My only two major qualms have to do with reauditioning members and whether members can miss a concert but still sing in the remaining concerts.

1. With regard to the reauditioning, I am uncomfortable having that be the next step after being asked to sing for the conductor for possible part reassignment. With reauditioning, the only two outcomes seem to be that the member stays in (with no change) or is out (with no recourse).

For folks who have been part of our membership and vocal community, I feel that another option is necessary. I would be ok if the statement read "The chorale conductor may request to hear voices of current members at any time, which may result in reassignment of voice part or a request that the member receive vocal coaching." I'm not suggesting that John (or whoever the conductor is) do the vocal coaching, but that if a member needs additional vocal help that the member has the chance to improve rather than be let go. My feeling is based on two complementary beliefs: that we are a community as well as performing group, and that vocal performance (like most things) is something that can be improved with coaching. If a member who is requested to change sections or receive vocal coaching chooses not to do so, then that member could be asked to drop.

Because this is such a sensitive topic, I also wonder if the procedures should be spelled out in more detail. The conductor can request to hear voices for part reassignment "at any time" means what? In front of the whole group? Without any warning? The conductor can decide to do this completely on his own? I would feel better, as well, if the statement read, "After consultation with the section leaders, the chorale conductor may request to hear voices of current members at a prearranged time, which may result . . ."

I don't want any member of our community shamed. I know we can say, "oh, that really wouldn't happen" and I think that is largely true. But then that is true with the communication policies as well, which are now spelled out in great detail. And whether a current member is asked to leave the chorale, is surely the most sensitive possibility of all.

2. I'm not sure if the part about whether one can miss a concert and still sing the other is a new revision or what we saw in May. What I want to avoid is the John Brewer situation of May, where he had attended the required rehearsals and dress rehearsals but had a conflict with one concert. I understand that the conductor wants a consistent sound--but that virtually never happens anyway due to the kinds of things that happen in the lives of 60+ people: Judy Campbell's mother's death in December, Jeannie Fairbanks' baby between the two Brahms concerts, Judy Hanley and Gerd's illnesses in May. Things happen, and we adjust as necessary. If someone is prepared and has met the rehearsal requirements, then I think the person should sing--perhaps even regardless of whether or not the absence falls into "extenuating circumstances" category. None of us is going to put in all the work to attend the required rehearsals and dress rehearsals and then frivolously choose not to attend a concert. The concerts are the part we all want to do MOST, so having to miss a concert is not something anyone would do lightly without a real need to do so. (I would not say that the same policy would necessarily hold in chamber choir, however, where the sections are so much smaller and an absence has a much larger impact.)

--Karen Weathermon

I have two concerns about changes to the By-laws of the chorale. I think the new audition language sidesteps fundamental questions, and I oppose the new requirement of confidentiality.

AUDITIONS

If the Director is ready to ask a chorister to reaudition, then the Director probably already wants to reassign the chorister to a new voice part, or wants to ask the chorister to leave the Chorale. The Director currently has the authority to do that.

It is part of the Director's duty to make such a request, if necessary; and this should precede any action by the audition committee or other officers of the Chorale. If the chorister complies with the director's request, then it never becomes a By-Laws question.

If the chorister refuses to comply, then it seems sensible that the officers of the Chorale might request a reaudition as a way to resolve the matter. But a chorister deserves to hear a direct assessment of a problem from the Director, including the Director's wishes, before being asked to reaudition.

Suppose the Director is dissatisfied with the voice of a chorister. What should happen? The Director should directly ask the chorister to change voice parts, or to leave the chorale. The Director should inform the officers of the request. The chorister can comply or complain. The officers can sanction the request or veto it, or request a reaudition before deciding. The final power should remain with the officers of the Chorale, but the Director should take responsibility for directly and personally requesting change in the first place.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Our policy has been that Executive Committee and Board meetings are open to the public, particularly to choristers. We should retain this policy.

The Chorale should avoid secrets. I oppose the changes to the By-Laws imposing confidentiality on Board members.

I can imagine some employment-related matter that falls outside this general policy of openness. Here, I suppose the Executive Committee or the Board could go into closed session for the particular matter. But, to use the example above, to merely consider what to do about the Director's desire regarding a chorister whose voice is dissatisfying, is not such a matter. Just the opposite. After all, it should never come before the officers or the Board unless it has escalated into a dispute. This is a matter that deserves the full light of day, not something to be considered in secret.

