The personnel policy that the NHMF Orchestra has been working under since 1992 holds protection for the musicians, such as rights of contract renewal (tenure), allowance for personal leave and a dismissal process that includes peer review. These are all usual terms found in any Orchestral collective bargaining agreement, and rightly so. They are there to protect single musicians or groups of musicians from arbitrary or capricious decisions that reflect the self-interest of an individual or group.

Management's continued insistence that all incumbents are reinvited for the 2010 season is misleading, since they use the term "incumbent" to mean only those musicians who will be given contracts. In fact Management is attempting to put a new personnel policy in place for the 2010 season which would allow them to permanently replace 30 of us with 20 outside professional musicians and 10 students of Management's choosing. This represents a loss of half of our Orchestra. They have removed rights of renewal and peer review. There is no cap on further dismissals. The half of our Orchestra who is invited back for 2010 could be dismissed in its entirety following next summer's Festival. Newly appointed Artistic Director, Jonathan Gandelsman, is expected to review, within a few weeks time, the players left in the orchestra next summer, with an eye on who to dismiss. His decision to dismiss will be final. No appeal.

This represents a huge departure from sound orchestral management, and is unheard of in the music world. It is a thinly disguised attempt to replace this orchestra with another one of Management's choosing.

Add to that the icing on the cake. Management recently inserted new language into the policy that would further reduce the incumbent musicians, due to a lack of funds. The Orchestra committee agreed on August 14 to Management's final offer BECAUSE we were told that next year's season would be funded through an anonymous donor.

If the Board of the NHMF is naive enough to believe, as Rusty McLear has stated, that "We are baffled that the musicians would reject a personnel policy simply because it is grounded in sound fiscal principles", then they are really in the dark about what they are doing. Doesn't a rejection vote of 59-3 tell them anything? We also wonder what Mr. McLear could mean by "shared interests and common ground", lofty words indeed, when set against a backdrop of an entire management that has failed to take the pulse of its orchestra, chorus or the members of its own audience.

Knight to Night Rebuttal

I disagree with a statement that my friend and colleague
Andrea DiGregorio made in her post entitled "Knight to
Night":

"I think, perhaps, that this [bringing in the Knights
orchestra] has to do with a desire to experiment and find a
new and innovative method for musical growth."

Hogwash!

It all has to do with David Graham doing anything and
everything he can for Henry Fogel. David Graham doesn't give
a rat's ass about the music making at the festival. He knows
little about classical music and does not have a
sophisticated appreciation of it in the least. He has rarely
attended the chamber music concerts that the festival
performs and they are arguably some of the best programs
that we have to offer. All he really cares about is getting
people into the seats and keeping them contributing, and
allo the evidence points to the fact that he has done a poor
job of that. He obviously views Henry Fogel as some sort of
cash cow. He wanted him on the team in New Hampshire so bad,
he agreed to do anything Henry wanted. "Henry is big league
stuff, if Henry wants the Knights, we have to find a way to
get rid of the orchestra to have them. up here!" Get Henry
on board and you have all his connections. That has to add
up to $$$. And maybe it will.

Fogel never heard us play and more importantly never heard
OF us. We don't have a big league reputation so we are not
on his radar. It has nothing to do with US or how we
perform. It's all about what he wants, and that's not us,
its the Knights. I am sure they are very good, but are they
going to work for $400 a week?

This has nothing to do with a "new artistic vision" or an
"innovative method for musical growth" that's all an excuse,
a smokescreen to bring in Fogel's new musicians. It's a
simply a matter of a changing of the guard and we got
screwed. I wish the Knights luck, but I guarantee they wont
stay content long if they are working for the sub-standard
wages that we all got.

Jay Lichtmann
NHMF trumpeter since 1983