I guess it was only a matter of time before we saw this. The NY Times reports that contracts for 11 corps members will not be renewed for next season and that senior staff get a 10% salary cut. With ticket sales and donations off by 6% - 8%, they are running a $5.5 million deficit this season. NY Times story 2/20/09 re staff reductions

GRRRRR .... I know there's really no connection, but this makes me resent every dime squandered spent on R+J's sets and costumes even more.

There are very few NYCB corps dancers that I don't recognize by sight onstage (just the newest SAB crop, really) and few that don't have something genuinely special about them. I can't think of a single one of which I'd think "oh well -- no great loss," so this really is a very sad development for the dancers, the company, and the audience.

What about $$ "squandered" on dead-wood principals? Why short-change the future? That's awful.

And do you suppose they will go ahead with the re-design of their website?

I certainly agree w. you about the dead wood principals. I wonder if the corp members who were not renewed are the young ones, or the older corps members (or some mixture thereof). A lot of the new works they commission and present every season seem to be a waste of money. Personally, I would feel no sense of loss if the number of new ballets each season was reduced to 1 in order to save $$.

I didn't want to go there, but yeah, I can think of a couple of principals for whom it might be a win-win all around if they were gently nudged on to Plan B.



They were going to re-design the website again? Why? A couple of screens might benefit from a tweak or two and there could be a click or so less to get from one place to another -- some of the logic behind where stuff is parked still escapes me -- but your average 15 year old could probably sort that out for them.

The close proximity of Darci's announcement over a year in advance of her retirement (an absurdly long advance notice) and the timing of these cuts is very curious.

I never heard of a mass layoff of totally undeserving employees, unfortunately, although some businesses like to do what they call ‘performance-based layoffs.’

Miami City Ballet also elected to chop away at the corps. Very sad all around.

There was a point back in the late 80's I think when Martins let 11 corps MEN go: I think Peter Stark, Larry Matthews, Peter Neuman (sp??), Bill Otto, and a few others were among them. But they had all been in the corps for a long time. THIS is different.

How will this really impact on the company? How is the perfect number of corp dancers determined? It seems to me that the company has over the years varied in size, but I'm not sure what determines the precise number of corps dancers. Also, what does this mean for students coming through the school?

I remember that when Peter took over the company he got rid of a lot of so called "dead wood."

I believe that principals are paid on a per performance basis, so the effect on the budget is somewhat different.

And they informed the dancers by mail, according to the Miami Herald.

To give Peter Martins credit, he (1) spoke personally to the dancers involved and (2) took a pay cut himself. Good for him.

This is not a surprise, as I hear the same is happening to other major American companies, MCB has already been noted, but also Boston B, and SFB...

Wow. Is that so? I'm surprised. I thought principals at City Ballet earned an annual salary that was established by contract. The per performance approach makes sense for guest artists (for example, ABT's guest artist Osipova), but not for someone who is under contract as a principal dancer for a negotiated term of a year or more.

NYCB pays its dancers the highest amount of any company from the apprentices to the principals. The dancers are unionized and rightfully so are paid a very nice living wage. The principals are not paid per performance. (as far as the last time I knew).

AGMA boilerplate establishes a base salary for all levels of artists in a company like NYCB. There are some roles which are compensated for hazard (like Mother Ginger on her stilts, Puck by flying) and some few which are negotiated at contract meetings with individual dancers. These are called "premiums" in ballet contracts. They are in addition to, not in lieu of, regular salary.

The current contract is on line here.

I don't know that I would rely on the Miami Herald for complete and accurate information about contract negociations. As for Peter Martins, he may very well have been required to speak personally to the dancers, and the pay cut may have been mandated by the Board; who knows?

I'm going to give Martins the benefit of the doubt on this one. I've been on both sides of the layoff discussion, and it ain't no fun either way.

The New York Times has quite a complete article and discusses the contract issue and Martins' actions. Non profits are required in their tax returns (990) to list the 5 highest salaries in the company, and this info is obtainable through sources such as the Foundation Center - and as said previously the principals are salaried.

I wonder if a letter-writing campaign would make any sense or impact.

Ouch -- the Times reports that the endowment is down $49 million for the fiscal year!

