After over two decades of purchasing season tickets to Baltimore Symphony Orchestra concerts, I have been more than perplexed with what I have been reading in the newspaper about the BSO over the past months (“McIntosh files bill to give Baltimore Symphony Orchestra $3.2M over two years, create study group on finances,” Feb. 28). While I fully comprehend the financial imperatives of remaining within annual budgets, I find it incomprehensible the symphony has found itself in a state of indebtedness that has been growing for 10 years. It seems to me creative steps on the part of management should be possible to maintain the status of the world-class orchestra that Baltimore, Bethesda and surrounding areas have grown accustomed to over the years and have a right to continue to enjoy. Musical director Marin Alsop has created programs with broader appeal to more diverse audiences. She must be encouraged to continue this effort.
I am not privy to steps management may have taken to recoup the losses beginning a number of years ago nor to reduce ongoing expenditures to stay within current anticipated earnings. I cannot help but wonder, however, how annual orchestra budgets have been formulated leading to over a $16 million debt. Within today’s strong economy, such a debt should be manageable. I wonder why grants the organization had received in the past cannot be reinstated in this healthy economy. And it is difficult to understand why the endowment cannot be used to assist in erasing the debt.
It is understood the principal purpose of endowments is to secure a future of the existing quality of a product. My hunch is a lesser quality BSO would scarcely meet endowment donors' expectations. Wouldn't donors prefer the endowment resources be used to provide financial assistance in difficult times for the very organizations they have been created to support? Especially, I would suspect, when rational, reasonable changes in management practices are undertaken. From newspaper and radio reports, it appears management instead has suggested reducing the quality of the product that could have long-term consequences resulting in a less than full recovery of our top-tier Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. The finest players will begin to peel off to move to positions in quality orchestras with more secure futures. Likewise, audiences could shrink rather than grow with a lesser quality orchestra.
It is appalling to think the orchestra players are being asked to make what appear to be the biggest sacrifices to deal with the financial shortfalls. Are there not other ways operating expenses can be controlled without reducing the number of weeks in the annual schedule? This would surely have serious consequences throughout the organization including the potential loss of Ms. Alsop. How about fewer soloists, fewer guest conductors, fewer costly events such as overseas tours? I suspect modest increases in the price of tickets is possible with little effect on attendance. Instead, I have just read ticket prices in some cases will be reduced. Some savings might be easier than others, but would they not represent a genuine effort on the part of management to bring expenses more in line with anticipated income?
Finally, how about more creative and aggressive fundraising efforts in Baltimore, Bethesda and surrounding areas served by our amazing orchestra?
Nancy R. Mickelsen, Baltimore