School of Music Leadership
by Jody Nagel
-- I can honorably follow a strong-minded talented director that lets it be known that things are being done his way, and that he expects followers to fit into his vision of reality.
-- I can also partake of democratic procedures, if I must, and, under the representational leadership of some director, contribute my point-of-view to the general mix responsible for shaping reality.
-- But I find totally insupportable a director that ultimately intends to do things his own way, and yet leads the followers through a sham form of democratic procedure, wasting the followers' time in pretended gathering of opinions, then dismissing those opinions, then later attempting (as problems develop) to appease the followers by claiming that they did all have input to the situation and that it's somehow the followers to blame for their own discontent.
The December 3, 1999 Meeting between the School-of-Music faculty
and the Architects Designing the New Building for the School of Music
Concerning the new building proposal: it very well may be that a 150-to-200-seat second auditorium is financially impossible or unwanted by somebody in a higher position of power. Either the School-of-Music director should announce what is going to be done regarding some particular matter and not bother having meetings for faculty input on that matter, or, if actually acting as a leader representative of the faculty, he should gather all the opinions and "wish-lists" of the faculty and then make sure that this is communicated to those needing to hear the information. It is most distressing, just because of the principle of the matter, to discover that significant faculty input (the requests for a 2nd smaller auditorium and for provisions for opera, wanted by many faculty) was never bothered to be reported to the architects at upper-level meetings held prior to this December 3, 1999 meeting of the whole School-of-Music faculty and the architects. The 2nd-auditorium-wish and the opera-provision-wish can eventually be turned down or not, but they should have at least not been heard for the very first time at the December 3, 1999 meeting. It gives the faculty the impression that the gathering of our "faculty input" is just a deceitful sham, that regardless of what we say it will not matter. If, indeed, our input does not matter, then at least discontinue wasting our time with supposed input-seeking meetings with the faculty. If faculty input does matter, then the director should be the representative of the whole faculty and make sure all are represented.
Dr. Jody Nagel
December, 3, 1999