The Seattle Symphony closes a $2 million budget gap
The stage is set now for a three-year, $70 million endowment campaign.
The Seattle Symphony Orchestra, which a few months ago predicted it would end the current season with a deficit in the range of $2 million, instead will end the fiscal year in the black, Board of Directors chair Susan Hutchison says. "It's looking very, very good right now" that an urgent drive among 20-plus major donors has closed the gap, said Hutchison, the former Seattle television news anchor and executive director of the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences. The urgent drive raised $2.8 million.
Ending the year with a balanced budget is a key step toward the symphony's goal of announcing an endowment campaign in the coming season, Hutchison explained. The SSO's current endowment is around $33 million, and the new, three-year campaign will have a goal of raising that to $100 million. Gifts from the Simonyi Fund and longtime symphony benefactor Jack Benaroya in 2004 raised the relatively paltry endowment by $10 million.
A recent managment study of the symphony showed that it ranks very high in ticket sales, with only an orchestra or two in the country having more than the SSO's 37,000 season ticket holders. Also, the McKinstry study showed that the SSO manages costs very well, Hutchison reported. So with little room to cut expenses and not many more tickets to sell, the solution for chronic deficits was obvious: Build up the endowment and do a better job of fundraising.
Music director Gerard Schwarz and Hutchison will lead the drive in coming years, and the board has been charged with spending less time bickering over the future musical direction of the symphony and more time raising money. Hutchison said the current "close-the-gap" drive to balance the books for the 2006-07 season consisted mainly of donors who are "huge fans of Jerry," meaning Schwarz.
According to Hutchison, the SSO has been "resting on its laurels" for too long. It lacked a development director for several years and has endured considerable management turmoil. Many of the donors who helped build Benaroya Hall have not been contacted or solicited since that campaign. Hutchison said they'll soon be getting phone calls.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 4:05 p.m. inappropriate
Her no-nonsense approach to juicing SSO and lighting a fire under a rather staid organization suggests that Hutch - may we call you Hutch, Susan? - knows that she's on the symphony board to make a difference, not an impression. Couple that with her work on election reform (I forgive her endorsement of all-mail voting), and an obvious question gets begged: Why ain't Hutch runnin' for something?
I know there was chatter about last year's senate run, but don't you think Hutch would make a pretty good King County Executive? Or Mayor? Or anything other than some of what we have now???
Compare Brewster's article with Casey Corr's on Jean Enersen, whose star seems to be waning ("Her reports on health topics are less impressive, mainly canned features on research findings of dubious validity") as she coasts on her longevity. While brand strength is a good thing, if the brand isn't refreshed every so often, someday we'll wake up to find that it's too late since the public has moved on to something fresh and innovative.
Enersen's carefully cultivated anonymity on anything other than King 5 News and charity functions doesn't stack up well against Hutch's genuine, making-a-difference-in-the-real-world public service. If you don't stand for something, you'll stand for anything. Hutch stands for things, and she makes no bones about it. People like that.
So, Hutch, when will we see your name on a ballot? The enquiring public - the hungry for new leadership public - wants to know…
The Piper
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 5:10 p.m. inappropriate
_: Wow, she sounds impressive.
But her constituency so far is Symphony supporters and people who watch TV news. The latter group is large, but they don't vote. Too difficult. Luckily, they mostly can't read either, so they won't argue against my assertion that TV news watchers are slack-jawed yokels who care more about the day's crimes and disasters than anything important.
Please excuse me for a small exaggeration or two above. (In fact, it's not that difficult to vote. And they actually care about the weather and puppies too.)
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 10:06 p.m. inappropriate
Not to be cynical, but...: Did pay-to-fly astronaut billionaire Charles Simonyi (Martha Stewart's Hungarian-born beau) just maybe write a check for most of the $2.8M. And just maybe did the 20 other donors write considerably lesser checks? I'd expect it isn't too hard to get money from Mr. Simonyi if you happen to be the executive director of the Charles Simonyi Fund for Arts and Sciences.
I could be wrong and this doesn't mean that she isn't doing a great job; however the truth may not be quite so rosy, and the future $70M endowment campaign a pipe dream. One can't tell from the article. On the other hand, clearly results matter and the SSO is in the black under Hutchison's watch.
Hutchison was mentioned as a possible Republican senate candidate, although I'm not quite sure what her qualifications are. Ultimately McGavick fought that battle. Hutchison left KIRO not-so-gracefully, filing a lawsuit against them after she was let go. Piper thinks highly of her, apparently with reason. I just have not seen or heard the reasons, so I remain skeptical (though not cynical...).
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:40 a.m. inappropriate
Which version is correct?: This is indeed good news for the Seattle Symphony. The administrative drift over the past few seasons was worrying for its supporters and now appears to have been corrected.
The stories in Crosscut, the Seattle Times, and the P-I differ in some important details. Which is correct?
I am concerned by the P-I report concerning the withholding of pension fund payments for the symphony musicians. Until this situation is righted (and these payments rationalized, on a constant basis), the orchestra really cannot claim that it is running in the black. This expenditure needs to made a very high priority - right behind current salary expenses - and maintained at that level. The musicians, after all, ARE the orchestra, and have been so since its inception. Both for the present players and for those who will eventually take their places, it is vital for the organization to show responsibility and leadership in this area.