Jeff Bartone | OlyBlog

Navigation

User login

Online users

FRESH
Matthew Green
einmaleins
JstPlnOnry
einmaleins
Sarah
flyfreeasabird
Dylan Carlson
chad360
emmettoconnell

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

reggie.ventura
FREDDYF
ekdrake
Ash
turpin

Jeff Bartone

Submitted by buitenkant on Sun, 09/02/2007 - 12:31pm.

I was disheartened when Jeff Bartone told me he was fired, with severence pay. After almost 20 years of dedicated and love for the Olympia Film Society I thought he should have had a pension. This is a community that touts social justice after all. The other influence on our culture is the corporation aqnd its structure. Boards of Directors consists willing well meaning but self serving people often lacking experience with POWER.eg. Pacifica, parent of Democracy Now is instituting new rules which ask that programs be shown to the Board members before airing. Can you imagine news that is timely being restrained like this? Amy Goodman is a giant. Yes, some people are head and shoulders above their fellow human beings and should be recognized as such). Congressman Conyers said Amy Goodman was the best journalist in the country. I am 85 years old and have seen and felt changes. There seems to be a malaise in our societyu. It may have a lot to do with this admistration which is constantly disappointing most of usSomehow the government has let us down. People feel unappreciated and they forget to appreciate others. Whatever Jeff has done, it would be big of you to accept people's idiosyncrasies or do the kind of mediation that has been accepted in our community.

buitenkant's blog
Login or register to post comments

The new OFS program guide

Submitted by OFSer on Sun, 09/02/2007 - 2:33pm.

...doesnt even mention Jeffrey's departure after 21 years of service to the Olympia Film Society! Wow! That seems quite insulting. Even if they parted on bad terms, I would have expected a little article announcing his leaving and thanking him for his dedication, etc. at the very least. I should point out that there are also two more threads that already have a lot to say about this issue: olyblog.net/undemocratic-nature-olympia-film-society olyblog.net/olympia-film-society-walkout-they-fired-jeffrey-bartone

Idiosyncracies...

Submitted by cupric oxide on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 4:20pm.

I personally watched Jeffrey brow beat and verbally assault a staff member until said staff member broke out in tears, and had to leave the theater unable to complete their job. (I know, another anonymous, un-defendable complaint, but take it or leave it, I was there, I saw it, and I don't need your vitriol so I'll leave names out of this) I was disgusted, and shocked at such unprofessional behavior. As further evidence of his unprofessional behavior, this wasn't in some back room, but right there in the box office on 5th Ave! I wouldn't call this an "idiosycracy". I'd call it what it is: ABUSE. Mental, and verbal abuse is not at all good for the workplace, and should NEVER be condoned. Furthermore, I find it very telling that Mr. Bartone has not come forward to defend himself, or to fight for his own reinstatement. His silence on the matter of the reasons for his termination speaks very loudly. As to the matter of a pension, this is something that is paid into by the pensioner. Then, after years of service, the pension is paid back out to the employee. A pension is something provided by the very corporate entities that we all don't want the OFS to become. The fact that Mr. Bartone was provided with severance pay shows to me that the termination of his service was carefully considered, compassionately executed considering the circumstances, most certainly not taken lightly, and that his immediate future needs were monetarily covered. I can only assume that his severance was substantial, as it should have been for such a long term of employment. But once again, we are left to conjecture, as the details are really none of our business, and neither Mr. Bartone nor the OFS board are required to divulge anything.

Actually

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 4:49pm.

They have an obligation to their membership to divulge the conditions of Mr. Bartone's severance. That is undeniable.

Well, then

Submitted by cupric oxide on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 6:07pm.

I won't deny it. But perhaps they should divulge? Has anyone asked? And if they haven't, could it be because it might show the board to have a heart and a conscience? Could it possibly humanize the beleaguered remnants of the board, who according to at least one past member, have struggled with the issue of Mr. Bartone's "rude and abrasive" behavior for years? And what might Mr. Bartone's reasons be for not divulging the terms of his severance? I imagine that if it were a pittance, we'd be hearing something from him. And for that matter, has anyone asked him about attempts by the BOD to remedy his conflicts through mediation? Has anyone asked him if he thought he deserved to be terminated? Was he given fair warning and the chance to change his behavior? I see a whole lot of uninformed people making comments with the assumption that this decision was made out of some personal vengeance, or that board members were manipulated, or that the decision was based on "anonymous complaints", or any other number of accusations. Once again, Mr. Bartones voice is pointedly missing from all of these discussions. He could very easily clear all of this up with a simple truthful statement that would address all of these questions. The board is respecting Mr. Bartone's privacy, at the very serious cost of the membership's trust, and for that I applaud them. Personally, I think Mr. Bartone is revelling in this fracas. Why would he hang himself by admitting to any wrong doing, when he can sit back quietly and watch the lynch mob go after the BOD without ever having to answer for his own behavior?

hang on

Submitted by blagoblag on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 9:45pm.

I think you raise valid questions, and I would also like to know more about the board's intentions, but you're lumping a couple of issues into the category of "uninformed comments" on OlyBlog. Let's break them out:

1. "The assumption that this decision was made out of some personal vengeance"

If there were any posts alleging this was a personal vendetta (I don't recall any but I may have overlooked something), Annie's post made it clear that the complaints were/are widespread.

2. "that board members were manipulated"

I assume you're referring to the discussion about the board's voting process. The talk here has been that the board appears to have manipulated its own bylaws and the consensus process. That has been my opinion based on what I have been told by others close to the situation, and I believe that, if true, this is a much more serious issue than the merits of the decision to fire Mr. Bartone (which I'm not in a position to challenge, and which appear legitimate from what Annie has said).

So, I'm curious, because you seem to consider our opinions about the Board vote process uninformed. They have largely been based upon the same information available at ofsvolunteers.com. We haven't yet heard any perspective on OlyBlog to counter that account of the Board vote, and I'd really like to know if you have some information that contradicts or supplements that description of events. I don't presume to know the whole truth, and I'm very open to hearing whatever information you can provide that could add to this discussion.

1- I based my comment on

Submitted by cupric oxide on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 12:48am.

1- I based my comment on this being a matter of personal vengeance on a direct quote from the OFS volunteer walk out statement - "We further feel that Jeffrey's termination was the result of the personal agendas of a few board and staff members through a calculated and opportunistic effort."

2- I stand corrected, thank you. I should have written "manipulative" where I wrote "manipulated". I apologize.

I consider the opinions I've seen posted here uninformed simply because of the admitted fact that we are getting ALL of our information from one source. I post my comments with the intention of reminding all concerned parties that there has been a major dearth of alternative sources of information, and that to base our interactions with and support of OFS on such a narrow bandwidth of information is to sell our own intelligence short. I really would like to hear more voices of the informed, from all sides of the story, and hope that I do.

I cannot interpret the motives of either party

Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 6:19pm.

by their collective silences. As a member I am only concerned with the current board and their loose interpretation of the OFS bylaws concerning concensus. It leaves me questioning their judgement or their ethics. The OFS bylaws require the board to maintain a minimum of eight memebers. A consensus of five presuposes an eight member board. As I understand it, the vote was taken while the board membership was less than eight. I am looking foreward to seeing the minutes for that meeting so I can confirm if this was or was not the case.

Dr. Bruce Rogers

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 09/03/2007 - 7:20pm.

I performed Handel's Messiah under the direction of Dr. Rogers during my junior and senior years in high school. He was the head of the music department for University of Puget Sound in Tacoma. He directed the UPS Choral Society and the Tacoma Symphony in the performance each year (along with four professional soloists).

He yelled at people. He said things that would humiliate people. He threw a book on the floor once. He knocked over his podium and broke several batons in anger.

He was an absolute genius and brought out the best in us. At the end of the performance he smiled and acknowledged that we had done an incredible performance.

I think Fleetwood Mac said it in an early song - "now wouldn't be a real drag if we were all the same?"

By this logic, if I were to

Submitted by cupric oxide on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 1:16am.

By this logic, if I were to beat my child relentlessly until he/she figured out advanced algebra at age 6, then patted him/her on the head and gave them a snacky, I should be respected for doing it? I think not. Abuse is no way to teach. Fear is no way to gain respect. The drill sargeant attitude has no place in a creative, inclusive and artistic environment.

Oh come on!

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 1:17am.

Sacrificing the potential 100 artists for the 1 who is desperately afraid of failure seems like a completely reasonable equation to me...

Sorry enpen,

Submitted by cupric oxide on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 2:03am.

I edited myself and made your comment a little out of context. But I would have to agree with your line of sarcastic reasoning. Yet, do you not agree that a nurturing and supportive mentor would appeal to a far greater number of students? Might this mentor possibly help the potential failure overcome their fear, without alienating the other 100? To this day, in my personal memory, the abusive and degrading teachers I had live in infamy as assholes, and those who taught with compassion and the lessons they gave me are never far from my thoughts. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer to be remembered as the latter.

I completely agree

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 7:00am.

The abusive mentor is a holdover from another era where children were regarded as nothing more than lumps of coal yet to be forcefully compacted, chipped out and polished into diamonds. It's an antiquated idea that, unfortunately, continues to haunt us in much the same way that abused children are the most likely to abuse their own children in turn.

Thank you for taking the time to share your experiences with us, cupric. Truth, quite simply, cannot come from one perspective.

Well, cupric

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 8:01am.

Two thoughts come to mind.

Dr. Rogers, for all his idiosyncracies, was loved by those that worked under him.

If you are a performing artist, you know that the audience can be more brutal than any bellicose director.

I'd like to think that there is a slight difference between physical harm and some emotion, but your example tells me that you don't see the difference. I can't help with that.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

yes

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 8:18am.

There is a difference between physical and emotional harm, Larry: it's far easier to see the immediate results of physical abuse and therefore more people are likely to believe the victim. There is a large body of people who are never abused physically, but are abused none the less. Writing it off as "some emotion" is pretty minimizing and lame. Please reconsider the facts of this kind of abuse before you unintentionally continue this cycle of non-physical violence.

enpen, are we carrying an old conversation to a new blog?

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 8:39am.

I'm not going to be put in a position where it seems I have to fend off this conjecture that I don't know what abusive is. I have lived 56 years in various situations and relationships, some of which, according to what I see people say, was "abusive". Sorry, I'm not buying it.

I'll provide an example from my past, you can provide one from yours, and then let's put this to rest.

I coached 11, 12, and 13 year olds in football. The parents had a meeting to tell me that I was being too tough on their kids, because I was trying to create some discipline with a bunch that had none (they had lost all their games the year before). There was some talent, but the ability to concentrate and follow a plan wasn't there because no one had taught them. I reminded the parents that my primary job was to prepare them for the game, where 11 players on the other side of the field were not going to be sensitive to their needs.

Along comes Sunday, and I'm picking them up off the field left and right. You see, their opposition was out there to kick their ass and not care one bit.

We went back to discipline and conditioning and were able to pull off a couple of wins that year. Guess who the parents gave a standing ovation to, after the first win?

My "abusiveness" became just the catalyst they needed to be tough enough to take on the opposition.

I'm minimizing no one. I'm speaking from my experience. I have never been brutalized by a director nearly as much as an audience.

Now, I'm willing to read your life experience on this subject and then let's forget this bit of you trying to teach me what "abusive" is. Sound fair?

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

You're reading but you're not listening

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 8:54am.

When you write "some emotion" you're minimizing the validity of the emotional world in the physical plane. There are a lot of victims of abuse who love their abusers no less. And there are a lot of victims of emotional abuse who end up as suicides in the paper. I've met a few of'em in my short time on this rock and I don't feel it necessary to justify to you how the fact that they were never hit made their suffering any less real or fatal.

Seriously, Larry. Before you unintentionally continue the cycle of emotional abuse by disregarding its validity, I'd really like you to read about its history and effects and quit pretending like your experience explains everything away.

Minimizing?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:09am.

How do you know what Larry was doing? I think you need to ask more questions. I don't for a second think that Lary is talking about the kind of abuse that leads to suicide. Sorry, but this is a bit over the top and I think you need to think about your own dominance issues for a second.

we're not conversing here

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:59am.

Larry wrote "I'd like to think that there is a slight difference between physical harm and some emotion", to which I responded that there is indeed a difference, and it's often that of visible perception. As far as my statement that Larry is minimizing the validity of the emotional sphere, that's precisely what referring to emotion as "some" does, whether intentional or not. Note that I also wrote I think he should read up on some of the literature before "unintentionally continuing the cycle". I have not once stated that he set out to do this, rather it's an apparent biproduct of a lack of information. Two of the people I've known who chose death did so after some well meaning person came along and attempted to "instill some discipline" in their lives causing a major depressive relapse.

We don't necessarily know a victim of abuse when we meet them (although the amazing ability of abusers to find people receptive to victimization certainly speaks differently), so why choose a route of harsh discipline when we don't know if the result will be positive or negative?

With all due respect your possition (which I support)

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:16am.

My take was that Larry was attempting, albeit awkwardly, to differentiate between "challenging" personality types and abusers. So, you see, it is not all that precise to everyone. Discouraging people away from that discussion is a missed opportunity to engage in a fruitful dialong about what constitutes abuse and about the very subjective nature of abuse, especially the emotional kind. What looks like "good discipline" to one person is hell to another. It is what the original poster was getting at. Instead, we are feeding on eachother, again.

The important thing to note

Submitted by sophielou on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:28am.

The important thing to note is that regardless of Larry's experience with his music teacher, most people who feel abused by Jeffrey do not appreciate it and do not feel like they have been made better for the abuse. They feel embarrassed, hurt, and unwelcome, and it doesn't matter whether or not his intent was to make them stronger, it matters that he was a person in a position of authority, and many people were incredibly unhappy under his supervision. Bringing in unrelated personal anecdotes is a common tactic, but that doesn't make them a valid argument.

I have no problem

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:49am.

believing that people felt abused by Mr. Bartone. I believe them and his firing sounds justified, the board's behavior notwithstanding. I think Larry brought up his experience in an attempt to distinguish between a "challenging" personallity and an abusive one. I wager that some people are less inclined to condem Bartone because that dichotomy is meaningful to them. It may be a meaningless and perhaps upsetting distinction to anyone subjected to abuse, but it is a legitimate, if disturbing, part of the conversation.

Er, I'm not arguing with

Submitted by sophielou on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:39am.

Er, I'm not arguing with you, by the way. I just wanted to point out that I think that personal anecdotes are a poor rhetorical choice. Carry on!

This is precisely what I was writing about yesterday.

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:34am.

Now that we've tried to discount my life experience, I think I've participated enough in this conversation.

I'll read more books, starting with the one on mind reading.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Ok, I'm jumping

Submitted by vincent_vega on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 3:40pm.

in on this. From a personal standpoint, I specifically left a job because my general manager was the biggest abusive prick you could meet. I am the type of person who will not take verbal abuse long, innuendo's of my sexuality, yelling, screaming etc. I dont need that shit. Needless to say, he polarized the staff. Most hated him, some loved him. In my view, there are personality types that like this type of person to work for, and work better for them. Either that or they just love abuse outside the bedroom. All this doesn't really matter. What Enpen is trying to say is correct, abuse is not right no matter if people "love" you for it or not. Stockholme Syndrome anyone??????? Beat a person like a rented mule long enough, some will come to get used to it and even like it.

Conversation means...

Submitted by Rick on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:03am.

...incorporating information provided by others into your world view. If all you want to do is tell us about your experience, and never integrate the experience of others, then there isn't much point in conversing, is there?.

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow

Sorry, but I disagree.

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:40am.

I read books. Books tell me the experiences of others. While books are unable to "integrate" my experiences, I've had many valuable conversations with them. Not dialogs, but good conversations nonetheless. Additionally, I am often impressed about how much I learn when I describe an experience of my own, with or without integrating the experiences of others. It is a conversation with "my other" from the past. I see no reason whatsoever to dismiss that process as pointless.

I need to add this

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 9:50am.

ABUSE - to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign

Now, considering how I might presume a post was intended in my direction, I could certainly use the word "abuse". You see, I find it insulting, harsh and unjust to minimize my life experiences.

Now, let's get off the rhetoric game and get into the real issues.

I'm concerned about the "guilty until proven innocent" methods that prevail in society today.

I don't know Bartone. I haven't frequented OFS events. I don't know the players in the game, but I do understand due process and I question seriously as to if said process is really happening.

Everyone has their personal level of "pain" when it comes to emotions, yet there must be a fair balance in application of this when speaking of dismissing someone after 20 years of work.

Luckily, I'm on the outside looking in, thus I have no personal issue with what is taking place.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

It seems to me that your

Submitted by Rob Richards on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 12:26pm.

It seems to me that your music teacher was apples to Bartone's oranges.

The big problem I, and I think enpen have with your post was it's timing. A number of people have been bravely, although some anonymously still bravely, coming out and talking about how Bartone had treated them and others. AFTER many of these people came out with this, you posted about your music teacher. To me it seemed liked you were trying to justify Bartone's "leadership" "style" with a story about a tough music teacher, which is a far cry from a sexist boss who habitually makes women scared of him or brings them to tears. Leaders (if we have to have them) should be supportive, Bartone was evidently very far from that.

But Rob,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 12:58pm.

people DO have Larry's perspective on this. I disagree with it, but it is probably an ongoing part of this conflict. I understand that people need to feel safe when speaking out against abuse. Fortunately, it appears that opportunity was made available and the board acted on it. I don't believe that vulnerability should be used to stifle the alternative point of view. Had Larry said something like "get over it...we've all worked with assholes before," that would be one thing. But he didn't. There is NO excuse for abusive behavior, and I trust the sincerity of those claiming abuse. But like it or not, other participants in this conflict are probably in the "Bartone as Larry's Band Leader Camp." I think it is a missed opportunity to simply characterize that as an ignorant, sexist point of view. A more nuanced deconstruction by you smart folks would be cool.

yeah

Submitted by enpen on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 1:22pm.

It's a long standing problem on a societal level where we seek to excuse abusive behavior if the person's contribution is considered great enough. I run into it with myself in the arts and in Philosophy all the time. I like Picasso's art...like being a really weak term for how they make me feel when I get to sit and stare at them. But holy shit was the guy an abusive asshole when it came to the women in his life. I like a lot of Martin Heidegger's philosophy on existence a lot. The guy was an f'n card carrying Nazi. I like Wagner's Operas...oh my god do I like his Operas. I really like what he did for music with his construction of leitmotifs and his ideas of the Gesamtkunstwerk, but what a racist anti-semitic bastard the guy was. Ezra Pound's poetry? Mwauah! But what a totalitarian elitist ass!

There must be some way that we can socially remove ourselves from the belief that we just have to put up with these people in order to get the product. History does show that we can have have the works of monumental genius without the crap and I keep returning to Wittgenstein's notion of the language games thinking that he was shining a really bright light on the path that can set us free.

well,

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 12:58am.

I took it, as I think many people probably did, as him saying just that: "get over it...we've all worked with assholes before."

Bartone ran a great theater, kept things orderly and was liked by many in the community. Basically, the trains ran on time. Now, some of the people that posted about Bartone have long histories of having bad personal relationships with Bartone, to the point that their testimony may be untrustworthy. But the volume of people who are speaking out is worth looking at. I've spoken to many people on both sides, but it seems the people on Bartone's side give the "he is OFS" excuse as justification. Perhaps firing him, especially the way it happened, was not the right way to go, but it seems to me that something needed to be done.

To Whom It May Concern

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 6:10am.

My true to life anecdote was intended to demonstrate that highly creative people are also human and not perfect robots that will react exactly the way you'd like when you want.

Dr. Rogers was a brilliant man that, although his methods wouldn't be liked in today's world, was loved by the people that worked with him. If he didn't say something like "the sopranos are screaching from the balcony with the beauty of crows at breakfast" we would have thought that something was wrong with him. I personally was amazed at how that man picked me out of a chorus of 300 and knew that I was on the wrong page because I wasn't paying attention. Humiliating? Yes. Wrong? No. Oh, and don't dare chew gum during his sessions.

For those that think I'm saying "get over it" - sorry, wrong mind reading. What I'm saying is that not everyone is devastated by bellicose people. I hope there is room in the world for those of us that are alligator (caiman?) skinned also.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

a time and a place

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:25am.

If these "alligator skinned" people thrive through tough love (or however it gets characterized), do you think they need a champion then? And why do you think it's okay when people are recounting personal stories of an emotionally charged nature about the very topic at hand to start recounting personal experiences about somebody with whom you admittedly don't even know to share any of the traits and/or experiences of what the people here are saying they went through with Jeff Bartone? I realize you're trying to get across that people are different and differences are good. That much came through crystal clear with your Fleetwood Mac quote.

As Guglielmo pointed out, the discussion of the necessarily subjective nature of emotional abuse is a conversation worth having for a community. But I would still contend that it is not helpful in this forum to try to relate a contrary personal experience of your own when it is a stretch to find the connection between the two. In fact, I'm looking for one time where you even take a moment to acknowledge that what these people experienced is real for them, but all I can find is you talking about your experience with a completely different person and you telling (seemingly dismissively) cupric oxide: "I'd like to think that there is a slight difference between physical harm and some emotion, but your example tells me that you don't see the difference. I can't help with that."