I wonder how many long-time patrons of NYCB were clients of Mr. Madoff or have lost huge bucks just through 'legit' mutual funds? It's the sudden yanking of the huge batches of funding that really hurt, although fewer of the smaller donations from 'ordinary folk' are also important.

Remember when the Kennedy Center and other arts institutions suddenly lost the funding from Mr. Vilar? If it suddenly loses the funding of 3-4 "Vilars," an arts organization will sink.

I suspect that the few large government grants that will be available as part of The Stimulus will go to very select arts organizaitons that may end up being what exists in the future, e.g., a dozen major ballet companies in the USA, each serving 4-5 states, rather than a bunch of smaller local ones. Just like the USSR not so long ago - every Republic had its one-and-only state-funded Theater of Ballet and Opera.

Everyone's investments are down, including small investors, pension funds on whom many depend, etc. The Times today reports that the S&P index is down 43% over the past year -- the Dow, down 40,7% for the same period -- NASDAQ down 37.3%.

Donors who depend on investment income or capital appreciation to fund their giving have been seriously affected. What scares me is that, for most company budgets, the consequences haven't even begun to show up. What will happen when subscriptions have to be renewed -- the biggest time for regular annual giving? These cutbacks, layoffs, etc., are all being put into effect in the expectation of bad news coming up.

I didn't phrase this very well. I meant to say that layoffs of this size generally include of perfectly good employees who've done nothing to 'deserve' it.



I think more than one news report had the story about the Miami dancers hearing by regular mail, and having to wait until the letter arrived to find out. It's quite true that there is no good way to fire a bunch of people. Some are better than others, though.

And there were genuine retirements among them.

I have bad vibes from the Martins and the management especially after the gala and the big wet kiss they sent to Mr. Moneybags Koch. They named the theatre after him and I'd bed he spends more money on his yacht crew's salaries than the whole corps put together.

That worked out great Mr Martins and NYCB management. Didn't it?

I remember many on this site complained bitterly about the "Koch" theater business, something I honestly found a bit puzzling. That is, on a different web site or message board I would be happy to join a chorus of complaints about, say, capitalism -- rather an "off topic" for ballet talk -- but given the way our system works and how the arts are funded in this country, Martins playing (or genuinely being) the grateful artist giving kudos to a generous donor seems par for the course. Indeed, his skill at this sort of thing is presumably one of things that keeps NYCB going with its extraordinary long and choreographically diverse seasons -- revivals, new productions, good contracts for the dancers etc. etc. I certainly would not condemn or blame him for being (or appearing to be) grateful to Koch and wanting to maintain him as a potential donor for the future. (And I assume the Romeo and Juliet was also done with an eye to long term box office...which even under better economic circumstances is not a bad idea ,though I gather the result is viewed as pretty dismal.)

The Times story said that the company claims that its "average" of total dancers in the past 20 years has been 93 and these cuts take the company from 101 to 90. It's sad and unfortunate and I'm sure many are wondering if other cuts could have been made instead, but in the current context it's not exactly an outrageous scandal. And though I too think Kistler should have retired a few years ago I can't muster much energy for supporting the idea that Martins should have driven her out before she was ready to go--even to save money in a crisis. Yes, she is his wife, so one can cry "nepotism" but she is also is a great NYCB ballerina whose history is part of the company's history.

My own work place is falling about my ears and I'm guessing that must be true of many on this web site. I dread to think what is going to happen even to major arts organizations in this country in the coming years--but Martins does not remotely seem to me to be the villain here. And informing each corps member individually is a heck of a lot classier than letting them know by mail or (as has happened with staff at my work place) a group meeting.

My take on the 101 to 90 cut wasn't so much that it was historically anomalous but that the cut -- depending on who will go at the end of season -- could have important ramifications for the future. IF the dismissals occur at the newer end of the corps (and we won't know that until the season is over), then the potential is there for a gap to show up in the future. It would be somewhat similar to a college athletic team having a bad recruiting year. You wouldn't notice it at first because the existing seniors, juniors and sophomores on the team would maintain the level of play. But as the freshmen class rises and you lose the upperclassmen, you might begin to see a gap in the team's performance as the bad recruiting year comes to the fore.

Moderators: If this is too speculative, please delete.

