society, and a separate arm that manages its endowment, the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra Foundation.

ISO leaders last week outlined much more aggressive fundraising goals:  $9.8 million in the contract’s first year, $9.7 million the second year, $11 million the third year, $11.7 million the fourth year, and $12.6 the fifth year.

If the symphony collects $5 million by March 31, 2013, management said it will remove the escape clause from the contract.

“The board [of directors] has indicated a steep commitment to step up and find tens of millions of dollars to support the cost of operations over the course of the five years encompassed by the latest offer," board Chairman John Thornburgh said in a prepared statement. "But it only felt comfortable committing to the full extent of it if it could secure an initial showing of support from the community that they were willing to partner with the symphony.

“We all know the symphony is there. We only seek to harness that passion and ensure at least an initial showing of dollars will be there, too.”

The musicians' union is worried management will exercise the out clause, regardless of fundraising results, to terminate the contract before restoring pay to the proposed year-five level, lead negotiator Richard Graef said last week. Starting pay at year three would be $60,000.

Management locked out musicians on Sept. 8, saying the organization could no longer afford its 2009 contract, which expired Sept. 2.

The group has canceled five shows so far this season because of the work stoppage.

Stock market-induced financial woes—encountered at orchestras throughout the U.S.—have pressed the group into significant cutbacks and business model restructuring after the investment-based endowment shriveled from a peak of $120 million.

Management has repeatedly pointed to a struggling endowment, which stood at $80 million at the end of its previous fiscal year on Aug. 31.

A year earlier, the fund was $89 million. After accounting for stock gains, the ISO drew down about 13 percent of its balance, exceeding the 5 percent spending rate experts generally believe is sustainable.

Orchestra expenses represented about 45 percent of the roughly $26 million ISO spent in fiscal 2011. Concert production was another 19 percent.

The musicians argue that cutting into the orchestra’s core product would chase off talent and ultimately ruin the ISO.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT