ENB - article in The Times

[Guest]

I've just been reading various online comments and am quite unsettled on three counts:

• firstly, there is the suggestion in some quarters that the artistic achievements of ENB under Rojo are being called into question
• secondly, the company members who are the sources of the information used in the press are being dismissed as disgruntled and criticised for not standing up and being counted
• thirdly, the tendency of journalists to write up their stories in a provocative way is seemingly being offered as a reason to ignore what was said in the Times article

All three positions seem unfair. 

 

I don't think that anyone is denying that Rojo's achievements as AD are very considerable indeed. For example, she has raised ENB's,and ballet's, profile, the company's rep. has been broadened and modernised, facilties for ENB dancers have been improved, and a new HQ is on the horizon. None of this should be minimised, indeed it should be celebrated by us all.

 

But someone who does much that is good can also have fundamental weaknesses. I  know from experience that, if an organisation does have serious internal problems, it is very hard to get them recognised and fixed, especially against a backcloth of public success. So I think that those who have now spoken out, albeit anonymously as far as the public is concerned, have been brave to do so and their message should be heeded and acted upon by the ENB Board. After all, it does appear that dancers have tried to raise their concerns privately and that they have only turned outside because they weren't being listened to.

 

The way in which the problems at ENB have come to light, and the manner of the Times reporting, should not be allowed to get in the way of the matters being taken seriously. I find it surprising that the printed response from the company was unattributed since it is usual, in such circumstances, for the Chairman to offer a statement in support of management.

 

 

 

[Sim]

Having said that, Geoff, there would also seem to be some grains of truth in the article.  And there are loads of stories in the press where sources aren't named, especially when they stand to lose their jobs and reputations if they speak out publicly.  I remember most famously Deep Throat, whose identity was secret for decades, but whose information helped bring down the Nixon government.  To simply dismiss the article's veracity when there are clearly underlying problems in the company won't help them get to grips with these issues.  I think it's a poor piece of journalism that the pre-Murdoch Times would never have printed, but its content needs to be considered seriously by ENB management.  If they find it's a load of rubbish and all the dancers are happy, then so much the better, and the company can continue moving on, and up.  But questions clearly need to be asked, and the answers listened to, not just dismissed out of hand.

[Anna C]

9 hours ago, Jan McNulty said:

My name is Graham Watts - many people will not agree with me.  I ask the  "sources", who are you?   If you had an ounce of the courage that Ms Rojo has to stand up and be counted then I might respect your views.”

 

Graham makes very many good points.  However, IMHO he is missing a key point - which is that just like whistleblowers in the Police and other public services, dancers who are being bullied, mistreated or ignored are at certain risk of being fired if they "go public".  This culture of fear and comments from management of "you're lucky to have a job at all, there are 100 dancers just waiting to take your place" goes down the line to students with scholarships.  It is very very difficult to be that student, dancer or parent, and put your head above the parapet.  

The ballet world is tiny, and word gets round.    Being an anonymous "source" shows no lack of courage, just the desire to be heard.  If the dancers are being ignored by both the Management and the Board, what other choice is left to them?   As excellent a defence as Mr Watts poses, he's in no danger of losing his livelihood.  The "disgruntled" dancers - (and let's not minimise or dismiss what it's like to be bullied in the workplace by saying "oh, there's only ten of them, you get that everywhere") - most certainly are. 

 

[Anna C]

8 hours ago, proballetdancer said:

 

Why not, they're relevant to one another?

 

Because the thread is about ENB. 

[MAX]

"some grains of truth in the article"... certainly !

 

I think some of you would like to have silent dancers,  people who are just dancing and not talking !  

 

I don't know much about ENB but I guess dancers are on short term contracts,  one year contracts ?   of course they are not going to talk openly !

 

Graham Watts knows the company very well, he should be well aware of that !   

 

I really hope ENB management will consider seriously what the dancers have to say.

 

And it is really surprising to read a moderator saying the discussion is "distasteful", on the opposite I think it is one of the most important discussion here on BCF !

 

 

[Jan McNulty]

Graham Watts has added a postscript to his FB post:

 

"I want to clarify that I support unconditionally the rights of dancers (or, indeed, any employees) to be able to make complaints about abuses of power (fraud, violence, harassment) through an internal grievance process; but I certainly do not agree that anonymous leaks to the press are an acceptable alternative particularly when none of the aforementioned abuses of power are at all relevant. It strikes me as being mischievous and vindictive."

[Jan McNulty]

9 minutes ago, MAX said:

 

 

And it is really surprising to read a moderator saying the discussion is "distasteful", on the opposite I think it is one of the most important discussion here on BCF !

