Big Trouble at Ballet San Jose

I was wondering what was going on... WIth the Facebook page being clever and people asking questions with no answers.. This explains a lot ...I feel that corporate america needs to keep itself out of the arts...

Check out who the Board of Directors are and then ask when the last meeting was, it is a one man show. Best of luck to the company and have a most glorious Nutcracker, the best one in the South Bay!

Just came from opening day's Family Matinee...sold out except for some scattered rear balcony seating. Happy children everywhere. The Nutcracker is a time for joy. Dennis is right; "this is the moment to dance."

It appears that this is a lost year for BSJ. My entertainment budget has found other artistic venues that are committed to performances. I may not be unique in that regard.

I have watched my brother all my life provide unparralled art, provide untold thousands joy and asking nothing in return, though many offers have come and gone. His love and genius have spoken for itself, to entertain without compromise and has devoted his life in doing so. To allow this senseless travesty of mindless money mongers to destroy the future of SJB and inturn destroy an integral part what Sj stands for. CREATION. is beyond comprehension. I hope Dennis you don't get mad at me for putting my name on this but you know I've always spoken my mind. Stand up San Jose and fight for your cities art you may never have this chance again. As for John Fry and his lady friend, if you succed in destroying this provenance the last laugh will surely be on you. IF IT AINT BROKE DONT BREAK IT.

Finally SOME truth is being made public. It should be noted that to my knowledge, the vast majority of dancers at Ballet San Jose are loyal to Nahat and it is truly heartbreaking for them and everyone to witness such ugliness in the face of art. I'm deeply saddened by the fact that someone's corporate agenda is casting a shadow over a man's life's work and strangling everything we have grown to love about Ballet San Jose.

How is it that the board of directors can claim it has ultimate authority in all artistic matters, including choosing dancers and designating their rankings, casting roles, and planning future productions? This is most definitely the role of the Artistic Director. While every company in the nation is suffering financial woes, Nahat has time and again proven that he is a brilliant artistic director and an important figure in Bay Area dance. There is no need whatsoever to either completely restructure the organization or oust him from the company he created. It is utterly appalling that a collection of money mongers with absolutely no artistic background can effectively overtake the role of Artistic Director.

Sadly, this has happened to other companies than Ballet San Jose. Oakland Ballet met the same fate under poor board management. The overthrow of that company by the board destroyed the wonderful legacy of a truly unique company, and what remains after years of floundering is a pathetic shadow of a formerly glorious company that has no chance of reaching its prior fame.

Unless a community is willing to step in and support a ballet, through ticket sales and charitable giving, a ballet will always fail. In this case, the ballet, for one of many possible reasons, put all of their eggs into the basket of John Fry. Independent of whatever might have been his personal motivations, he gave, and they gladly accepted. Could they have worked harder to ensure a broader set of donors? Possibly. But they didn't.

Now, as the donor, you have a right to know that your money is being used responsibly. It would be good to see the expenditures of the ballet laid bare before fully inditing John on any decisions he might have made. That's not to say that he isn't biased by personal interests, but he's not stupid either.

I'm not necessarily a huge fan of the man, and I've had my opinions about his motivations and role, but the fact remains that there would have been "Big Trouble at Ballet San Jose" earlier than this had fundraising not accelerated or an aggressive plan to expand the base of donors been realized.

In my opinion, there is a cast of players complicit in what's been going on, and we will likely never know the full story.

Unfortunately, this is the future. Similar circumstances at Miami City Ballet. Boards of Trustees don't want to work anymore and want to shift the blame to the people that are responsible for the product. Mr. Fry is to be applauded for his philanthropy, however, one person cannot do it all. Dennis was probably asked or allowed to do it all and that is difficult. When something doesn't work he gets the blame. From my own experience the Board is probably lazy, lazy, lazy. And of course, they know better than a man or woman who has given his whole life to his art form. Just stupid!!!! they should be ashamed.

I think you are missing the larger picture, firstly about what the role of an arts organization's board of directors should be.

A board's goal should ultimately be to support the vision of the company through the Artistic Director that they have chosen. That has traditionally come in the way of financial support, both personally, and through fund raising. The board absolutely has the right, and obligation, to ensure that the company is being run competently and as efficiently as possible. If the board feels that the current director is not living up to their expectations, at the end of the current Artistic Director's contract they should find a new Artistic Director.

None of this gives the right to anyone on any board, no matter how much money they have donated, to make artistic decisions on behalf of the organization. If as a member of the board, you do not feel that your expectations are being met, you have two choices. You either convince the other board members to replace the Artistic Director, or you vote with your dollars by resigning from the board and taking your money somewhere else. It has been a failure on the part of the board of Ballet San Jose to allow one person to hold so many cards that they feel they could hold the company hostage and personally dictate it's artistic course.

As someone that has worked mainly in dance for over 20 years, I would not even pretend to have the qualifications to make artistic decisions for a company like Ballet San Jose. But because John Fry has a lot of money, which he freely gave as a donation (whatever his motivations), he can assert this as a qualification to make artistic decisions on programming, hiring, and casting dancers for a professional ballet company? How is John Fry any more qualified to be the Artistic Director of the ballet company that Dennis cofounded nearly 40 years ago, than Dennis is to be the CEO of Fry's Electronics?

If "the board" choses to follow this course, it will quickly find that there are very few dancers that are willing to work for someone that does not artistically inspire them. As glamourous as being a ballet dancer may seem, it is primarily physically and emotionally exhausting work with very little financial reward. They don't do it for the money. If money is all that is left at the end of the day, there won't be many dancers left, or much worth putting on the stage.

And finally let's not forget how this affects the fate of the artists of the company, who pour their bodies and souls into the work they do. The dancers don't just appear when the curtain rises and disappear when it falls. They have lives and families like you and I. Who among you could produce your best work faced with the uncertainty they face, in the recent past and future, concerning their livelihoods?

I hope for their sake, and for the Bay area dance community, wiser heads prevail.

Very well said, and I am in agreement. Fundamentally, this was a failure of the board, but as I said before, I believe that the responsibility for the failure goes beyond the board.

"The board absolutely has the right, and obligation, to ensure that the company is being run competently and as efficiently as possible. If the board feels that the current director is not living up to their expectations, at the end of the current Artistic Director's contract they should find a new Artistic Director."

I can only imagine that this must be a difficult process, especially when you have someone as passionate and strong willed as Dennis at the helm. It becomes even more difficult when someone offers a huge cash infusion.

"or you vote with your dollars by resigning from the board and taking your money somewhere else."

If only we could look into a crystal ball and see the future the might have been. Would the ballet have survived without JF?

I'm guessing that you are implying that Dennis was complicit in the current state of BSJ by taking JF's money and allowing him to gain so much power. Being backed into a financial corner, Dennis may have been. However that does not exonerate the board as an entity from it's responsibilities for failing to raise the funds to keep that from happening.

I am not familiar with the nature of Dennis' contract with the company. As the founder of the company, he may have a lifetime contract. If that is the case, and the board, or JF, has lost confidence in him, then as I said before, they can pass judgement by resigning and taking their money with them. The company will then either succeed or fail on it's merits. If Dennis' contract is not lifetime, and he is not the man to do the job in the board's eyes, then they need to make that clear and move forward without him. Dennis has survived as a director in this business for around 40 years, and is a very successful choreographer as well. I have no doubt that Dennis can find a home for his talents if BSJ does not want them. But marginalizing the founder of the company by removing all artistic decisions, making him a glorified ballet master, and putting the company in this limbo only goes to weaken the company in nearly every way.

I do not have a crystal ball, and have no idea if the company can survive on it's own artistic merits without the financial support of JF. But the question at hand is, what happens if the board goes forward by taking control of all artistic decisions? I am fairly certain that the answer is the company will not survive (in any form as we now know it) regardless of how much money JF puts into it.

If JF thinks he can do a better job of running a dance company, I have no doubt he has the means start one of his own. Let him create a company under his artistic directorship, and let's watch the experiment. I would love to see how that would work out. But do not destroy Dennis' life's work of in what appears to be a petty power play.

Very insightful. Thanks for taking the time to so respectfully make your point.

I hope, along with you and I imagine the San Jose community, that the board can find a way to save the art and spirit that is Ballet San Jose.

First the symphony orchestra--gone about 10 years ago (was the oldest west of the Mississippi), then it was time for the Ballet Theater's demise (after about 70 years of operation) and now the Ballet?

Sad beyond words.

I don't know much about dance and but I like to attend as many events as possible. I also go to the occasional Sharks game and see the passion that they engender. Always 17,500 fans--why can they SJ Ballet siphon some of these? I saw in article a few years back in a dance magazine about how sports teams in St. Louis teamed up to help promote their city's ballet to sports fans. I really think many sports fans could enjoy ballet if they understood the athleticism it contains. Ballet is a whole lot more than the Nutcracker; I wish people would understand that.

Relying overmuch on one donor certainly has its problems, but what should Nahat had done otherwise? He probably viewed it as a way to save the company and hoped for a turnaround...

