Alphabet City

It was 1991.  I was 26 and unattached – no husband, no kids.  So I spent my time doing what I loved to do most: working in the theater, and going to the theater.

The company I worked for was a small, scrappy non-profit, with its Lower East Side, un-heated, un-air conditioned offices on East 2^nd Street, between Avenues A and B.  One particularly bitter cold day, I accidentally melted the rubber soles of my shoes because my feet were too close to the space heater I had under my desk.

It was a colorful neighborhood back then – colorful being a euphemism.  Nowadays, I hear there’s a Starbucks or a GAP on every corner, but back then, it was dangerous, with the big, bad Thompson Square Park and all its drug dealers only five blocks away.  I stayed clear of that area.  My office block felt fairly safe, even pleasant, during the day.  One morning, when I was walking to work from where the bus let me off, I heard a rich baritone singing “Up on the Roof” from a fire escape somewhere.  It was a beautiful, surreal moment.  I couldn’t spot the singer, but the sky was a gorgeous, bright blue, contrasting sharply with the deep red of the ornate crowns of the pre-war, walk-up buildings.

I worked long hours, and enjoyed the work.  There was a lot to do for this promising, burgeoning company, and I didn’t mind chipping away at my perpetually long “to-do” list, often well past dinnertime, all by myself in the office. 

One Monday night, I worked until 11pm, when I finally dragged myself to the corner of Avenue A and 2^nd Street to catch a cab home.  I was tired, and there weren’t a lot of cabs around.  I stood there, in the dark, feeling rather vulnerable with my arm out, watching the traffic speed north, when I finally saw a taxi with its light on coming toward me.  I felt a wave of relief wash over me, but then, in a split second, a guy walking a half a block away from me thrust his arm out.  The cab pulled over and he hopped in.  I was incensed!  To a random guy who happened to be walking by, I groused, “Did you see that?!  That guy stole my cab!  Clearly, chivalry is dead!”  The young man kept walking, wordlessly.  A moment later, I saw another cab and thrust my arm out.  The guy I had talked to was now a half a block away, and he put his arm out.  “Oh, no,” I thought.  “Now HE’s going to steal my cab.”  But when the cab pulled over to him, he pointed in my direction and sent the driver down to me.  As I waved my thanks to him and got in the taxi, I heard him yell, “Chivalry is NOT dead!”

I smiled, my faith in humanity restored.  I was so tickled by the story that I immediately told it to the cab driver.  Leaning forward, with my face through the plexi-glass partition so he could hear me, I spoke excitedly, concluding with, “Isn’t that great?!”  The driver agreed that it was, but, he said, he had one question: “Who’s Chivalry?”  

PS – That theater company, Theatre for a New Audience, recently built and opened a beautiful new performing arts center in Brooklyn.  I’d like to think that my hard work all those years ago had a little something to do with its success.  www.tfana.org

No More Lazy Boards

In an Oct. 4, 2015 article (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/arts/music/carnegie-hall-faces-internal-strife-ahead-of-anniversary-season.html), Michael Cooper of The New York Times reported that the recent management conflict at Carnegie Hall “has raised anew questions about the proper roles of boards and staffs at nonprofit institutions.”  However, neither deep discussion nor answers have resulted. So, I thought I’d take the time to write about it.  How involved should a board be in the day-to-day operations of a non-profit?

Background

Among the most stark differences between non-profit and for-profit organizations is their boards of directors.  Many publicly held for-profit corporations pay often high-profile individuals large sums to sit on their boards.  One such example is when, in 2011, IAC/InterActiveCorp, an internet media company, controversially appointed the then 31-year-old Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, to their board, paying her $50,000/year plus $250,000 worth of IAC shares.  She joined such hard-hitters as Michael Eisner, former Disney CEO, and Hollywood talent agent Bryan Lourd.  Corporate board appointments are famously coveted for their high pay for minimal work.  One businessman acquaintance in need of income told me that he asked a friend of his to get him on a corporate board to help alleviate the financial pressures he was experiencing.  Conversely, in season 7 of “The West Wing,” fictional White House press secretary cum chief of staff C.J. Cregg (played by Allison Janney, pictured above) flat-out refused to consider these kinds of posts because of their superficiality and emptiness when she was considering her next move after leaving office. 

The other side of the coin is membership on non-profit boards.  Rather than being paid to sit on them, non-profit board members, who are responsible for ensuring that the organization carries out its mission and for setting over-arching policies, are expected to be high-level donors, getting no cash return for their investments but instead only a small tax break and the knowledge that they are helping a needy community.  And rather than doing minimal work, the best non-profit board members not only donate generously, but also roll up their sleeves and fundraise, serve on committees, and serve as management consultants.  It is rare that one board member can be strong on both the financial and expertise-sharing fronts, so it is generally accepted that involvement may be tipped to one side or the other, being mindful that 100% of the board members should make a financial contribution every year, even if it’s only a small one.   

The paid, executive leadership of an organization reports to the board, so the board is the entity that is ultimately responsible for the fiscal health and long-term stability of the organization.  Sadly, though, there is a recent trend away from hands-on, traditional board involvement.  It has been observed that people want to be on non-profit boards for status and prestige, without having to give large sums, take responsibility for the organization, or do any of the work.  In the case of arts organizations, how many times has a board member shown up at the box office for a sold-out show demanding tickets, saying, “I’m on the board,” and expecting preferential treatment?  Yet, many non-profit board members take on the responsibility even though they already have full plates, juggling high-pressure jobs, demanding family lives, and their preferred recreational activities.  Many board members barely even attend board meetings, let alone donate time or money.

The most conscientious non-profits do a thorough prospective board member training before the annual board elections are held.  That way, prospective members have a full understanding of what is expected of them when they agree to join the board.  What many non-profit board prospects do not understand is that, after agreeing to sit on a board, they become legally responsible for the organization.  According to Grantspace.org:

The main legal responsibilities of a nonprofit board are often summarized in the "three Ds":

Duty of care: Board members are expected to actively participate in organizational planning and decision-making and to make sound and informed judgments.

Duty of loyalty: When acting on behalf of the organization, board members must put the interests of the nonprofit before any personal or professional concerns and avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Duty of obedience: Board members must ensure that the organization complies with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and that it remains committed to its established mission.

In addition to its legal responsibilities, the board acts in a fiduciary role by maintaining oversight of the nonprofit's finances. Board members must evaluate financial policies, approve annual budgets, and review periodic financial reports to ensure that the organization has the necessary resources to carry out its mission and remains accountable to its donors and the general public.

The board acts as trustee of the organization's assets and ensures that the nonprofit is well managed and remains fiscally sound. In doing so, the board must exercise proper oversight of the organization's operations and maintain the legal and ethical accountability of its staff and volunteers.

Board members can be sued, and in some states their personal assets jeopardized, if lack of oversight results in a law suit. It’s for this reason that individuals are well advised to get Directors and Officers Liability Insurance (D&O Insurance) if they decide to sit on a board.  

Non-profit board members have been called “the ultimate volunteers” by many non-profit managers over the years, but often times, staff would rather have less active board members, because board members can create more work rather than help alleviate the heavy burdens of the often over-worked and under-paid staff.  Volunteers require guidance, coaching and supervision.  And because everyone knows that volunteers can potentially be unreliable (“You get what you pay for” being a popular mantra), many managers would rather do the work themselves just to be sure that it gets done, and gets done correctly.

Frequently, because board members donate their time and their money, the staff is in the awkward position of worrying about offending them with candid direction or coaching in light of the fact that whatever they say will most likely affect the amount of the board member’s annual giving.  So, staff doesn’t feel as though they can talk freely with board members, hindering the board members’ success at whatever project they are volunteering to help with.

Additionally, some of the wealthiest board members candidly admit that they do not have any time to give, but will still write big checks.  According to the executive director of a Philadelphia non-profit arts organization, that’s ok.  “We need the money,” he told me.

Another trend is away from requiring a minimum “give or get” contribution for the sake of board diversity.  The misguided thinking goes as follows: institutional donors (like foundation and government sources) look for ethnic diversity in non-profit organizations;  however, ethnic groups like blacks and Latinos do not have the disposable income to contribute significantly to non-profits, so they shouldn’t be required to donate, or to fundraise from their equally financially challenged friends.  So, the “give or get” requirement is unfair and eliminated.

These trends have put more pressures on the dedicated staffs of non-profits.  Their boards expect them to work tirelessly so that their organizations fulfill their ambitious missions by implementing impactful programs and serving broad constituencies, and growing the organization.  The pressure to put in long hours is enormous.  It will be interesting to see, starting December 1, how the new and complicated Labor Department regulation requiring time-and-a-half overtime pay for most employees making under $47,476 affects non-profits.  Surely, productivity will be affected, because the salary line in the non-profit expense budget is always the last to be raised.  The Labor Department says that 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime, but it’s unclear how many of them work for non-profit organizations.  Will leadership expect the workers to work overtime and not ask for the additional pay?  If the millennial generation’s steadfast protection of their rights is any indication, that’s not going to work.

So today, we are seeing non-profit board members who, for whatever reasons, cannot give of their time or their money.  So what good are they?  Is it all just a façade?

The Carnegie Hall Controversy

In the fall of 2015, the traditional non-profit board/staff relationship was put to the test by the reputedly combative businessman Ronald O. Perelman, who had recently taken on the role of chairman of Carnegie Hall’s board, and who was a long-time, eight-figure major donor to the organization. 

Mr. Perelman saw his role as a contributor of money and of time, and he rolled up his sleeves, ready to take responsibility for the organization.  He asked questions.  He expected answers.  But was he obstructionist?  Was he out of line?

According to The New York Times, two issues in particular drew Mr. Perelman’s attention.  One was the upcoming awarding of the new annual Warner Music Prize.  The prize promotes the Warner name, and Warner is owned by a firm that was founded by Len Blavatnik, who sits on Carnegie Hall’s board.  An interesting backstory is that in 2011, Sony (who was working with Perelman at the time) was vying against Mr. Blavatnik’s firm to buy Warner.   Concerned about a potential conflict of interest over the music prize, Mr. Perelman wanted to make sure the relationship between Carnegie Hall and Warner was properly vetted before executive and artistic director Clive Gillinson signed a contract related to the prize.  However, Mr. Gillinson signed the agreement “over Mr. Perelman’s objections.”

Strictly speaking, Gillinson reports to Perelman, and so should have heeded Perelman’s wishes to hold off on signing.  Perelman wanted lawyers to investigate the relationship between Warner and Carnegie Hall, which could have taken a long time, and which certainly would have been expensive, and which also would have jeopardized the award grant itself.  One can imagine that Gillinson might have unilaterally decided that there was no impropriety and did not want to hold up the process of making sure that the prize would be awarded at the October gala by giving in to Perelman’s wishes.  Perhaps he saw Perelman only as a meddlesome figure-head, and not as a truly responsible board chairman.  Or maybe he thought that Perelman lacked integrity and wanted to throw a wrench into the works just to get even with Blavatnik after losing Warner to him.  Regardless, it’s clear that Gillinson wanted to get on with “business as usual” and so moved forward, and Perelman called him on it. 

The second issue that Perelman raised was a lack of fiscal transparency to the board.  While I am sure there is a finance committee that looks at periodic (perhaps quarterly) broad-stroke statements, the committee may not be shown details that Perelman sought.  He asked to see profit and loss statements for particular recitals that Carnegie Hall presented.  According to the NY Times article on Oct. 4, 2015, he was “told that such financial information was never shared with the board or even the chairman.”  If this story is true, I can’t help but wonder who had the chutzpa to say that to the board chairman?!  Obviously, artist fees are typically kept secret from the general public to avoid bidding wars between rival performers.   The Times reported that, after stalling, Carnegie officials ultimately did provide Perelman with the information he sought.  It is incumbent upon the board leadership to keep sensitive information from becoming public, and the staff most certainly should not keep important fiscal information from the board leadership. 

Perhaps the staff did not trust Perelman with keeping the classified information secret, and feared the time and money repercussions should the numbers leak.  Or worse, perhaps the staff thought that Perelman wanted the information not for reasons of fiscal oversight, but for personal reasons.  Heck, it would be interesting to know what a high-profile soloist like Yo-Yo Ma is paid for a gig at Carnegie Hall. 

The New York Times reported that “Mr. Perelman’s suspicions were apparently aroused when a batch of data he obtained in late May came in an unreadable format.”  I can just imagine an over-worked staffer muttering under his/her breath that they did not have time for this nonsense, and sending a document without taking the time to format it correctly. Perelman, instead of seeing this possibility, distrustingly leapt to an assumption that the staff was trying to hide something.  The real issue may well have been that the staff is not used to having engaged board leadership and does not have the time to be as responsive as Mr. Perelman would have liked.  Maybe the staff is used to a lazy board and doesn’t know how, or have the capabilities, to act when engaged leadership is in place.