 

 

 

 

No moderator has made that statement.

 

(You can see who a moderator is because it says so under their avatar - see left.)

[Anna C]

5 minutes ago, Jan McNulty said:

Graham Watts has added a postscript to his FB post:

 

"I want to clarify that I support unconditionally the rights of dancers (or, indeed, any employees) to be able to make complaints about abuses of power (fraud, violence, harassment) through an internal grievance process; but I certainly do not agree that anonymous leaks to the press are an acceptable alternative particularly when none of the aforementioned abuses of power are at all relevant. It strikes me as being mischievous and vindictive."

 

What if the internal grievance process doesn't work though? 

[capybara]

27 minutes ago, Jan McNulty said:

Graham Watts has added a postscript to his FB post:

 

"I want to clarify that I support unconditionally the rights of dancers (or, indeed, any employees) to be able to make complaints about abuses of power (fraud, violence, harassment) through an internal grievance process; but I certainly do not agree that anonymous leaks to the press are an acceptable alternative particularly when none of the aforementioned abuses of power are at all relevant. It strikes me as being mischievous and vindictive."

 

I learned as a manager that harassment can take many forms and be perceived very differently by a boss and the recipient(s). Therefore, those of us outside the situation cannot be sure that there is no harassment at ENB just as we cannot assert that there is.

 

The most important thing is, surely, that the Board undertakes a thorough investigation and that, if anything is amiss, they ensure that it gets put right. 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by capybara

[Sim]

Why "mischievous and vindictive" just because they don't give their names?  Instead of mischievous and vindictive, I would say "scared and worried."   If they are scared to give their names, there must be reason for it.  

[MAB]

10 hours ago, LinMM said:

There is no doubt about it Tamara Rojo has done wonders for ENB

 

 

In my humble opinion Wayne Eagling also did wonders for ENB.  I am not happy that the Times article concentrated on the relationship between Rojo and Hernandez, as it is the least of the company's problems.  On another thread on ENB a poster alluded to a survey, the results of which were never made public and I suspect the Tines journalists may somehow have got sight of this .

 

It is safe to assume that people leaving an organization are in the main unhappy with either their working conditions or unhappy about their career progression.  People that stay often do so for more personal reasons, a large mortgage that would become unaffordable if  housing costs in another city/country were added on, a partner not wishing to relocate etc. it doesn't follow they are happy in their jobs.  How the haemorrhaging of dancers and staff has failed to interest the press up to now I don't now, but it is far more serious than an off stage affair.

[David]

I see there is to be a live worldwide cinema relay by the ENB of Akram Khan’s Giselle on the 25th April in which Ms Rojo is to be joined by James Streeter, Jeffrey Cirio and Stina Quagebeur - and which hopefully will eventually find its way to DVD.

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Geoff said:

Following on from Graham Watts' eloquent case for the defence, above, may I add a little background, from an angle I am professionally qualified to comment on, which is how the press actually works?

 

It is well-known that newspapers are not primarily in the truth business, they are in the publication business. Newspapers, magazines, news products, have to sell or they die. This is not to say that truth cannot be a brand value on Fleet Street (different papers have different approaches) nor is this the same as saying no journalist tells the truth, but one needs to be aware of commercial realities.

 

This story was published in Rupert Murdoch's Times, a loss-making product all too conscious of its need to fight its corner in a collapsing and ever more competitive market. The current editor, John Witherow, is highly professional but not known for his sympathy for the "arts". His instinct will be to want arts stories to fight their way into the paper on the same basis as any other, ie not because most people are interested in the arts per se (sadly most people aren't) but because readers respond to controversy and good stories.

 

This particular article is co-authored by that paper's new arts correspondent, David  Sanderson, who has clearly been brought in by Witherow to "stir things up" (see Sanderson's recent character assassination of a BBC arts executive, perhaps deserved, perhaps well-sourced but not typical of what previously passed as "arts coverage", which is not always the liveliest of corners of any newspaper). 

 

There may be truth in this story but its primary purpose is to offer scandal or at least controversy about a usually hidden world (the absence of named sources is revealing). After Darcey Bussell, Tamara Rojo is probably the biggest living name in ballet so far as the British public are concerned - certainly so far as radio and TV coverage are concerned - so a story about her is more likely to make it into the British press. 

 

I assume Rojo and her board will see the story in this light. I would counsel us to hold back from rushing to judgement. 

 

 

 

Having worked with the more responsible elements of the media, I don't necessarily regard newsprint automatically as the gutter press and even if owned by Rupert Murdoch, The Times remains a credible news organ.