It would surely have been very hard for Martins to tell any principals what they must have read from many other sources. But that was his job. The company's history would not be so celebrated if many leading dancers had overstayed their welcome as long as they have. Put simply, Martins has abused his position, has arguably made it necessary to fire promising corps members in order to pay the salaries of underserving principals, and has undoubtedly cut into the company's current revenues by presenting those principals to a discerning New York public that years ago tired of them.

Allegra Kent in her book mentions the resentment she received from the NYCB staff when Mr. B kept her on the roster even when she wasn't dancing more than once or twice a season. Edward Villela also says in his book how much he appreciated being kept on the NYCB roster when he had career-ending injuries. Funny, back then it was called loyalty.

The money situation with the New York State Theater being renamed is understandable, but so are the feelings of being sold out... "state theater" sounds much more populist; named after a person who after all didn't found it but seems to have "bought" it, well... I don't know... shouldn't we all have known of Mr. Koch for years & years & years before the theater was named in his honor? If he goes broke too, perhaps they can change the name back some day...like the Mariinski/Kirov situation.... For how long was "in perpetuity" defined this time?

Drew, your comments make much sense to me (and I AM, on the whole, rather critical of capitalism ).

This is an economic situation whose scope and seriousness go well beyond our personal disagreements about the structure of cultural philanthropy in this country, our value judgments on who or who should not be kept on or let go, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe the best thing we can do is call our local ballet company and ask: what can I do to help you in this difficult time?

This is precisely what I meant by "shortchanging the future."

However, I note that miliosr's post contains an important and responsible conditional: IF. We don't know who got the ax, but it could just as easily could be corps dancers who have not advanced as the directorate might wish as it could be those most lately hired, or a mix of the two categories. Seniority counts for relatively little in a ballet company, and sometimes can work against a dancer.

Are there any union rules regarding who may be 'laid off' in a situation such as this? In the business world, companies frequently take the 'last in, first out' solution in order to avoid allegations of favoritism ("X didn't like me, that's why I got laid off.") Would Martins be free to make a value judgement regarding 'dead wood' in the corps de ballet, or are there guidelines he must follow?

Where things could get really sticky for management at City Ballet (and at the other large ballet companies) is in the next fiscal year -- 2009-10. If revenue (from the endowment, corporate donors and ticket sales) continues to plummet but labor and operating costs remain more or less fixed (which they will if you have a unionized workforce and you are tethered to a specific theater), then you are faced with the prospect of another round of cuts. Probably the worst case scenario would be along the lines of my "bad recruiting year" concept (and ViolinConcerto "shortchanging the future" idea) -- the current roster remains more-or-less static in terms of voluntary turnover (i.e. retirement) but the company cannot go above 90 dancers and, possibly, may have to trim the ranks again. Where this scenario could kill you is with the Class of 2009 from the school -- where do they go upon graduation if there are no slots?

Moderators: Again, if this is too speculative, please delete.

If Darci had agreed to leave at the end of the Spring 09 season, perhaps that would have saved the jobs of one or two (or more) corps members. She must be among the highest paid company members. (Maybe all the corps members' jobs could have been saved if all of the "dead wood" principals retired.) I presume Darci is also being paid an additional salary for her work as a teacher at SAB, so her principal contract is apparently not her sole source of income. I guess that the other side of the argument is that nobody should have to be a martyr in order to save someone else's job, and the company is merely showing loyalty to those who have long relationships with the company. It's an interesting moral question, though, I think.

The corps reduction is likely to create more opportunities for apprentices to dance in the short run. But, because an apprentice can only remain apprentice for so long - can only dance so many times before the company has to make a decision on a contract - the crunch will come later, six months to a year after the reduction.

This entire thing at NYCB can be healthy if it's done contructively. If done dysfunctionally, that's another thing. They can easily reduce the corps by ten dancers. It's all a question of who it involves.

In comparison to the scale of economic distress going on elsewhere in NYC right now the company is comparatively lucky. This is not on a par with GM, CitiBank, Merrill Lynch. Now there are folks who are really sweating -- it's an issue of whether those institutions are going to survive. At City Ballet, it's an issue of pulling in the belt. Audiences have actually been very good this year, amazingly good, compared to what's going on in the City at large.

