Merger Talks Worry Some Arts Advocates : Music: They fear that uniting the Pacific Symphony and the Philharmonic Society would mean fewer touring orchestras in O.C.

Veteran Orange County arts activist Elaine Redfield gets a little nervous when she hears talk of plans to unite the Pacific Symphony, the orchestra she helped launch 13 years ago, and the Orange County Philharmonic Society, which she helped found in 1954.

Because the Philharmonic Society sponsors virtually all appearances in Orange County by major touring orchestras, “my concern with a possible merger,” says Redfield, “is that if push comes to shove and funds get tight, all Orange County’s latent and expressed chauvinism will rise to new heights.”

“Before long, everything will be directed to saving and bettering the local orchestra--at the expense of bringing in these foreign groups.”

Redfield’s comments summarize concerns that other longtime classical music supporters in Orange County are also expressing about a merger--still in the discussion stage--between the county’s two largest symphonic music organizations.

The potential conflict, as they see it, is between home-team pride and broad-based cultural sophistication. The players are a young-but-promising regional orchestra with aspirations of national prominence, and the older, established Philharmonic Society, which has brought in the Cleveland Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony and the Royal Concertgebouw of Amsterdam, among others. The crux of the debate is whether one organization can serve two masters equally.

“Those are good questions, and I think they certainly harken to the center of what is really going on here,” says Randy Johnson, president of the Pacific Symphony’s board and one of six members of a merger committee that includes representatives of both groups. “In my view, we are trying to build a consensus for a way of presenting classical music to the people of Orange County (that) is going to work better than what we’ve had in the past.”

Merger proponents say their immediate goal would be a more efficient, single organization that would be in a better position to eliminate combined operating deficits of about $1 million. The new entity would retain the best of both groups, supporters add, and by combining their respective outreach and education programs, they could reach more of the community than either could individually.

But the prospect that long-range emphasis would tilt toward advancing the Pacific Symphony’s reputation has emerged as a major concern among some longtime classical-music enthusiasts.

Philharmonic Society board president and merger committee member William Conlin asserts that a merger is simply “a good opportunity for both organizations.” Citing organizations elsewhere that both produce a local orchestra and book touring groups, he says, “The end result is not a city where they have their own orchestra and exclude all others.”

However, several prominent supporters of the merger--some from each group--say that long-term efforts to boost the Pacific Symphony indeed could mean cutbacks in visits by nationally and interna tionally touring orchestras.

“It’s the age-old question: do you buy your own home or do you rent?” says Edward Halvajian, immediate past board president of the Philharmonic Society. “Pride of ownership is what we’re going for--pride that we are able to build something of our own, as opposed to renting somebody else’s high-quality orchestra.

“Yes, initially we may have to come down from the high-quality orchestras we’ve been used to.”

“That would concern me,” says Elizabeth Stahr, who along with her husband, John, is a donor and subscriber to both groups. “When the Philharmonic Society moved into the Performing Arts Center (in 1986), we no longer heard (only) the Los Angeles Philharmonic every month or every six weeks. It was a new insight, a new revelation, to hear the Chicago Symphony, the Leningrad Philharmonic. Suddenly we realized the L.A. Philharmonic wasn’t as wonderful as we all thought it was. . . . With the great variety we get, we’re much more able to judge orchestras.”

Rondell Hanson, vice president of the orchestra’s board and a merger committee member, agrees with Halvajian that a reduction in touring orchestras is possible but says he does not think top-rank groups would be sacrificed.

“The main purpose would be to establish (the Pacific Symphony as) a nationally recognized orchestra and to continue to present the best touring orchestras possible,” says Hanson. “Everybody wants to have the excellent orchestras come in.

“The question is being asked about those of the next tier down: whether they should continue to be booked or whether the Pacific Symphony could be filling those slots. Why have competition with lesser-known orchestras where we could give Pacific Symphony players additional performances?”

But, Johnson notes, “if it ends up that we are presenting only the Berlin, Vienna, Concertgebouw, Chicago, Philadelphia (orchestras) and the Pacific Symphony, we automatically wind up being the worst symphony that’s heard this year.”

In any case, “this (proposed merger) just sends up a red flag for me,” says Burton Karson, a Cal State Fullerton music professor, founding music director of the Corona del Mar Baroque Music Festival and a longtime Philharmonic Society subscriber and contributor.

Like others who question the merger, Karson does not suggest that the Pacific Symphony should not proceed with plans to raise its profile nationwide. But, he asks, would the orchestra’s supporters “present the many visiting orchestras with equal enthusiasm as they would their own?”

“They have to sell (those orchestras), but they also have to extol their own virtues. . . . I don’t have an answer.”

Says Redfield: “I don’t know how (the two groups) could be allied, unless it were a matter of contract that X percent of the money went to foreign presentations and X percent went to local presentations. Something like that might work. . . . I quite sincerely believe that both (groups) are important. But I have a great concern that one will be lost over a period of time if things get worse with the economy. . . . Everybody is concerned about that aspect.”

“One doesn’t know what circumstances might be financially or otherwise in the future,” acknowledges Nancy Posch, past Philharmonic Society board chairman and merger committee member. “We all would view the combined (group) as a marvelous organization if we could bring both together intact, and each organization could continue to do exactly what it’s doing today. That’s the ideal scenario.”

Already, though, financial considerations loom large. The Pacific, whose budget for 1990-91 was $5.4 million, posted a loss last year of $231,000, bringing its accumulated deficit to $830,000. The Philharmonic Society, which effectively had been in the black until last season, ended the year with an accumulated deficit of $244,000 on a budget of $2.6 million. The Pacific’s total deficit equals 15.3% of last season’s budget, while the Philharmonic Society’s debt represents 9.4% of its budget. A main argument used by merger proponents is that it would allow elimination of some duplicated administrative services.

This would start at the top, as each group now has its own executive director while a united organization would require only one. (According to the most recent figures filed with the Internal Revenue Service, the Philharmonic Society’s executive director was paid a base salary of $66,250 for fiscal 1989-90, while the Pacific’s top administrator received $70,916. Neither figure includes additional pay for “expenses and other allowances.”)

(“I wonder which (group) would give up its executive director?” asks Karson. “Would the executive director of an orchestra be as interested, and as capable, in presiding over the large-scale bookings of many other orchestras?”)

Merging could also ameliorate an identity problem that intensifies fund-raising troubles, advocates say.

Currently, according to officials of each group, individual and corporate donors are confused about what function each organization serves--a problem compounded in some cases by erroneous impressions that contributions to the Performing Arts Center support everyone who uses it. Those organizations--Opera Pacific, the Master Chorale of Orange County and the Pacific Chorale as well as the Pacific Symphony and the Philharmonic Society--simply rent the hall and must do their own fund-raising.

Merger proponents say it will be easier to win donations if just one organization is doing the asking. But not everyone on the arts scene agrees with that theory.

“Once you consolidate, (donors) are not necessarily going to give twice as much to a single entity,” says Redfield, though she does acknowledge that “enormous savings” could result from having a single staff run both operations.

Halvajian says that as far as he can tell, opposition to the union of the groups is “a minority view” and that the march toward a merger is “picking up momentum.”

Merger committee member Hanson only would say that merger talks are continuing at “a measured pace.” Asked if he thinks it is ultimately possible for a single organization to pay equal attention to building a local orchestra, and to presenting touring orchestras that could be viewed as musical competitors, Conlin answered, “Time will tell if it is or it isn’t.”

* NO POSITION: Pacific Symphony music director takes no official stand on merger. F3