Scott Chamberlain, an experienced non-profit organizational hand, and my cousin, thinks he’s caught the management of the Met Opera with their pants down. First, he notes a recent report that the Met has reported achieving a balanced budget. Then comes this:
Two years ago, the Met was in the midst of contentious contract negotiations with its unionized workers. At that time, General Manager Peter Gelb repeatedly told the press the Met was in a dire financial situation, and the company literally faced bankruptcy in two years. The only way to stave off financial disaster was to have the unionized workers at the Met agree to massive concessions with sacrificial pay cuts right that very minute.
The workers refused, and Mr. Gelb was forced to back down. His proposed cuts never went through.
Well, here we are two years later—the exact length of time until Mr. Gelb’s projected bankruptcy. And the Met has recorded two straight years of balanced budgets.
Huh.
Given this astonishing record of overblown, self-serving, and erroneous statements, why would any reporter give credence to anything Mr. Gelb says about… anything?
When it comes to an analysis, there is a fine line here. Do we cut management a break under the argument that reality can be highly variable? Or are we hard on them under the argument that management should be aware that of that variability and not been so dictatorial to the union? I incline towards the latter, but I don’t know much about this world.
The balance of the post complains that the Met is mistreated in the press with regards to its non-profit status, and hands out some expert opinion on running a non-profit.
