First-Person: Don Anderson on the meeting about Hudson Village Theatre

It May Take a Village Part II

The Meeting on September 11, 2011

by Don Anderson

The difference in tone, atmosphere and energy between the Hudson Village Theatre’s Board of Directors meeting last week and the meeting at the Hudson Community Centre last night, was remarkable. I recognized three senior Board members in attendance. This, I felt, was promising.

However, the big questions were: Would there be the same outcome from this meeting? Would the community come together and start solving the problems? What about the various stakeholders who felt ignored and betrayed? Had they, in fact, been ignored and betrayed?

The Chairman indicated that the meeting would deal with what was essentially the issue of “governance” of the theatre and he asked for civility from all. After all, he said, “We’re all neighbours”. 

The answers would come in the form of a town-hall style meeting, organized and guided by a core group of those opposed to the Hudson Village Theatre’s Board of Directors’ decision to restructure.

An agenda had been circulated shortly before the meeting was called to order, just after 7pm. A Chairman and Secretary for the meeting were duly installed. The Chairman indicated that the meeting would deal with what was essentially the issue of “governance” of the theatre and he asked for civility from all. After all, he said, “We’re all neighbours”. 

Irene Arsenault made an opening statement. Irene is an actor, director, teacher of theatre, stage manager, long-time volunteer and former Member of the Board of Directors of the HVT.

She began by saying that the Board’s decision had the effect of  “... eliminating our status as the only year-round, English Language Theatre, in Quebec, off the Island of Montreal” and, has ended the theatre’s chances of getting an operating grant from the Canada Council for the Arts. She said, the reaction and support for Andrew Johnston, whose contract as AD at the HVT will not be renewed effective January 1, 2012 as a result of the Board’s decision, had come in from across the country, the Montreal artistic community and, most importantly, that many in the Hudson community were outraged.

Irene Arsenault explained that as a former Board member, she is among the roughly 25 “members” who are invited to the annual general meetings and have a vote.

 She then introduced the present meeting as being the result of suggestions made by members of the community. That these folks had wanted an opportunity to respond with suggestions to save the theatre and that this would be the time and place to begin.

Irene explained that as a former Board member, she is among the roughly 25 “members” who are invited to the annual general meetings and have a vote. She stated that she had attended the AGM in May and reviewed the financial statements. She saw that Andrew Johnston had met all his budgetary goals and that the Board, responsible for fundraising and memberships, had not. When she questioned the Board about this she was told, at the time, that “donor fatigue” and the wider economic down-turn had caused it and that they had no move forward. She went on to say that, at no time during this AGM, did anyone mention any potential restructuring. No votes were taken. Yet, she wondered, why did the Board say last week that the decision was years in coming and months in planning?

She said that this past Spring she had offered to return to the Board to join the committee for corporate sponsorship and presented a “very skeleton” strategic plan to develop corporate sponsorship. Her offer to rejoin was rejected by the Board. She said the theatre is not without option though, is perhaps without vision.

Irene, then read an email she sent to the Board members prior to their September 4th meeting, essentially calling on them to help channel the energy, which had been generated by the decision they’ve made, in a more positive direction. If it was simply a question of money, the $50k shortfall, the people who feel strongly opposed to the decision would “jump at the opportunity” to contribute whatever they could to meet the challenge. Thus, creating a win-win situation. The Board would not have to fundraise as hard, the community would get what it wants and the Board would be seen as having taken the initiative to resolve the conflict.

The Board said that they would gladly receive any funds raised for the theatre but, that their decision regarding the restructuring would remain unchanged.

According to Irene, only one Board member responded to her, by email. The Board member wrote that the idea would be presented to certain members of the Board for consideration and that it would be addressed by the Board at the September 4th open meeting. But, it was not properly addressed at the meeting. The Board said that they would gladly receive any funds raised for the theatre but, that their decision regarding the restructuring would remain unchanged.

Several preselected speakers followed Irene. The first summarized the Board’s information meeting the previous week. She cited what she felt were inconsistencies. After her, the next speaker read a letter from Walter Massey, CEO, co-founder and working member of CAEA, addressed to the Board. He would have been there in person but, was at the ACTRA Awards, presenting Dick Irvin a Life Time Achievement Award. He wanted to respond to a question raised about the CAEA’s possible guidance to move forward. She was followed by a speaker who addressed the positive economic and social benefits the theatre, under its current structure, has had on the local community. Irene then returned to give a statement on the financial impact of the restructuring of the theatre. She also spoke of the current structure of the Board and its mandate.

A question and answer period followed. The Chairman asked that people express themselves on the following question: What does the community want? The floor was opened up to anyone who cared to speak, no time limits, no topic was off limits though and everyone who wanted to speak was given that opportunity.

I rose to speak at that point. My prepared statement [below] was intended for the people closely associated with, and deeply affected by, the recent events in Hudson. It dealt with the invective that had been swirling around this issue. I included a mea culpa, indicating that some of my own comments had “... been less than conducive to a civil and constructive dialogue.”

Several young people from the community spoke clearly and eloquently about the benefits, the life altering moments and positive impact their association with the theatre had had on their lives.

Another actor rose and spoke about the need for a solid and capable Artistic Director to  be part of, and familiar with, Montreal’s theatre artists. This would mitigate the extreme financial and logistical difficulties associated with the 15 day rehearsal schedule, inherent with most theatrical productions. Getting the play up on stage, “... from 0 to 100...”, as he said, requires the best, most competent artists and an AD familiar with local professional actors. A seasonal AD, as suggested under the restructuring by the Board, would not necessarily be able to attract that quality of artists. 

