Artistic Director of California Music Theatre Apologizes for “Yes On Prop-8” Contributions- Page 5

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 5:11pm

Maybe it's legal, but the question is still: should they?

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 5:37pm

Updated On: 5/1/09 at 05:37 PM

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 5:52pm

Think about it the opposite way: what if you worked for a place filled with homophobes and they fired you for donating to a pro-gay marriage cause?

Bizarrely enough, the people who touted Prop 8 said that they were concerned that gay marriage would mean the forced acceptance of homosexuality. So if they don't want to be forced to accept it, fine. Then we shouldn't be forced to accept them. Reaping the whirlwind and all.

Still, I think there are much more worthy targets of our ire at this point than this guy.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 6:00pm

I just think that firing a person because of their political views, no matter how horrible they are, is just not a good idea.

[Calvin]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 6:03pm

I knew a journalist who thought New York Times v. Sullivan should be overturned, and he managed to keep his job.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 6:06pm

It's not that he could lose his job over his beliefs per se, he could lose his job if he gets the blame for a loss in donations and subscriptions.

I think it's entirely up to the company. And we should leave that at that.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 6:07pm

I don't think that he should lose his job because he is against Gay-Marriage. I do however think that if there is a boycott and the it affects the theater negatively, (and in a way that can proven) then the theater would have reason to ask for his resignation.
I do not, however, think that will happen.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 7:17pm

I wouldn't support a theatre run by a Klansman or a Nazi. While I respect Mr. Eckern's religious beliefs, he chose to enforce his religious beliefs on me and other people. While many people have accepted his apology (Jeff Whitty included), I personally feel that Eckern needs to resign. I wouldn't blame gay performers for working for CA musical theatre just like I wouldn't blame Stepinfetchit or Amos n' Andy for racism. However, I do have friends in the musical theatre community who have told me that they will rather wait tables or do temp work than than work for the CA musical theatre.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 8:34pm

first, let's distinguish between *should* he lose his job, and *can* his employer legally dismiss him.

the "should" question is a matter of opinion -- my own blood is running too hot to be objective on the opinion front at the moment, and in fact very few of us are close enough to the facts to actually sit in judgment. i'm inclined to think his "conversion" is a matter of convenience, but -- as i've already acknowledged -- i am about at the end of my rope sitting at the back of the bus waiting for straight people to buy a vowel.

the legalities are a diffferent issue. i think some of us may be attaching different meanings to the same words here, so let me try this another way: everyone has a right to an opinion, and everyone has a right to not be fired illegally, but almost none of us has a "right" to a job.

so the question here would be: would a firing be illegal? because -- truly -- if it ain't done illegally, anybody can be fired for any reason or for no reason at all.

so ... would a firing here be illegal? generally, a firing is illegal only if:

(1A) it violates an individual employment agreement;
(1B) you are a union employee and it violates a collective bargaining agreement;
(1C) you are a government employee and it violates a civil service statute;
(2) it is done for an illegal reason (generally race, religiion, gender or age under Federal law ... lots of additional reasons under state and local laws); or,
(3) (in most but not all states) it is done in violation of an employee handbook if a valid handbook exists.

that's it ... jump those hurdles and you can fire anyone, anytime, anywhere.

were scott fired (and i doubt he will be), his only hope would be (2) -- that he was fired in violation of a fundamental right (i.e., his right to free speech).

however, in this context, his right to free speech is not unfettered, and i could pretty convincingly argue that: the nature of his "speech" has compromised his ability to effectively discharge his duties, and he was terminated not for his speech but because he could no longer meet the requirements of his position.

ultimately, we'd settle out of court (because these things almost always settle out of court), but if i were representing the employer i wouldn't lose this case.

i'm done on this one, peeps -- peace out.

[DrMike]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 9:58pm

Folks, It is not like this guy just threw some loose change in the Salvation Army bucket, not knowing where it was going. He actively and deliberately gave a large sum of money in order to take away his coworker's rights.

actions have consequences.

now it is up to the board of the theatre to decide if they are okay with those consequences.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 10:26pm

I just hope we all know the difference between protest and witch hunt.

Trust me--I share the feelings expressed. But we need to stay on the high road. If we are solid in our fairness and sense of right and justice, then we need not betray our dignity.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 10:53pm

You still can't fire him for what he said. If you did, he'd have a pretty good case. Unless he's actually said something or behaved in a certain way on the job, he can't get fired for what was legal political activism that was outside of it. I doubt you could prove that his donation actually compromised his ability to do the job.

You can make his life so miserable he wants to quit or come up with some other reason, but firing him for his political views is not okay. He should receive repercussions socially, but the entire foundation of the USA is that people can believe things without getting legally punished for it, no matter how terrible it is, as long as they stay within the confines of the law. And if you fire him for exercising his right to free speech, you violate his privacy.

Updated On: 11/11/08 at 10:53 PM

[Flaunt It]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 10:55pm

He is entitled to his opinion and to support whatever cause he wants... BUT he needs to be ready for the repercussions of his actions.

He should not be fired for what he did... he will be fired because he is now a liability... possibly losing money and certainly damaging the theatre's reputation in the theatre community.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:05pm

I think you'd have to prove that the theatre's reputation is significantly based on the political views of the staff, wouldn't you?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 11/11/08 at 11:23pm

I think the whole issue of firing him is a bogus one that is serving as a smokescreen keeping this discussion away from the larger issues.

The posters on BroadwayWorld can't fire him. Period. Only the board of directors can fire an artistic director, and only as guided by legal counsel, so there is no chance of a wrongful dismissal suit.

The larger question is what does this thousand-dollar contribution--followed by a lukewarm apology and a bizarre contribution of equal value to a randomly chosen gay organization--say about Scott Eckern's character and integrity and suitability for his position.

He claims to have "not known" how hateful the Mormon Church's campaign was when he contributed. He claims not to have know that it would harm gay people. He claims to have been ignorant of anything negative about his thousand-dollar contribution, as if it had been a thousand dollars to clothe the needy or feed the homeless or buy some new swings for the playground.

I find his denials disingenuous. He knew exactly what he was doing. How could a man who has worked in musical theater for 25 years not know gay people and gay couples and what they think and feel?

If we take him at his word, he is a dufus, completely unaware of his colleagues and his surroundings. If I were on the board, I would question his judgment and suitability for the dual post of Artistic Director and COO.

If we give him credit for the integrity of his religious convictions, we find ourselves at a crossroads: We don't feel comfortable judging another's religious convictions, but we are within our moral rights to decide for ourselves that those particular religious convictions are wrongheaded. We can decide that those religious convictions are repugnant to us. And we can decide if we will be associated with him as an audience member or a working professional.

So, no, he will not be fired for making a thousand-dollar contribution. But is he the best person for the job of Artistic Director and COO of the CMT?

If I were on the board, I would be chairing the Search Committee.

Updated On: 11/12/08 at 11:23 PM

[nycdncr]

Posted: 11/12/08 at 7:53am

To quote my friend. "Mr. Eckern giving $1000 "towards equal rights for all" AFTER rights have already been taken away is like killing someone then giving him his bday present!"

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 11/12/08 at 9:16am

PalJoey's post says it all. Thank you.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 11/12/08 at 9:29am

Pal said it very well. This issue and the vast amount of negative publicity will no doubt be brought up at contract time. I doubt he'll be there beyond his current contract, and frankly, good riddance to bigoted rubbish.

[antonijan]

Posted: 11/12/08 at 6:20pm

CMT Damage Control: Mr. Eckern Resigns

http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=83239

[Dover]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 10:19am

Good. I don't know if they legally can fire him, but I would imagine the theatre would have serious issues getting audiences and employees if he stayed on. I don't work on the west coast, but if our paths should ever cross I would not take a job that he was a part of. I doubt anyone would give him one anyway. He'll be a liability wherever he goes. If he wanted a career where he could express his bigotry in peace, he should probably not have chosen musical theatre.

[JRybka]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 11:25am

Ah the old "I Resign for the greater good of CMT"

Spork Goddess... You write about rights and the ability to do what you please. This is 100% true. No one can take away his desire for donations to an anti-gay proposition.

BBBUUTTT....

He must know that there will be ramifications. People disagree with him and they allowed to voice their displeasure with the whole situation. And if enough people speak out and say that they are unhappy and that they are going to do something about it, No smart business would allow someone like that to keep his or her job for fear that money would be lost. The economy is in the crapper as it is and theaters around the country and feeling the pinch. This theater, one of the oldest traditions in California would be foolish to allow something like that happen.

True he can give his money to anyone he sees fit just as we as a people (gay or not) have a right to say we will not support a organization that allows someone like Scott to be a part of it.

[antonijan]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 12:55pm

This is where it showed.
prop 8 db

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 1:26pm

That list of donors to both sides is not fully complete. I donated money to NO on 8 and yet it does not list my name, nor my grandparents name nor my Mother's name who all contributed to NO on 8.

[Shawk]

Posted: 11/13/08 at 3:32pm

I think you only have to report political donations over a certain amount ($250? It's been awhile since I worked at a non-profit with a PAC).