A common theme of arrogance, shamelessness and bottom line is becoming all too pervasive in Corpamerica. Under this type of stewardship, the people are all very expendable because after all they all just work for money? Or maybe not. Maybe the individuals actually have vision, passion, commitment, leadership and a real fighting spirit which of course cannot be bought or created at will. The artistic talent need not be mentioned at all because it is a given.

There certainly is a greater agenda here that we do not know, but what we can see Mr Fry is:
- if there where only to be one ballet company, some donors would save money
- the talent will not support your ways and leave
- the Ballet school that trains the next generation dancers will crumble
- the audience will inevitably see a few poor performances and never look back (why did the lights flicker?)
-the symphony will suffer the same fate through collateral damage
- SJ downtown will suffer a similar fate
- the support you provide is not support but just short of a crack dealer

The board must change the name of SJBallet to Fry Ballet to truly reflect the future and where the success or failure should finally land.

Thank you Mr Fry for making such an impact to Bay Area

It's appaling to read this factually inaccurate historical timeline of Ballet San Jose (Silicon Valley). Who wrote this story? Did they do any actual research into the history of this company at all? Or, simply jott down points of interest provided by a PR Rep at Ballet San Jose. Unbelievably innacurate!!!!

First of all, Ballet San Jose was NOT founded in 1986! Ballet San Jose was founded after Cleveland San Jose Ballet went bankrupt in 1999/2000 and that is a fact. This company (Ballet San Jose) is only about 11 years old.

The company was founded in Cleveland Ohio but did in fact have a relationship with the 'presenting organization' in San Jose which eventually turned into the board of directors for Ballet San Jose. The name of the organization was Cleveland San Jose Ballet or vice versa depending on which city they were performing in. The company would rehearse and mount productions in its HOME, Cleveland, then travel out to San Jose a few times a year to perform the exact same repertoire that was rehearsed/staged/mounted in Cleveland but that was the extent of operations in San Jose. The Cleveland side of the company was always the stronger and more financially vested as that is where the organization was founded and headquartered. The San Jose side of the operation was basically a presenting group and NOT a separate ballet company until the Cleveland Ballet board ceased all operations in 1999/2000.

At the time the silicon valley .com stock bubble had not yet burst so there was quite a bit of 'new' money floating around the South Bay area. The dancers, staff, and Dennis Nahat were all urged to relocate and resume operations in San Jose in the hopes of establishing a brand new company under the name "Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley". Notice the Silicon Valley in that title, the hope was that because of the .com economic boom the fund-raising opportunities would be a plenty and the organization could possibly stabilize within a few years of hardcore fundraising. THAT is where this company came from, San Jose NEVER had a full time company prior to that, ever! Reason being, everbody and I mean everybody (including people in San Jose) knew that there was no way in hell the San Jose market could ever support a large scale full time ballet company.

There was intense debate over the fact that moving 100% of the organization's financial responsibility onto the 'presenting company' in San Jose would never work. The general concensus was that it might last 5 years, well, the company seems to have beaten that prediction by a ratio of 2:1 but that is largely due to the support of a singular benefactor, John Fry. Now it seems as if the inevitable is presenting itself and the board of directors only have themselves to blame. You wanted it, now you got it!!!

Whatever turmoil is developing or future unfolding at Ballet San Jose, please when you write about this company get the historical FACTS straight! It's insulting to the many fine people and artists who made incredible sacrifices so the organization could move out to San Jose to read this fictitious crap that has obviously been altered in an attempt to portray the company as something it isn't, just for fund raising purposes.

In closing, this whole situation is very very sad but unfortunately no surprise for those of us who know what has really been going on behind the scenes for years.

There is plenty of reason in all the posts that precede this. And all the above is true. San Jose is a city that has hosted the growth of a top tier ballet company through the strong artistic leadership and know how of Mr. Nahat over 25 years. Its success under Nahat's stewardship are common knowledge as well as evidenced by a strong and consistent subscription base, word of mouth, brisk sales and acclaim in the press. Clearly, if Nahat and BSJ go down, numerous businesses, including the wonderful school and many local restaurants, bars and so forth will go down along with the company. I agree that if Mr. Fry wants a ballet company, let him start his own. For Nahat, all the dancers, staff, school, community and downtown San Jose businesses that benefit from their existence to suffer this fate is absolutely as cruel as it is profoundly sad. I would like to believe that people of good will can find commonality for a resolution that will save the day for all concerned. Let us hope and support that this is where this should and will all somehow lead. Perhaps Mr. Fry will surprise us in a positive way, though it looks like the odds are not good. Subscribers unite and show your support and appreciation. Make your voices heard and save one of the best arts institutions in the Bay area.

