Author: Rick Swegan
I believe it is in the best interest of the Chautauqua community that the Board of Trustees take formal action to delay the Amphitheater project. In light of the significant change in the Amp project, a delay will allow for the engagement of the entire community in open discussion of the various options and possibilities during the upcoming 2015 season. In short, the Amphitheater project, in whatever form, should be delayed for at least one year, and I call upon the Board to take that action in their February 2015 meeting.
I believe that the people on the Board and the leaders of Chautauqua are well intentioned and have the best interests of Chautauqua in their hearts. I also believe that disagreeing with them or their chosen course of action is not uncivil or rude, and certainly not a personal attack. Open disagreement is fundamental to a free, democratic society and in that vein I would hope others would join me, regardless of their position on the Amp, in calling for the Board to delay moving forward on the Amp.
While I signed the Save the Amp petition, I did so more as a protest of what I see as an incomplete process rather than a belief that preservation is absolutely the best course. With open discussion, I could be convinced otherwise. I make the recommendation to delay the project for reasons that are detailed below which include a lack of transparency, my belief that the fundamental discussion changed, and the degree of discord that currently exists:
It appears that the decision to remove the Amp roof (detailed in a number of documents) was known by August 15th at the latest. This is based on a presentation in the Hall of Christ by Jonathan Schmitz and Av Posner on August 15th referencing the removal of the roof. While one might argue with that date, there is no question, based on comments by a number of officials, that it was known by the end of August at the very latest that the roof would be removed and the Landmark status would be jeopardized. Mr. Becker, in his letter to the community on September 10, 2014, continued to refer to the Amp as a rehabilitation and makes no reference to the roof being removed or that the project is no longer a rehabilitation, even though that was clearly known by that time. In short, it was known by the end of August, 2014 that the very nature of the Amp project had changed dramatically, and there was no communication to the community regarding this change until after the Board meeting in November. Even now, there has been little information coming from either President Becker or the Board in response to the numerous news reports and/or commentary from various preservation groups. This bothers me a great deal, but others can form their own judgments.
Institution leaders have continued to rely on the argument that they spent more than three years investigating and communicating plans for the Amp, and I applaud that effort. In many ways, it was a model process, similar to that used by the Institution in exploring changes to the Architectural & Land Use regulations. However, all the Chautauquans who attended various information sessions were clearly presented with the project as a “rehabilitation.” When the project changed to a demolition, the previous three years of effort fail as a logical argument. We are now discussing a different concept than the one presented to us for three years, and that demands further discussion. Creating a replica Amp and losing our historic landmark status is a very different discussion than the one that was carried on for the previous three years. Speaking as a home owner who has a home in the historic district, placing the historic landmark status in jeopardy concerns me a great deal.
The values that the Institution espouses call out for a delay. Making a $30 million decision about the future of the Institution during the off season with no means of discussion or input other than various email channels is not ‘civil discourse, moral reasoning or being willing to entertain the idea that any person who has a belief, idea or position that is counter to our own, might just be right’ (comments by President Becker). I fully recognize that our governance structure allows the Board to move ahead and make decisions on their own and without input, but I believe they are people of good will who do, in fact, believe in the values of the Institution and will, therefore, delay the project. Since various news reports began to surface in September, combined with the efforts of the Committee to Preserve the Historic Chautauqua Amphitheater, more than 1,500 people have signed the Save the Amp petition. There have been countless email exchanges, and clearly a significant contingent believes the current direction is misguided. At the same time, there are clearly a number of people who support the current project. If the Institution truly values civil discourse, it is time to openly engage in that process. To continue the current path of ignoring the input of many is inconsistent with the values Chautauqua stands for and potentially leads to greater dissension and tension.
I recognize that there are those who believe we need to act now, as any delay jeopardizes the chances that the project can be completed in one year and raises the risk that costs will increase. However, if we all agree that any proposed new structure or rehabilitated structure must be completed in one year as an absolute, nothing says that the project must be done in the 2015-2016 off season. It could well be done in future years. I agree that increased cost is a potential risk, just as further deliberation and exploration of alternatives potentially allows for decreased costs. In either case, I believe further discussion of alternatives, dialogue on the pros and cons of options, and free exchange of ideas is the best course.
As a community, let us step back from the edge and take the time to thoroughly engage in open discussion on the future of the Amp. Taking this step is logical, and in the best spirit of Chautauqua. It is time for our leaders to come to the forefront and model an effective, meaningful way to resolve our disagreements.
Photo: Postcard view of the Amp at mid-century