 

I am very uncomfortable with the expression 'fake news'.  In this instance a very valid story is being aired.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, Sim said:

Having said that, Geoff, there would also seem to be some grains of truth in the article.  And there are loads of stories in the press where sources aren't named, especially when they stand to lose their jobs and reputations if they speak out publicly.  I remember most famously Deep Throat, whose identity was secret for decades, but whose information helped bring down the Nixon government.  To simply dismiss the article's veracity when there are clearly underlying problems in the company won't help them get to grips with these issues.  I think it's a poor piece of journalism that the pre-Murdoch Times would never have printed, but its content needs to be considered seriously by ENB management.  If they find it's a load of rubbish and all the dancers are happy, then so much the better, and the company can continue moving on, and up.  But questions clearly need to be asked, and the answers listened to, not just dismissed out of hand.

 

Exactly, what is holding people back may well be gagging orders, I've signed one and I imagine others here will have done so too.  It is irresponsible to attack sources for their anonymity when to speak out would land them in very hot legal water.

[Ian Macmillan]

MAB: Purely for clarification as this thread progresses, was the order you signed pertinent to the ENB matter in question here, or was it entirely unrelated?

[Balletfanp]

1 hour ago, Jan McNulty said:

Graham Watts has added a postscript to his FB post:

 

"I want to clarify that I support unconditionally the rights of dancers (or, indeed, any employees) to be able to make complaints about abuses of power (fraud, violence, harassment) through an internal grievance process; but I certainly do not agree that anonymous leaks to the press are an acceptable alternative particularly when none of the aforementioned abuses of power are at all relevant. It strikes me as being mischievous and vindictive."

 

All very well - but it seems to be clear from the article that the dancers concerned had already gone through the approved routes to raise their concerns and were not listened to. The article looks like a pretty desperate attempt to try to do something about their grievances.

 

With all due respect to Mr Watts, he does not know (any more than the rest of us) what goes on behind closed doors at ENB and it is not for him to accuse the dancers of cowardice by not wishing to be named or to suggest that there is nothing in their allegations. And, if his career depended on the person he was raising a grievance against, would he be willing to "stand up and be counted?" I rather doubt it.

 

I sincerely hope that this article triggers off a thorough and objective review of the internal workings of ENB so that if - if - there is any substance to the allegations (and dancers leaving in droves suggests that there is at least some), they can be properly addressed.

[MAB]

9 minutes ago, Ian Macmillan said:

MAB: Purely for clarification as this thread progresses, was the order you signed pertinent to the ENB matter in question here, or was it entirely unrelated?

 

To be a little clearer, I consulted a solicitor after being made redundant, he proved ageism and the gagging order was part of the out of court settlement.  I know of one ENB former employee that I am informed signed one, I suspect there may be others.

[aileen]

One would only sign a gagging order if there was a formal legal dispute which resulted in some kind of compromise agreement. This would not apply to disgruntled employees who simply choose to resign.

[MAB]

2 minutes ago, aileen said:

One would only sign a gagging order if there was a formal legal dispute which resulted in some kind of compromise agreement. This would not apply to disgruntled employees who simply choose to resign.

 

I think you'll find there is a world of difference between resigning and being told to resign.

[Ian Macmillan]

MAB:  Thank you.  I infer, therefore, that you were not an ENB employee.

[David]

Like Bruce Wall I am very unhappy with the way this discussion has developed.

 

The analogy with Deep Throat is not helpful – the ENB is not the US Presidency. But what we have learnt over the past few years is that where there has been abuse it has been widely known but that those who had knowledge have turned a blind eye.

 

I do not know the facts in this matter and therefore cannot comment. Equally I have no way of knowing whether those who are commenting so freely on this forum under the cloak of anonymnity are speaking from personal knowledge of the facts or or merely “re-tweeting”. But it is a very serious situation when the character/management of one of our leading and most successful ballet figures is being questioned.  

 

If there is or has been abuse of power then those who have knowledge of it are collusive if they fail to communicate that information to the relevant authorities. Anonymous allegations in forums such as this are no substitute.

 

We had clear evidence of abuse in the ENB under Wayne Eagling’s watch in BBC documentaries a few years back and it was clear then that this had been widely known and ignored by many people over a long time. I would have expected that the ENB Board would have learnt the lesson and be on the alert for any suspicion of mismanagement.

 

Ms Rojo has made no secret of her determination to achieve change in the ENB and turn it into a world class Company. Presumably that’s why she was appointed. I have seen no evidence of favouritism – indeed the opposite. Inevitably there will be dissatisfaction as she carries out her brief but I have seen nothing to suggest that she has crossed the line from a proper if ruthless exercise of power to achieve those ends to an abuse of that power. So far all we have is a form of character assassination by anonymous, unattributed comments. It’s not good enough and if people are not prepared to put up, they should shut up!    