Like it or not, look more deeply at the history of ballet way back to its origins: it was dance of peasants that intrigued wealthy nobility who in turn patronized it so that it could be cultivated into performance art for their enjoyment. Ballet has always existed as a result of a deep and abiding relationship with patrons. Throughout the world this is the case. Closer to home, the economy is walloping arts organizations in many genres. Ballet SJ is not at all unique in this regard. In the US, "patrons" have included government funders including the National Endowment for the Arts, the California Arts Council, and local City support. Of those aforementioned funders, the Cal Arts Council ceased funding arts organzations several years ago when the State's fortunes plummetted resulting in a decrease for many organizations across California; the City has similarly had to reduce its funding. Another 'Patron' has been local foundations such as Hewlett and Packard...their funding has as well been impacted by the economy and changes in their respective organizations' Board priorities....another decrease in patronage. And it goes on and on...This makes survival for many arts organizations beyond just challenging; many are quite simply not able to make it.

The problem that BSJ is facing is endemic to the industry and especially in bad times. Boards have the ultimate financial liability so it is not particularly unusual for a Board to take control of all aspects when an organization is, well, failing in order to ensure that they can meet the fiscal obligations in a responsible manner..I have seen this happen in other organizations in the Bay Area. May be distasteful, but it is a hard cold fact since they are liable.

So it seems really unfortunate to categorically bash the Board when in fact they have been generous in their efforts to support the organization. ... I'm just sayin'... (and, for the record, I have no affiliation with them whatsoever.) It it always easiest to shoot at the low-hanging fruit: to blame the Board and staff for the success (or lack..) of their fundraising efforts and any number of other things but in reality, it is a truly perilous time for arts organizations.....

john Fry can't run a store let alone a ballet. he and his greedy friends should stay out of the arts and stay with cheap electronics where they belong.

MR FRY IT IS NOT GIVEN MONEY TO HE ARTS BUT TO FUND HIS PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL ACTIVITIES, HE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT BALLET. IT IS INSULTING FOR THE BALLET COMMUNITY THAT ONE PERSON'S MONEY CAN RUL E THE ARTISTRY OF A WELL ESTABLISH COMPANY.

funny how the mercury news has not picked up on this story... oh wait, that's right, there's a two page frys ad in every newspaper

journalistic integrity is dead

Uhhhh....It has always been my perception that a good/great ballet company is the result of ONE artistic director's vision, based on their talent, and backing by a hard working board supporting that vision. It appears that someone in control wants to and will kill off Ballet San Jose, perhaps to bring it back as their own personal lapdog. They may claim the name, but San Jose will have lost a professional ballet company. Board members should raise money and not be involved in artistic decisions unless they are well qualified. One can only hope that they will not use the same name for what will be an amateur dance company. It appears that money does indeed "talk" huh.

For note:

1. the "Board" is JF & exec dir Stephanie. JF's girlfriend Alexsandra is a principal in BSJ. All other board members appear to have been driven off or just left, fed up. Somehow this just seems without proper checks and balances as a registered non profit. Maybe that's just me.

2. Funds are not forth coming due to previous donors being driven off by JF's attitude, ego, complete lack of artistic integrity, or moral compass. Whatever you call it, the money is there, it just refuses to play along with JF's game. The exec director, hired away from SF Ballet, raised how much for them? what has she raised for BSJ? Maybe being JFs puppet buffer to Nahat is a full time job in itself. City of SJ has funds earmarked in their budget, its still there, but wasnt issued because paperwork wasnt completed. Is that due to financial transparency being required or a clear plan, financial or otherwise not being in place
Union officials are investigating cash payouts to a guest artist in violation of union rules of conduct.

What does all this mean to the city of San Jose, Silicon Valley and the bay area as a whole? That is up to you to decide. The arts are alive and well with proper support and interest of the community, corporate and private as a whole.

That BSJ has been allowed to find itself in the position it is in today is a frustration to all involved, inside and out. Cry a river or make a change. If you truly care, then grab the cast, rebuild the sets and be proud once more. The creative talent that truly makes this alive and well needs your interest, dedication, dollars and voice.

First of all, Dennis IS BALLET SAN JOSE. I think we, the subscribers, owe it to Dennis to take a stand and be heard. I'll never forget my first ballet, which at the time was San Jose Cleveland Ballet, and how it made me feel in my heart, it was visceral; it was the power of Dennis's vision. He is a truly unique and gifted choreographer, and he brings out the best in his dancers. There must be a way that we can show him that we support him, and that we will not stand with the people who have treated our beloved director so disgracefully.