--Gary Peterson

Upon reviewing the proposed changes so policies will be clearer, I'm finding one point unclear.  It looks like it has been proposed that chorale members are to audition prior to each concert series.  But then it also says later in the document that a lapse in participation is allowed for one season.  If someone is gone for more than one season then they have to re-audition for chorale.  But isn't that kind of obsolete if people will have to re-audition regularly anyhow?  It seems to me that the latter law doesn't even need to be written if everyone has to re-audition regardless.  It suggests that people won't have to re-audition unless they have been away from chorale longer than a season.  Just a little confusing.

~ Kami

Thank you, Meredyth!

I feel that all the changes are reasonable.

Best regards,

Miho Nam

Here are my thoughts on the policy that had everyone talking in May.

1. It is a tough issue that may lie at the crux of whether we want to be a more professional or more community chorale.
2. I think the director should have artistic license to build a chorale that will produce the best sound. If he/she does something that egregiously violates IWCC policies then the board has the ability to terminate the contract.
3. That said, is there a way to compromise to alleviate the way some chorale members seem to be seeing this as a potentially personal matter? One thought I had was to "grandfather" current member so they would not be affected by the reaudition and possible removal. Everyone coming into IWCC would receive a note (probably along with other
   information) stating that the director may request revoicing for repositioning in the chorale and also request reauditioning. That way, the possibility of reauditioning is clear from the outset of someone's rejoining.
4. I also think it would be good if there is a problem with someone's voice quality that the section leader be asked to work with them to try to correct the problem.

Voices do change and the growth of the chorale and change in the direction of music may require a different sound....

The above may just complicate things but I thought I'd pass the idea on so you have one more suggestion. Good luck with all the input. I hope you get enough so the debate won't rage on in Aug/Sept.

Take care,

Alice

Just reread the changes and think all of them are a go. They make policy and practice much clearer to understand, and provide real facts and good thinking, from some pretty vague stuff. GO FOR IT.

Bill Dugger......aged and saged tenor.

Thank you and the Executive Committee for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the policy statement.

I continue to be concerned about two parts of the proposed policy statement:

II A. Auditions

The underlined phrase at the end of this section is not specific regarding the way in which the re-audition will be conducted. If it is proposed that the re-audition be carried out according to the procedure stated for initial auditions, a specific statement to that effect should be proposed. If that is not to be the case, what is proposed? For a potentially contentious issue like this, clarity will help many members come to a conclusion. This is important for the health of our community.

IV C. Communication Guidelines
( Editorial: Making this a subheading of "IV. Attendance" seems odd.)

I've never been sure just what a guideline is. It isn't a rule, so it can't be broken and thereby result in a sanction, so perhaps it falls under the general category of good manners. If so, such proposals usually come from a sense that there has been some overstepping of the boundaries. If this is chronic and widespread, then public guidelines make sense, If such overstepping is restricted to a few situations or individuals, wouldn't it be simpler and more effective to treat such as exceptional events handled individually rather than making a general policy about them? If the Executive Committee is confident that this is needed, then I hope that the Committee is prepared to be persuasive about it.

Thanks again for your hard work and the opportunity to comment.

Kirk McMichael

Meredyth and all--these changes seem reasonable to me. I recommend adoption as drafted.

--Sandra Haarsager

Thanks for all the work you have been doing for the chorale during the heat of the summer.

Since I have been listed as "Front Door Manager" on past concert programs and doing what the house manager's duties are now described as, I am wondering if I am expected to continue in that capacity.

What I have usually been doing is lining up helpers for the front door, getting their names in for the program, making door posters as to when attendees can enter the hall, making signs of tickets prices, and setting up for displays (cards, quilts, CD's, tee- shirts),making name tags for helpers sometimes and bringing ticket baskets and also stands for the collection of tickets when needed.

There has been some involvement of the last two house manager in making door signs.

Since these duties are listed as house manager's job, I wonder if I am to continue doing what I have been doing.

In regard to re-auditioning, I think that there are some members who have contributed a great deal to our chorale and as members of our singing community, I believe they should have the honor to remain an active member if he/she chooses without re-audition. I think the word "community" in our mission statement implies that there is a degree of inclusion and valuing of each other for what they can contribute.

I believe that the striving for high performance of all singers can bring to bear a social pressure and awareness by which the individual might asses their performance as lacking and drop out--or at least not sing the troublesome passage.

Thanks, again, Meredyth. See you soon.

Laura

Posted by Gordon Thomas, July 26, 2006