Several young people from the community spoke clearly and eloquently about the benefits, the life altering moments and positive impact their association with the theatre had had on their lives. They had come out of their shell, learned social skills, avoided getting into trouble and made life long friends of all ages. My heart melted a bit.

By this time, the 100 seats, that had been put out for the event, were practically all taken, with people standing at the back of the hall.

People rose and spoke of their years of volunteering at the theatre and their experience with young performance artists; dancers, actors, singers and musicians. Live performers.

Many others spoke about their view that the theatre is in dire need of paying customers year round. That events, like films and the opera series under the auspices of the Hudson Film Society, generate significant funds for the operations of the theatre.

Then a woman, who had travelled from Halifax expressly to attend the meeting, came to the microphone. She said that she had an extensive education, and many decades of experience, in not-for-profit governance. She questioned how the “membership” of the HVT, a not-for-profit organization, was populated by such a small group of people (estimated at 25). She wondered this because there were clearly more than 25 people in attendance. She wondered how the theatre hadn’t established at least this number of members.

When she had concluded, Irene invited Jane Needles to the microphone to clarify the membership by-laws of the HVT.

Ms. Needles had just told the assembled crowd that the Board would be in contravention of its own by-laws to reasonably refuse anyone who wished to join the Corporation of Village Theatre West Inc. as full and voting member. 

 Ms. Needles identified herself for the people who didn’t already know her. She clarified the articles of incorporation of, the officially named, “Village Theatre West, Inc.”, dated 1996 that gave it its charitable status. She then listed the actual categories of membership in the Corporation and the method to follow to become a full and voting member of the Village Theatre West, Inc.. She explained that it had been her experience and that of Irene’s, while on the Board, that there had never been a list of members of the Corporation. Therefore, any Board members including the extended group of 25, are and have only ever been appointed from within their own ranks. “There’s your answer”, she said.

She cautioned the audience that this dedicated group of 25 people had been instrumental in the past success of the theatre and they are to be commended. She said that her decision to resign from the Board was because of the Board’s “... decision to remove the Artistic Director”.

Ms. Needles had just told the assembled crowd that the Board would be in contravention of its own by-laws to reasonably refuse anyone who wished to join the Corporation of Village Theatre West Inc. as full and voting member.  She made it clear that the categories of “memberships” currently sold by the theatre were for tickets only and didn’t entitle the purchaser to vote as a member of the Corporation. 

The penny had dropped. All anyone needed to do was to complete an application, pay a token fee (no fee had been established for membership in the Corporation) and wait for the Secretary of the Board to respond. These applications for membership would be presented by the Secretary at the next Board meeting with responses to follow.

Next, a gentleman asked if anyone knew what the price of a theatre ticket would have to be in order to break even. A board member estimated that the price would likely have to double, from an average of $29 to $36 for matinee shows and $62 for evening performances.

A couple more people spoke in support of year round use of the theatre for any type of money raising activity.

Then, Irene said that this meeting was just the beginning of the dialogue. She said that anyone who would like to sign an application for membership could do so at the tables set up at the door. A $5 token fee was collected from those who signed up.

The meeting was then adjourned.

Previous article by Don Anderson

****

Don Anderson's Statement at meeting

My initial instinct was to keep out of the furor that had arisen around the Board’s decision to abolish the position of the year-round Artistic Director. In other words, to remain in the Neutral Position.

My name is Don Anderson. I am an actor. I have been performing professionally and volunteering at the theatre here in Hudson for over 10 years. 

The Neutral Position: a recoiled or calm position, just prior to action; a representation of the moment between conscious choice and conscious action. Simple as it seems, poorly trained or inexperienced actors don’t know how to execute this basic technique on the stage. Conversely, many actors find themselves embroiled in controversy off-stage due to their inability to remain neutral in real-life.

My initial instinct was to keep out of the furor that had arisen around the Board’s decision to abolish the position of the year-round Artistic Director. In other words, to remain in the Neutral Position.

To be honest, had I not been performing on stage here at the same time, exposed between shows as I was to the swirl of emotions surrounding the Board’s decision, I would have more than likely remained neutral. In retrospect, perhaps that would have been the easier choice.

Instead, I saw dear friends and colleagues left feeling betrayed, helpless and ignored. I saw anguish and bewilderment in the eyes of people I cared about deeply. I saw the theatre and the people who view it as more than just a building, being distorted and convulsing in distress. Many of us in this room felt that same sense of catastrophe and began to speak out. 

However, the passions that drove me personally to make certain statements, I now recognize as having been less than conducive to a civil and constructive dialogue. Foremost though, I deeply regret calling into question the motives of those who had accepted the Board’s invitation to attend their information meeting last week. 

Additionally, I have made certain comments that were disrespectful to individuals that have generously given so much to the theatre and their community. To these individuals, present tonight or otherwise, I offer my full and sincere apology. I would also ask tonight for the opportunity to personally apologize to any and all of these people.

That having been said, I cannot and will not simply walk away. My true conviction: that the theatre in this beautiful town achieves the success it deserves, remains undeterred. 

So, I am here tonight to lend my support and my voice to that theatre and this beautiful community. I cannot remain neutral. I have passed from conscious choice to conscious action.