In NYC, if you go into Bergdorf's or Barney's right now, the stores are empty! Three or four people walking around an empty floor! You walk past restaurants and very often there are one or two tables of patrons (out of thirty tables), the rest of the place empty! Bars, restaurants and furniture stores on Amsterdam Avenue in the 70's and 80's are shuttered and closed and more will be closing. Cab drivers tell you they are taking home about 50% of what they did a year ago. Meanwhile, at City Ballet this week, Tues., Wed. and Thurs., the concourse was full of people during the entr'actes. I'm quite surprised by how well they are doing.

MP

Nilas, Darci...I see a pattern here. Talk about your dead wood.

I also hate to say it but ... Yvonne Borree. I've never seen her give a good performance, and I've seen her god knows how many times.

I found the same at San Francisco Ballet several weeks ago, the thought crossed my mind that many of those attending are season ticket holders that bought their tickets before things got so bad. I think major companies will get a sense of how the economy is effecting them when they begin the push for next season subscriptions.

In the programs, reading the list of donors and counting the major companies that have been in the news with layoffs and worse does not bode well.

Perhaps bart expresses it best....

I couldn't agree more, Drew. I'm sure there are some things NYCB management could have done better, and money that could have been better spent (as is doubtless true of Miami City Ballet and other companies that are having to cut back) as well. It is also a characteristic of contemporary American capitalism to turn to layoffs as a first rather than a last resort. But based on the information we have I don't see any evidence of dastardly behavior on the part of Martins.

Those are wise words, as were Bart's, and my "abused his position" last night was too strong. I certainly didn't mean to suggest "dastardly behavior" or that Martins is a "villian." I do think he's made the situation worse.

Martins grew up in the Royal Danish Ballet, where many of the dancers were married to or the child of or the cousin of someone else. I'm not sure nepotism would be a conscious decision.

Thanks, Michael, for putting this in perspective for those of us who are not there. Several people have mentioned that the surprisingly large audiences for top ballet companies has a lot to do with subscriptions that were purchased last spring or summer. Is that your impression about NYCB, too?

I don't know a lot about the internal turmoils of the direction and fallowing of the current crisis in ballet in NYC. But...as per our city of the never ending sunshine, I could tell that audiences attendance has improved impressively to both the MCB and CCBM performances. I still can't get to the point of understand how cutting off the human aspect of the art form will save anything. Cut the props, cut the orchestra, recycle old costumes, cut the ushers, cut the diabolic administrative apparatus...but please, live the kids...The boys and girls were very enjoyable when they danced at the old, comfy Jackie Gleason, way before the ambitious Grey monster-(AKA Carnival Center) made its triumphant way-(without a parking facility of its own)-to seat in the middle of Biscayne Boulevard, like it or not...
What about PR...? I've said this before, but as a part of the largest/most diverse Educational College in the Country-(Miami Dade College)- I NEVER get to see any little piece of paper announcing performances for ANYTHING...ballet, opera or the like. One of the most proliferative schools at my college is the New School of The Arts, which i would assume would be interested in watch some stuff...well...did anybody has invited them,,,? Like this we're not going anywhere.

Cheers to THAT.

Attempting to use microsoft so hope this gets through...
I, of course, agree KFW. Certainly we can all identify dead wood principals. Three come to mind who currently lack the skills to have even a prayer of getting into the Company's Corps. Two are, of course, members of the BMIC's family: Darci (one could of course see the Allegra Kent excuse for keeping her on... if it didn't mean axing a number of corps dancers) and her stepson Nilas. And the perpetual question that is Borree...
I wonder how many corps dancers could be saved if they all did the "noble thing" for the Company that has paid them all these years?

If memory serves me right, a contract does not require a reason not to be renewed. The only difference is that the fifth-year-corps has negotiated through AGMA that they must be given a years notice. Anyone under that can be terminated after Saratoga when their contract expires.

And then there's Jennie Somogyi, a dancer I've admired. But her rep this season was only two roles (that's less than Darci's), neither classical. Will she ever recover enough to assume a ballerina's share of the workload? I'd hate to lose her, but her value to the company must be considered.

Probably close to a one-to-one ratio, since a) much of the cost of carrying a company member is in benefits such as health and disability insurance and per diems, which are the same across the board; and b) a senior corps dancer's salary is probably considerably higher than you suspect.

Welcome back, drb! Good to see you!

That's assuming the affected were senior dancers.