Because of the P&L and the Warner Prize issues, Perelman, with the “input” of the board’s secretary and treasurer, but shamefully without the knowledge of the full 15-member executive committee, suspended Gillinson rashly on August 18.  An emergency meeting of the executive committee was called for the following day, at which time Gillinson was immediately re-instated.  Committee members said they felt blind-sided and were angry, justifiably so.  Perelman subsequently announced that he would step down as chair, and an “internal investigation” of the suspected improprieties brought to light by Perelman was underway, although I doubt that the public will ever be made aware of the outcome with Perelman out of the picture.

One organizational choice that seems to put Carnegie Hall in a difficult situation is the title held by Mr. Gillinson: Executive and Artistic Director.  His bio reports that he moved up the leadership ranks from being a musician.  Traditionally, artists become Artistic Directors, and managers become Executive or Managing Directors.  In many non-profit arts organizations, this two-pronged leadership structure, with both directors being paid equally, allows for a balance between the artistic and management concerns of the organization.  It’s also a way to keep checks and balances in line.  Perhaps if there had been a managerial counterpart to Mr. Gillinson, much of this recent hullaballoo could have been avoided.

Lazy Boards

Perelman notwithstanding, most non-profit boards would undoubtedly rather put all their faith in the executive staff rather than take what precious little time they have to get involved, ask the hard questions, and act to rectify negative situations.  No one wants to make waves.  Sometimes, board members just want to “save face,” keeping a low profile so that no one will notice to what extent they do not understand their role as a non-profit board member.  Other times, they are just lazy.

“Rectifying negative situations” may sometimes mean taking the difficult step of replacing under-performing, or just plain bad, executive leadership, a process that is stressful and time-consuming for a board, who has to not only deliver the bad news to the leader, but make sure that all actions are taken legally to avoid a law suit, form a search committee, invest already stretched budgetary funds in hiring a search firm, and interview candidates to find a suitable replacement.  Often times, this daunting “to-do list” is what tragically keeps a board wedded to an incompetent staff leader.  And it’s the organization, the subordinate staff, and ultimately the community that pays the price.

After all, change is hard.  To quote the introduction of Common Sense (1776) by Thomas Paine:

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor.  A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right… 

Paine, of course, was referring to the King of England’s abuse of power.  But these sentences apply to many other situations throughout history and up to the present day.  Perelman stepped down from being Carnegie Hall’s chairman, and probably would not have been re-elected anyway, because he made “unfashionable” waves that the rest of the board and the staff were not prepared for and did not want to deal with.  Conversely, he acted in a rash and unilateral way that was entirely inappropriate. It’s a shame.

The Way it Should Be

• Board prospects should be fully aware of, and in agreement with, what is required for membership before they agree to be added to a slate of nominees.
•  Fundraising duties should always be on the list of board responsibilities for every board member.  Making “asks” is often outside the comfort zone of some people, but there are ways for those individuals to help with fundraising that do not include face-to-face asks, such as sharing prospect contact information, and allowing the use of his/her name in proposals.
• There should be a “give or get” policy for all members, regardless of race, but taking into consideration what is practical in order not to shut out any socio-economic groups. 
• Time commitments, such as committee participation and general meeting attendance, should be articulated and agreed to in writing.  Dates for all meetings should be announced at the beginning of each fiscal year in order to give plenty of advance notice.
• There should be a Governance Committee of the board that tracks giving, fundraising, committee involvement and meeting attendance.  The committee should produce a Board Report Card for each board member that is reviewed in person at the end of each fiscal year.  It is important that this is a board member – to – board member meeting, as it wouldn’t work if a staff member prepared the report cards.  Peer-to-peer evaluation is necessary. 
• Failure to fulfill board commitments despite the support of the governance committee and of the staff should be grounds for rotating “dead wood” off the board.  Being on a non-profit board is not a decision to make lightly.  It’s a serious responsibility.

Many non-profits are afraid to be so demanding.  They worry that no one would be willing to join their boards, or make big donations, if they make the board requirements too strongly.  But the benefits of being on a board should also be articulated clearly: being listed as a board member in publications, ticket perks (if there are any), prime gala seating – whatever they are.  It is not one-sided, although ideally, board members should be supportive for unselfish reasons. 