I wonder what Dennis' plan for the next step will be. I wish I knew what would be the right stand to take:
Cancel my subscription? Protest? What would be the best next step to do something about it?

http://www.sfcv.org/article/music-news-july-26-2011#anchor2

I hate to engage in this sort of gossip, but I believe it is JF's son (I don't know his name) who is Alexsandra's BF (much more in the ballpark age-wise). I've seen them together leaving SF Ballet performances...

Who really knows or cares about Mr. Fry and his motives and his personal life. He will be dealt with in the end, as we all will be..No one really knows what, when or how things went down.. and it really does not matter. we must look forward. no time to look back to the negative past wrongs that have been done. Peoples personal lives are just that personal and should be kept that way. Too bad they got mixed up in all of this. To bad they hurt so many people along the way. They have no idea! They will have to deal with sleeping at night, each person, alone, will answer for themselves, and in the end justice will be handled.

Lets us move forward and focus on the Ballet and Mr. Nahat, who has put his WHOLE life into building up Ballet San Jose. He has the PASSION, the DRIVE and the TALENT that the Ballet needs. Lets rally around him and support him as needed. Can we even begin to think of what he must be going through right now and what this man has been going through for the so many years+. Not to mention all the dancers in this wonderful company and what their lives have been like. We must come together, financially, as wells as morally, supporting this company and this Man WHO IS Ballet San Jose!

This whole thing has totally gotten out of hand. Why, who knows, one rotten apples (alone) can spoil the whole basket, but it is never to late to change, weed out the wrong and move onward on the right track. Money truly is the root of all evil, when used in an evil way. However when used for the good of everyone and the purpose intended, a company can lavish and produce beautiful dancers and a company to be proud of.

Today is a new day, new beginnings start with putting the first step forward, and then one step at a time. Denis has the dream. We as the community need to come along and support and help build that dream and make it happen. Lets start today!

http://www.nysocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/02_04_10/sf/ballet/400-Geor...

Mr. Nahat had a reputation in Cleveland of spending money in a matter which would make even the most alcoholic sailor blush. Artistic genius is a great thing, but in many cases, it has to be tempered to fit economic realities.

John Fry (not his son) and Alexandra Meijer are in a serious relationship. See a photo of them at the ABT gala with Rachel Moore, executive director of ABT:
http://www.bfanyc.com/home/search?options=person&search=alexandra+mejer
Conflict of interest? If Nahat isn't casting and choosing ballets, who is? Is the "board" in the studio with the dancers? Read between the lines people.

@Mr Nahat had a reputation: If money is the issue, why were international guest artists flown in to dance with Meijer? Carlos Acosta from London's Royal Ballet didn't dance with anyone else but her. We now know the hiring and casting isn't done by Nahat. Where are the people who brought the ballet to San Jose from Cleveland? They should be able to speak on Nahat's manner for financial demands. It makes you wonder why these people left when Fry took over. Now's their time to speak out...

It s really a new day and the city of SJ should look to the future of the arts in their city. They have a choice, accept that San Jose Ballet=Fry's Ballet or support Nahat who has a history of success in bringing critical acclaim, culture and joy. Who will step up to the plate and offer Nahat a new venue? People will follow you. Leave Fry and Meijer for karma to come knocking.

This story simply confirms the general belief that high culture cannot thrive in San Jose because of the lack of general support from the community at large and too much deference to newly rich titans of industry who don't understand the role of patron of the arts. When you think of how much money there is in silicon valley and the pathetic state of arts organizations there, you can only conclude that relying on newly rich people for arts funding is a big mistake.

Nahat CO-founded Cleveland Ballet, not Ballet San Jose. After 25 years of his apparently rampant, unchecked spending, the Cleveland board decided to close its doors and declare bankruptcy in 2000, leaving its San Jose co-venture partner with the decision to try and salvage the company and go it alone in San Jose as Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley - with Nahat in charge.

Fast-forward to 2003, and the Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley board, having given Nahat a new lease on life without finding success, also decided to declare bankruptcy. It was John Fry and Fry's Electronics who then stepped in and gave Nahat yet another chance. And another chance after that. And another chance after that. And, in between, an unprecedented, not since repeated, five week tour to China on his private 747. (And a couple other chances after that… including a healthy annual salary of nearly $250,000.)