 

[MAX]

Clear evidence of abuse in the ENB under Wayne Eagling ?   not sure I am following you, are you referring to Derek Deane's in the documentary "agony and ecstasy" ?

 

 

[MAB]

5 minutes ago, David said:

We had clear evidence of abuse in the ENB under Wayne Eagling’s watch in BBC documentaries a few years back and it was clear then that this had been widely known and ignored by many people over a long time.

 

Please be specific with your accusations, exactly what abuse did Wayne Eagling, the most amiable of men, commit and perhaps you could  also give us a round figure of dancers that left under his tenure.

 

I note you too post anonymously.

[Lizbie1]

6 minutes ago, David said:

We had clear evidence of abuse in the ENB under Wayne Eagling’s watch in BBC documentaries a few years back and it was clear then that this had been widely known and ignored by many people over a long time. I would have expected that the ENB Board would have learnt the lesson and be on the alert for any suspicion of mismanagement.

 

Serious question: could you please clarify what abuse you are talking about? If it's the Agony and Ecstasy documentaries, can only recall verbal abuse from Derek Deane, who I believe was by then not part of ENB's management.

[David]

Yes - it happened under Wayne Eagling's watch and he was clearly aware of it.

Edited January 28, 2018 by David

[MAB]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Yes - it happened under Wayne Eagling's watch and he was clearly aware of it.

 

Once again, details please and how many dancers did he lose when he was in charge of ENB?

[Anna C]

10 minutes ago, David said:

It’s not good enough and if people are not prepared to put up, they should shut up!    

 

This is a very strong statement, David.  Given that abuse of any sort can only thrive through fear, secrecy and silence, is it any wonder that employees or students find it difficult or impossible to speak out, even anonymously? Implying that people should "shut up" or go public and risk losing everything is dangerous.  

[David]

2 minutes ago, MAB said:

 

Please be specific with your accusations, exactly what abuse did Wayne Eagling, the most amiable of men, commit and perhaps you could  also give us a round figure of dancers that left under his tenure.

 

I note you too post anonymously.

Yes but I try hard to stick to known facts avoid negative comment about individuals.

 

I do understand the difficulties but one can't have it both ways.    

[Lizbie1]

17 minutes ago, David said:

I would have expected that the ENB Board would have learnt the lesson and be on the alert for any suspicion of mismanagement.

 

That's quite a big assumption to make, given that (to me) the most serious part of the story published was the implication that the Board have failed to respond adequately.

[Jan McNulty]

4 minutes ago, David said:

Yes - it happened under Wayne Eagling's watch and he was clearly aware of it.

 

I'm not commenting on any allegations but we have to remember that the programme makers of the Agony and Ecstasy documentary will have filmed many hours to be distilled into a programme that people would watch.  Part of that is looking for something that would grab the eye.  For all we know Wayne Eagling could well have had strong words with Derek Deane that could have been in private or could have been cut as not being sensationalist enough for the TV producers' taste.

 

From my 30 years plus as a ballet watcher I have seen changes of director in a number of companies and there does tend to be a change of dancers either immediately or a drip of leavers over a couple of years.  

[MAB]

10 minutes ago, MAB said:

 

Please be specific with your accusations, exactly what abuse did Wayne Eagling, the most amiable of men, commit and perhaps you could  also give us a round figure of dancers that left under his tenure.

 

I note you too post anonymously.

 

Thank you for jogging my memory, Derek Deane was indeed pretty beastly to one of the ballerinas.  If I remember rightly she was very much cherished by Mr Eagling, at least the number of times he cast her in leading roles suggested that.  She left under Rojo's leadership

[David]

11 minutes ago, Anna C said:

 

This is a very strong statement, David.  Given that abuse of any sort can only thrive through fear, secrecy and silence, is it any wonder that employees or students find it difficult or impossible to speak out, even anonymously? Implying that people should "shut up" or go public and risk losing everything is dangerous.  

What I am saying is that contributors on this forum are making or implying all sorts of very serious and damaging allegations. I don't know who they are but they are doing so anonymously and based on unattributed comment.

Edited January 28, 2018 by David

[Mary]

55 minutes ago, aileen said:

One would only sign a gagging order if there was a formal legal dispute which resulted in some kind of compromise agreement. This would not apply to disgruntled employees who simply choose to resign.

They are now very widely used in any settlement involving someone leaving a job- a quick fix legal agreement yes, but  often without any actual legal action taking place. So someone who wanted to go before a contract expired, for example or without working notice: and they do prevent one then following up in any way, or even telling anyone about, the problem that made one want to leave....