***

CODA:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/arts/music/with-big-gift-carnegie-to-name-tier-of-boxes-for-blavatnik-family.html?_r=0

For further reading:  The Board Book: An Insider’s Guide for Directors and Trustees by William G. Bowen

Special thanks to Stanley N. Katz for his input to the post.

GO AWAY: Some Memories of Fred Ebb

You can spray wherever you figure

The streptococci lurk
You can give her a shot
For whatever she's got
But it just won't work

If she’s tired of getting the fish-eye

From the hotel clerk

A person could develop a cold

                From “Adelaide’s Lament” by Frank Loesser (“Guys and Dolls,” 1950)

After charmingly singing this verse with his native New York accent on “Broadway: The Golden Age,” a touching documentary by Rick McKay released in 2004, the year of Fred’s too-early death at age 76, lyricist Fred Ebb said, with his signature frankness, “Augh!  I would kill to have written that.”

Always modest, he doesn’t mention all that he did write during his 50 plus-year career (which preceded three shows that were produced on Broadway posthumously), including 17 stage and screen musicals with his long-time song-writing partner, composer John Kander, the time-honored smash hits Cabaret, New York, New York and Chicago being the most famous of them. 

One of my favorite Fred Ebb lyrics is from a lesser-known, light-hearted and humorous ditty, “Arthur in the Afternoon,” from The Act (1977), a thin-plotted star vehicle for Fred’s beloved protégée Liza Minnelli, who famously sported elegant costumes designed by Halston for the spectacle, and who won a Tony Award for her block-buster performance:

He has a small apartment in the center of town
I'd hardly say it was posh
But I gun my Hyundai and I hurry on down
To hear the banister squeak and the waterbed slosh

While there is a simple A – B – A – B rhyme scheme in this verse, I love Fred’s cleaver use of mid-line alliteration and rhyme.  In many of his songs, Fred shows us time and again that alliteration can be just as, if not more, effective than rhyme in songwriting ("Hyundai" and "hurry" in this example).  I also love the mid-line rhyme of “gun” and “Hyun(dai).”  Seemingly insignificant word choices like these were labored over by Fred during his creative process, and the results made you want to listen to the songs over and over, in the same way that so many people are finding the “Hamilton” cast recording addictive today.  Even Fred’s name plays on his technique, with his monosyllabic first and last names both playfully sporting a short /e/ sound.

The storytelling in Fred’s lyrics is also fabulous.  My favorite example is, “Ring Them Bells” from the television concert Liza with a Z (1972).  When I told Fred how much I love that song, he said, “It’s a true story!”  He was so proud of that.  My family groans every time I launch into that song, because it’s long, but I love it.  It starts with, “Gather around, I’ve got a story to tell, about a Manhattan lady that I know very well…”  Aren’t you just dying to know more?!  Ditto for the introduction to “Cabaret:” “I used to have a girlfriend known as Elsie, with whom I’d share four sordid rooms in Chelsea…”  Tell me more!  (Note the internal rhyme of "four" and "sor(did)!")

But Fred’s genius never got the attention it deserved, primarily because he didn’t want it.  One time, when we were out to lunch together and he was beguiling me with fabulous stories of his life, I suggested that he write an auto-biography, or have someone write a biography of him.  He demurred, saying that he hated those tawdry, “tell-all” books.  Plus, I knew he didn’t want to draw any attention to himself because he was humble, to a fault in my opinion, but I pressed him anyway.  I told him that his book didn’t have to be a “tell-all,” but he wasn’t convinced.  Finally, in 2003, the book Colored Lights: Forty Years of Words and Music, Show Biz, Collaboration, and All That Jazz came out in the form of a long interview of the duo “as told to Greg Lawrence.”  Since only around four people read this blog, I figure I’m safe to shower Fred with accolades here.

I was introduced to Fred by his musical partner John Kander in 1991, when my dear director friend, Jay Berkow, proposed to me that we produce a revival of The Rink (1984).  I had met John while I was working at Theater for a New Audience and we were producing Romeo and Juliet at the Victory Theater on 42^nd Street (before it was renovated).  When I told him of our interest in The Rink, he confessed that The Rink was a favorite of his and Fred’s, and would love for us all to have a go at it.  John and Fred were always very supportive of young, talented enthusiasts.  (We were both in our late 20s.)