Clearly, something has gone awry if Nahat is shouting from the rooftops that he is at odds with the man who, by Nahat's own calculations, gave him over 14 million dollars to fund his artistic endeavors. Perhaps Nahat (who claims in the San Francisco Chronicle article that he was confused over whether Fry's was giving him 2 million dollars in the form of a loan or a gift?) has pushed John Fry too far for too long. As many will attest, artistic temperament or not, Nahat has a reputation for defying authority and doing whatever he wants. Not to mention, he delivered no new choreography of his own since arriving permanently in San Jose, and no real artistic vision for the company’s future. So, it kind of makes sense that somebody was moved to bring the smack-down before history repeats itself yet again. I would hope and imagine that anyone who values Ballet San Jose above its artistic director alone, or who values the existence of a professional ballet company in Silicon Valley, or frankly, who numbers among the 300+ employees who receives a paycheck from Ballet San Jose – except, it would seem, Nahat himself – is not interested in reliving the past.

Ballet San Jose, please just get on with the show. We don’t care who the ringmaster is, just give us a fresh season Bay Area dance lovers (past, present, and future) can sink our teeth into!

If you are looking for the very latest news on this situation including new statements from those close to the company, please head to Ballet News.

http://balletnews.co.uk/ballet-san-jose-a-ballet-company-without-a-season/

The statement made by ballet lover is ludicrous at best. Saying that Nahat is defiant please just because he knows wha it takes to put the best quality on stage is not defiance but integrity.

The glitter and the glam at S.F. Ballet gala
January 23, 2009|Carolyne Zinko and Sylvia Rubin, Chronicle Staff Writers
(Page 3 of 3)

As for our new president's inaugural tuxedo, clothier Wilkes Bashford wants to let you know that he is a big fan of the man, but not what he wore. "He should have gone one way or the other," Bashford said. "White tie with tails or black tie with a classic, peak-lapel tux."

Back to the women: The jewelry this year was big and bold, and more than a few women wore striking necklaces, most notably the one-of-a-kind 200-carat (that's no typo) swan neckpiece made for Ballet San Jose's Alexsandra Meijer, who recently danced the parts of Odile and Odette for the company. Afsaneh Akhtari of Woodside was dressed by her favorite jeweler, Stephen Silver, in emerald earrings and an emerald necklace, each worth half a million dollars, she said.
NO COMMENT

This morning in the San Jose Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/2011/12/ballet-san-jose-says-sho...

I'm sorry, but this is not the forum for people to share dirt on JF's personal life.
Some of you people need to get a life. Like him or hate him, if it weren't for JF's money,
this company would have been dead in 2003.

Maybe not, but as chairman of the board of directors, Mr. Fry has a responsibility to act in the best interests of the organization and to promote the purposes around which the organization was founded. Although I can't deny that the money he has donated has been essential to the organization's survival, it is hard to interpret any other of his actions as being in any way in keeping with these goals. This seems like exactly the right forum to discuss that.

Along with the glorious productions Ballet San Jose has given the community in the past years, their EXTREMELY valuable contribution has been to staff and run an outstanding school for the training of serious dancers-to-be ! Few cities can say they had the quality of education Ballet S.J. School provided. International teachers passionate about sharing their craft with young people have given of themselves in order to benefit the area's children. How wonderful that aspiring dancers did not have to travel to San Francisco to obtain effective training and technique. Children were able to learn from the world's most gifted teachers because Dennis Nahat appreciated the value of teaching and grooming upcoming performers. I can't believe that the school will be able to continue in these efforts if Mr. Nahat is not at the helm. He personally chose directors and teachers from the elite educators of this art and convinced them to come here instead of New York City or some other major metropolitan area. He exposed talented youngsters to the possibilities of professional dance through his personal contacts, connecting them with his friends in influential positions in other companies. While directing the professional company, he has consistently played a hands-on roll in forming a world-class ballet school for lucky San Jose area families. Hopefully people are aware , as they let this company disappear or become a shadow of its former self, that young dance students will also be loosing . How very , very sad . We will have again passed up an opportunity to act like a grown-up cultural center which provides opportunities for the young.

It is NOT JF's money! It is the privately held corporation's Fry's Electronics money. In other words.... this company has been receiving tax breaks for John traveling around the world in Fry's 747 with his girlfriend. The tax payers are once again paying the bills for the rich! We should all be outraged!

Who are you and what is your agenda? Nowhere in any of these articles has the future existence of the company or the school been in question. Nahat might be on his way out – that doesn’t mean the entire organization is on its way out. Ballet San Jose affirmed yet again today, both in the San Jose Business Journal and the Mercury News, that it will have a season this spring. The continuation of the ballet school is not even a question.

Your comment seems like propaganda aimed at frightening families and students from enrolling in the ballet school. Why would you do such a thing? Seriously, what is your motive?

