Orchestra’s plight is urgent

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33653, 1 October 1974, Page 16

Orchestra’s plight is urgent

In all the confusion of argument and counterargument about the management of the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra two questions predominate. One concerns the workings of the board of management: the other is about the next steps to be taken to restore the finances and the proper running of the orchestra. On both points the debate might be endless. If the orchestra is to survive, and if its foundation is to regain the financial support of local authorities and the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council, the debate must be concluded promptly. A small group of subscribers to the orchestra has given public notice of their request for a special meeting of the foundation. This group feels strongly about the failure of the foundation’s president (Mr Pickering), and its members want answers to their questions about the workings of the board. Some intend to take legal action to obtain satisfaction if Mr Pickering does not call the meeting they seek. If they choose this course and the court, in due course, rules in favour of their application no-one can be certain that any party to the dispute will be satisfied. Nothing should stand in the way of anyone who conscientiously goes to law. But, whatever the ruling of the court, or whatever decision is made about holding a general meeting, some thought must be given now to what mav be done to disnose of the problems that are already apparent, regardless of fault or origin.

No-one can quarrel with an earnest desire to resolve the dissatisfaction that is abroad among some of the supporters of the orchestra: but it cannot lightly be assumed that, in obtaining some resolution about events of the past, a sure step will be taken to secure the future of the orchestra. The urgency with which the confidence of the supporting councils should be restored can hardly wait upon such a resolution. Weeks, and even months, might pass before the present board, or a reconstituted board, settled down sufficiently to guarantee stable management. Without such management the orchestra will want for funds. All the major contributors to the orchestra’s finances will have to be satisfied. The problems will not be solved when objecting members of the board and foundation have settled differences about the past.

Only one promising course for the orchestra’s immediate future has been offering, and that is the appointment of a temporary administrator. All the leading parties to the dispute appeared to accept this plan when it was first considered; and, if some are not now pleased with the idea, a renewed effort should be made to reinstate the plan. Other steps might be taken to review past events, but the administrator wou’d have to tackle his iob in the light of decisions that have so far taken effect. Given good will nf the orchestra nlayers themselves, he should be able to eive all other interested narties sufficient time to set nn a new constitution for the nrrhe^T-a’ s The record of the board for many v« a ’-s apnears to have ho«n one of much disnuto and this record offers little hone of the present constitution succeeding in the future. A clear ri<stinotion must snrelv be made between nast squabbles and the urgency of the orchestra’s plight.