From a video I found on YouTube posted by the Inge Center in Kansas in 2012 (although it seems to have been filmed in 2003 or 2004), here is what Fred had to say about the Broadway production:

It looked like a sure thing, but those are the projects to beware of.  The sure things really aren’t, ever.  And there we had Chita and Liza and five wonderful guys – Jason Alexander being one of them.  It was quite a piece.  And I thought it was wonderfully well directed, which it was, and wonderfully performed, which it was.  And, I don’t know.  It just didn’t seem to appeal to the critics – who I hate anyway - but they didn’t buy it.   I don’t even know why, not even now do I know why.  Some shows, if they don’t get everything you wish for them, you can read a review and say, “Oh, yea, well I can see why he didn’t like it.  I don’t agree with him, but I really understand that.”  And I don’t understand “The Rink.”  I just don’t.  It was just really well done.  Everybody was at the peak of their powers, I thought.  Chita was magnificent.  Liza bit off a part that nobody expected her to play, which, by the way, I didn’t think helped us.  You know, they wanted these Halston sequin things, and she played the whole thing looking like kind of a schleppy girl.” 

In a nutshell, that’s what Fred told Jay and me back in 1991.  It turned out that Fred and John both lived close to me on the upper West Side, and invited us to attend several meetings at Fred’s apartment, where they introduced us to Terrence McNally, the book writer, and we set to work on The Rink.

John was, and still is, such a kind man.  I didn’t know what to expect when I met Fred.  After all, he’s the guy who wrote some hysterical but caustic lyrics, like these from a show I appeared in in college:

Now, every son-of-a-bitch

Is a pain in the ass

Whatever happened to class?

            - from “Chicago” (1975)

When I nervously arrived at his apartment for that first meeting, I was greeted by this doormat:

Gulp! 

Fred and Terrence weren’t as warm as John was in the beginning of our relationship, but as I got to know Fred, I discovered that he was a pussy cat.  He was sweet, sensitive, kind, and thoughtful.  I will always treasure the gift from Tiffany’s he sent when my first daughter, Jackie, was born in 2000.

And I’ll never forget that lunch we had when we talked about a possible book.  I mentioned to Fred that I would be moving to France for a year with my husband, and he told me that when he was in grade school, he won a prize for his recitation of a famous fable by Jean de la Fontaine (1621 – 1695), Le Corbeau et le Renard.  Then, without missing a beat, he launched into it:

Maître Corbeau, sur un arbre perché,
Tenait en son bec un fromage.
Maître Renard, par l'odeur alléché,
Lui tint à peu près ce langage:
"Hé! Bonjour, Monsieur du Corbeau.
Que vous êtes joli! Que vous me semblez beau!
Sans mentir, si votre ramage
Se rapporte à votre plumage,
Vous êtes le Phénix des hôtes de ces bois."
A ces mots le Corbeau ne se sent pas de joie;
Et pour montrer sa belle voix,
Il ouvre un large bec, laisse tomber sa proie.
Le Renard s'en saisit, et dit: "Mon bon Monsieur,
Apprenez que tout flatteur
Vit aux dépens de celui qui l'écoute:
Cette leçon vaut bien un fromage, sans doute."
Le Corbeau, honteux et confus,
Jura, mais un peu tard, qu'on ne l'y prendrait plus. 

I was so charmed, and I was kicking myself for not having thought of bringing a tape recorder to our lunch.  (These were the days before cell phones.)  How I wish I had recorded our discussion, although in my heart of hearts, I know he probably wouldn’t have allowed me to tape it. 

I had no trouble imagining how adorable Fred must have been as a child.  He even admitted it, in his own self-effacing way, early in the 2003 book, when he says that he used to win talent competitions in Atlantic City, because, “I guess I was sort of cute.”

In reading the book, I often smile to myself, because several times in the first chapter, when Fred refers to a certain lyric, John says, “Go on.  Recite it.  I know you’re dying to.”  And then he does.  I can just see the twinkle in both of their eyes.  And I’m so glad I got a private recitation, in French even!

Throughout our working together on The Rink, I always tried to figure out the essence of John and Fred’s relationship.  I watched them closely.  I looked for a crack in the veneer, or for mutual affection.  But all I ever really saw was professionalism and respect.  I remember sitting at Fred’s kitchen table when John arrived for a meeting one morning, and John greeted him by saying, “Hello, partner!” to which Fred replied, “Hello, partner” in return.  And then we got to work.