Nahat or no Nahat, the ballet school has an excellent faculty devoted to its students, with a solid support base. That is not going to change. I implore you - and all who comment going forward - not to jeopardize the school’s enrollment by stirring up unfounded and damaging rumors.

why is there an exclusive interview with the director on a website located in england? why not here where we can respond? this is the south bay and we the residents and supporters should be discussing and receiving information on this local situation here in California, not overseas in england. where the hell is the sj merc on all this? Is there something that is being hidden that the company does not want discussed here close to home? Makes me sick to try and openly discuss issues related to one of our cultural community organizations and the ballet management, nahat, chooses to give an interview with a website overseas nobody has ever heard of? you all deserve everything that is coming down the pipe, every last one of you. good riddance!

RE: A few facts and a simple plea
--To say that Nahat is "shouting from the rooftops" is misleading. When asked about the upcoming season he said he has no knowledge, and his authority to make artistic decisions has been removed. Wouldn't you feel a little disrespected if you were the “artistic" director and had no artistic control? He acknowledged Fry's gifts to the company, and wonders why Fry wants to be the only donor, a fair question in my mind.
--To complain that he gets paid a “healthy annual salary,” well doesn't the board handle his contract? Take your issue up with the board. One look at the company's 990 tax forms shows Fry's new executive director Stephanie Ziesel gets paid over 130,000 dollars. What can she show for her salary? Is there any proof of her fundraising? Were there grants written and applied for? What individuals and corporations were approached? If there was very little fundraising I can imagine it being because Fry wanted it that way. Why? So he could be sole "benefactor" and do exactly what he's doing now.
--What are the repeated “chances” you speak of? Are you fimilar with the board dealings? Please explain how Nahat has “failed.” To the public, Nahat has delivered a season every year, to critical acclaim, with a fraction of the budget of other companies. What would you have him do, make a profit? A ballet company is not Fry's Electronics. Fry and Ziesel are at fault for not cultivating the wealthy of Silicon Valley-theres enough money there to fund ballet companies many times over. The bad economy is not enough of an excuse. The Met Opera had a record breaking amount of contributions this year.
--”Nahat has delivered no new choreography of his own...” New productions require $$. You are complaining that he has a history of unchecked spending, yet at the same time wishing he made more new works.
--”We don't care who the ringmaster is.” You SHOULD care who the ringmaster is, because without an inspiring leader, performances will be mediocre.
–What is Nahat's “reputation for defying authority”? Trying to cast his own ballets? Thats like telling a painter he has to paint over an existing painting with colors not of his choosing.

RE: enough
Of course John Fry's personal life matters in this debate. Its not dirt, its meaningful fact. What about the thousands of audience members including kids (oh wait, the student shows of Nutcracker were canceled this year, why?) who would miss the company if, god forbid, they break up? Not to mention that the lives of the people who work for BSJ hang in the balance of his personal relationship. It raises a valid question about his dedication towards the mission of Ballet San Jose-that it “contribute to the cultural needs of the community,” and not towards making his girlfriend a star. So far, he hasn't spoken out or shown any indication that he is aligned with BSJ's mission. He can make her a star on his own with his money if he wants to, I guess he just wants the name Ballet San Jose

RE: balletnews
Thank goodness the The San Francisco Chronicle has some guts and did a story, and you can comment there as well: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/12/DDQS1MBG4M.DTL

I'm not saying directors shouldn't ever be replaced, but humiliating Nahat by taking away his artistic responsibilites is not the way to do it. Even Villella at Miami City Ballet gets to leave with his head held high. Running a ballet company is not a one man job, especially if that man is John Fry. San Jose and Dennis Nahat deserve better treatment.

Ballet News is a world-wide known website that dancers follow. It is not some "website overseas that no one has ever heard of." They also have a Facebook presence and post frequently about US Ballet Companies as well as those in Europe and other countries - I even follow it, which is when I saw the article. Dancers want to know what is going on with other dancers and ballet companies. It only makes sense that a widely know website in the dance world would cover this story. Nahat was interviewed in this particular article right here that we're commenting on, though it is based in SF, and the Commenter below you points to the sfgate.com article, in which he was also interviewed.

Granted, there is no mention in the Mercury News, though Sal Pizarro touched on the story in this article:
http://www.mercurynews.com/saratoga/ci_19550462
The article covers the fact that a season will be announced in the new year.

For the next Commenter, I appreciate all that you have stated. Though be aware that the lack of Student Matinee performances of the Nutcracker is not something to connect to the subject of this article. The Student Matinees that Ballet San Jose has performed for years were supported by a program called Arts Express. Unfortunately, funding was cut this fiscal year and the program was eliminated - which affected several arts groups in the SV area. (And Symphony Silicon Valley is working hard to create their own version of the defunct program: http://www.symphonysiliconvalley.org/concerts.php?pagecontID=52 .) As you already mentioned that BSJ functions on a smaller budget than most, the company most likely did not have enough of it's own funds to put on these shows (which would be costly if there are no ticket sales for those student performances).