At the beginning of a compilation of Kander & Ebb sheet music published by their friend Tommy Valando, there is a brief interview with the pair, and the last question was, “Would you consider yours a happy collaboration?” Fred replied, wearing his heart on his sleeve, “Having been brought up to be truthful, I will tell you exactly how I feel.  Our collaboration is the best thing that ever happened to me.”

But for all Fred’s success, it was clear to me that he was fundamentally a lonely man, and I didn’t quite know what to do about that. He was envious that John had a longtime relationship.  He told me, “I don’t have that.”  I felt helpless.  I wished there was something I could do for him.

I also know that Fred felt that John had a privileged upbringing in Kansas City compared to his own in Manhattan.  He mentions something in the book that he once told me: “John was brought up on warm goat’s milk!  I didn’t have that.”  Frankly, at the time Fred told me that, I couldn’t imagine why anyone would want warm goat’s milk.  But I guess it's a generational thing!

More often than not, when I saw Fred, he was wearing his NYU hoodie.  He was an undergrad there, and I went to grad school there, so I felt we had a connection.  This is how I will always remember him.  I never took a photo of us together, in my effort to hide my dumbfounded admiration and to appear to be professional.

I wish Jay and I could have made a big hit out of the revival of The Rink for Fred.  Who knows?   Maybe we will someday.  

Detail from an autographed poster from “The Rink,” 

a gift from my former English professor and dear friend June Schlueter.

For further reading:  http://www.broadwaycares.org/fredebb2014

A Word about Teachers

See if you can follow this: I have a friend here where I live, whose sister has a friend who lives in Australia.  My friend's sister told me that, immediately after her Australian friend gave birth to a child with special needs, a check from the Australian government arrived in the mail.  No forms to fill out.  No evaluations to schedule.  The Australian government understood that there would be extraordinary expenses associated with having a child with special needs, and they were pro-active and generous.

Not so here in the US.  Ask any parent about his or her experience in raising a child with special needs, and you will hear one harrowing tale after another.  My husband and I had our daughter Audrey evaluated when she was still a baby, and she starting receiving Early Intervention services by her first birthday.  But we discovered rather late in the game that these public services (speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy and cognitive therapy) were generally inferior to those offered by expensive private practitioners.  So, we shelled out some big bucks for supplemental “out-of-network” services.

When Audrey was three, Early Intervention ended, and she was enrolled in Special Education through our public school system.  The teachers there didn’t know what to do with her.  In our efforts to have her placed in a “least restrictive environment,” we ended up with teachers and administrators who were clueless about how to help a child as severely disabled as Audrey is.  I spent a stressful and depressing year meeting, arguing, cajoling, and fighting.  It was awful.  The next year, we placed Audrey in a more restrictive environment, where she was surrounded by other severely disabled kids, and where she was generally ignored for two academic years.

Enter the Rock Brook School.  Actually, Audrey’s class pictures tell the story best.  When she was three and in a district school, the school photo came home of her crying, and a teacher’s arm was in the frame trying to keep her from bolting off the stool.  The next two years’ photos weren’t much better.  Then - and I still thank God regularly for this - Audrey was moved to the Rock Brook School.  Here is her 2011-12 school picture:

What a smile.  And as we are completing our fifth year at Rock Brook, the photos still tell the story.  Not that it’s all about the school pictures.  Audrey loves Rock Brook, her friends there, and her teachers.  Plus, she’s learning!

At every Rock Brook parent-teacher conference and IEP meeting, I thank Audrey’s teachers and therapists, and the school’s administrators.  I say something along the lines of, “We are so fortunate to have you and this school in our lives.  I don’t know what we’d do without you.”  And my eyes well up.  Even as I write this, I’m tearing up again. 

The Rock Brook team is knowledgeable, loving, patient, generous, dedicated, selfless, and nothing short of a blessing to our family and to all the families it serves.  During Staff Appreciation Week and throughout the year, we can’t show our appreciation enough for all that they do, and the peace of mind that they give us beleaguered parents, who can rest assured that our children are being given superlative educations.  Imagine my elation when the school announced its expansion into high school last year.  What a relief to know that Audrey can have the benefit of staying at Rock Brook for ten more years. 

THANK YOU, Rock Brook staff, for all you do for our precious children!!!!!!