And actually, Nahat has delivered his own choreography since 2003, and yes it does take money. In the 2004-2005 season there was Middle Kingdom - Ancient China, which he co-created with Yong Yao of the Chinese Performing Artists of America (located in Cupertino). While they shared sections of Acts 1 and 3, Nahat choreographed all of Act 2 solo - and all sets and costumes were new for that production. That was definitely new choreography. In the 2005-2006 season Nahat created his own version of The Firebird. While sets and costumes were purchased from another company, the choreography alone belongs to Nahat.

The best thing right now is to be supportive of the company's dancers and staff. Seeing all of these articles and negative comments, whether they are negative about Fry or Nahat, does not help the morale of the company. Show the dancers that you care about their talent and love of dance by attending the remaining 7 performances of The Nutcracker. If you do care about BSJ and the dancers and the wonderful joy they bring us with their dance, then get to the theater, clap and cheer for them - show them that San Jose really does care about them. Regardless of whatever is going on with the management over there, support the dancers. They need us right now. All of us.

Such a shame on so many levels.
It's hard to imagine this type of scenario playing out if the company had remained in Cleveland.
What would Ernie say....

Tsk tsk, how convenient that there are "names" not being brought up here which should be, names of people who were key figures in the orchestration of moving the company from Cleveland to San Jose when BSJSV was created. Some are now employed at Symphony Silicon Valley and without a doubt are partially responsible for this present-day scenario. If this one sided bashing continues against Fry and Nahat then the real stories will eventually going to come out and then it's going to get ugly. Let it go, it was never meant to be so stop all this ranting about who did what based on newspaper reporting, there is much more to this story than most of you realize. If the organization continues, great, if not, it had a good run.

The company will need a strong artistic director going forward from all this, whether it is Nahat or someone who is hired in. The credibility of BSJ within the ballet community is at stake here.

Well, this will be the second time in his career that a ballet board will have ousted Dennis. The circumstances are different, but the result will be the same. I only hope that Dennis has ownership of all of his choreography and that he will be able to save some of the dancers by taking them with him, where ever he may end up. What in the world are Karen, Raymond & Roni going to do? They are absolutely loyal to Dennis and you can bet they will be collateral damage. It will be too bad if Dennis, the staff and the dancers all go down in flames. But, Dennis has been through this before and risen from the ashes. He is an instituion in the dance world. I only hope, again, that he can save some of the staff and dancers from economic ruin. This is a terrible time for anyone to lose their jobs. Dancers typically live from paycheck to paycheck. And what about those that own houses in San Jose? Very sad.

It is curious that such draconian measures were used by BSJ in their dealings with Dennis. Tantamount to telling a dancer they still have a job but won’t be put onstage.

my God, if they think they can replace Nahat and the show will go on then they haven't a clue about real choreography tring to replace Nahat will be by like tring to replace 24k gold with gold paint, and it wont take long for the paint to wear.

now I understand why the 2010-2011 season lineup was so uninspired, which was a big reason I decided not to renew my subscription last year. Now I see that Dennis wasn't to blame for the curious regurgitation of recent shows in that season, as he'd essentially lost artistic control of the company by then. Too bad as I had been thinking about re-subscribing.

If Dennis is replaced by Alexsandra Meijer as artistic director, I'm definitely staying away. There ought to be a rule that a board member cannot date a staff member. How tragic that this unique institution was destroyed by a board that is out of whack.

I see that Mr. Fry was married.
http://mytown.mercurynews.com/archives/lgwt/20041208/stepout_society.html
and
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1997/1103/6010086a_print.html

Unclear whether he divorced or not before taking up with Ms. Meijer. And should Mr. Fry and Ms. Meijer ever break up, I guess that really would be the end of Ballet San Jose, assuming that it continues to limp along under Mr. Fry's continued largess. Not a conducive situation to attracting new donors.

I cherish my memories of Nahat's Ballet San Jose. I actually wasn't a huge fan of his choreography, for example Blue Suede Shoes is a sexist, overly stereotyped vision of heterosexual relations (perhaps not surprising, coming from a gay man who has primarily sexist images in our society to draw from rather than personal experiences of heterosexual love) but there was many a fine moment I enjoyed at Ballet San Jose. I'm dismayed that Dennis would be ousted in this power play and treated so unprofessionally, it is very sad both for him and the dancers as well as our community.