Rock Brook School * 109 Orchard Road * Skillman, NJ 08558

www.rock-brook.org * Telephone: 908-431-9500 * Fax: 908-431-9503

Music as Motivator

On Monday and Friday mornings at our local YMCA, a group of indomitable women meet to stretch, run, "chasser," dance and smile.  We are attending "Spanda," a fitness class that combines yoga, aerobics and music with a beat.  Jane Eldridge Miller, a writer (specializing in feminist literary history) and former university lecturer, has been leading the class for nearly 8 years.  While men are always welcome, they generally aren't in attendance.  Their loss!

In the words of its creator, Dr. Jaime Stover Schmitt, Spanda is a Sanskrit term for the subtle creative pulse of the universe as it manifests into the dynamism of living form. Spanda can be translated to mean “vibration,” “movement,” or “motion,” referring to waves of activity issuing forth from an unseen source of spontaneous expression.  See spandayoga.com for more information on the practice.  Jane started taking Spanda classes with Dr. Schmitt nearly 25 years ago.  Some of the women currently taking the class started with Dr. Schmitt more than fifteen years ago.

Jane Eldridge Miller leading a Spanda class at our local YMCA

Watching the participating women move together across the dance studio floor, one can sense their profound enjoyment as well as their sense of community.  One time, in between songs, a classmate said to me, "You're always smiling!"  I hadn't realized it, but upon reflection, I noticed that she was right.  I responded, "Because it's fun!"

“I love the community we've all created together in Spanda. We support one another in class and have formed friendships outside of class, and that makes me very happy,” Jane says.

Age, body type, and athletic ability vary greatly at any given class.  There are participants who clearly have a dance background, and then some who clearly don't, but are keeping up all the same, and getting just as much out of it.  There is no equipment for this class, and everyone generally comes in casual stretchy pants, a t-shirt, and running shoes.  An exception is Lin, who is one of those people who does have a dance background. "Standard workout shoes are uncomfortable to me because the soles are so rigid. I was very happy to find split-sole shoes that allow you to flex and stretch your feet," she explains.

While the exercise steps range from simple to complex, when I first started taking the class last year, I could feel some of my under-used brain synapses firing anew when I moved in ways that I hadn't for years.  And while I enjoy the challenge that some of the steps present, for my part, it's the music that keeps me coming back week after week.  Jane puts together a carefully selected playlist every session, which keeps the class fresh and up-to-the-minute.  

“I love collecting music and creating original playlists for the class,” Jane says.  The music is inspiring and motivating. It's multi-cultural, and multi-generational.  One playlist may include a Spanish rap song ("I hope they're not saying anything bad!" Jane confessed to the class one time), a typical Indian Bolly-wood song, pop music from the '80's, and modern funk. Think: "She's a Bad Mama Jama" (Carl Carlton, 1981), "The Obvious Child" (Paul Simon, 1990), "Quién Manda?" (Mala Rodriguez, 2013) and "The Clean Up Woman" (Betty Wright, 1972).  Check out these songs on YouTube if you’re not already familiar with them, and you’ll see what I mean!

Students have loved the music so much that Jane has taken to emailing the playlists to everyone so we can download our new favorites.  "I was driving my teenage daughter and "What You Don’t Do" (by Lianne La Havas, 2015) from our class came on the radio," Laura told us at a recent potluck dinner students gathered for. "I started singing and moving to the music, and my daughter was stunned.  'How do you know that song?' she asked me.  I felt so au courant!"

The music is not only energizing, but also empowering.  While chassé-ing across the floor, I often feel an overwhelming confidence that I can do ANYTHING.  "I'm the king of the world!" I think.  That is, until we get to the combination of 8 counts of walking in a comma-shaped pattern while keeping low to the ground, followed by a double Charleston. Not tripping over my own feet becomes my primary focus then.

“The biggest challenge for me,” Jane explains, “is creating movement patterns that are interesting and challenging for my experienced participants but which are also accessible for new participants and adaptable for participants who might have injuries or restrictions. I always want to insure that everyone feels welcome in Spanda and feels able to participate at a level that is right for them.”

“I love that my class gives the women in it the strength, flexibility, endurance, and energy they need to live healthy, active lives,” Jane says. Personally, I can be really dragging on a frigid winter's morning, but as soon as I arrive at the studio, sense the sisterhood in the room, and that music gets going, my mood improves immediately, and in spite of myself, before I know it, I'm smiling again, and grooving to the beat.  I defy any newcomer to respond differently.