Exactly

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:28am.

n/m

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 12:59am.

n/m

Conversation

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Tue, 09/04/2007 - 11:33am.

According to dictionary.com, the applicable (if I'm correct) definition of the word "conversation" is as follows:

"informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc., by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy."

With that in mind, I would say that reference of the thoughts interchanged, be they from literature or experience, would both qualify.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Use of venue

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 6:12am.

As I must admit my ignorance of the OFS and venue, is this for film only or live acts? I got the idea that some of the programming was live music.

Am I correct?

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

If you don't know anything about OFS...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:22am.

...then why are you posting about it?

Are you beginning to see a pattern? I certainly am.

How about

Submitted by Merwyn Haskett on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:09am.

How about just answering Larry's question instead of telling him he has no right to write anything unless he's been embedded for years. Sounds to me like he was trying to have a dialogue.

Read enpen's post

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:36am.

Here. Before posting, ask yourself: am I helping move the ball forward or am I unnecessarily creating conflict? If Larry doesn't know anything about OFS, then the right place to start is with the questions, NOT his experience. Then we would have seen something that more closely approximated a dialogue, i.e., information passed back and forth, updating one's understanding of the situation, relevant wisdom communicated. Instead, we got his "experience" which it turns out was not so appropriate, defended to the last ounce of his energy, clouding the whole conversation, and not enlightening anyone.

OFS Capitol Theater

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:43am.

In the year that I've been in Olympia OFS has hosted movies, music, The Suicide Girls, an arts craft fair, sing-a-longs, a viewing of the Oscars and a beer garden. And I'm probably missing some stuff. It's a multi-use venue.

Nerdy audio-visual aide

Submitted by puttahna on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:10am.

Jeffrey Bartone is not an artist or musician. JB was not teaching nor nurturing artists and musicians. JB was paid to help run a non-profit, volunteer-run theatre for movies, music, and other live events, along with other paid staff and devouted volunteers. Justifying his kind of obnoxious behaviour because he is a creative genius inspiring other creative geniuses is absurd. Stop comparing him to amazing teachers and amazing artists, and try comparing him to the nerdy yet obnoxious audio-visual aide in high school who acted like he wielded power cause he knew how to run the machines!

Cognitive Dissonance

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 8:49am.

On one hand, Jeff is the heroic, behind the scenes(ters) backbone of OFS. On the other hand, he is the power-hungry, obnoxious (not abusive anymore?) geek.

As for Larry's right to contribute to this thread, his experience with non-profits probably merits some recognition. I think it's counter productive to escalate things by calling him on his OFS experience.

I think it's counter productive...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:20am.

...to derail a conversation about an important issue having to do with the Olympia community.

When people make it all about themselves, it stops being a conversation.

Derailing?

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:50am.

By bringing up, albeit gracelessly, the perceived distinction between "challenging" personalities and abusive ones? It might be an uncomfortable topic for people who are rightly concerned about the welfare and perception of safety of abuse victims, yes. But I don't think it is derailing the conversation. The reason for Bartone's firing makes it relevant. The post that started this specific comment thread makes it relevant.

There's making a point...

Submitted by Rick on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 10:05am.

...and there's making a point. In addition to the (in my opinion) bad timing of the contribution, there is the response to push back. This shifts the focus from the actual ideas in the thread to the personalities involved. At some point, you have to recognize that maybe that was the point all along. If Larry had been able to drop it after having said his piece, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Agreed

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 10:20am.

knowing when to "drop it" is very helpful. Otherwise it does become another self-referencial meta-conversation...the bane of every comment section in existance. I support you in your battle against that beast.

backbone

Submitted by cupric oxide on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:51am.

I think it's important to remember that there are 3 other staff vertebrae in this supposed Bartone braced backbone of OFS - a volunteer coordinator, a theater manager, and a film programmer. All of whom work together to support the system of volunteers, community, and facility.

oh no...

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:59am.

...my vision of Atlas is unbound...

I can't get the

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 10:03am.

Three Stooges out of my head now. Thanks.

hey

Submitted by enpen on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 10:12am.

Lay your Shep complex on me no Mo!

Clever!

Submitted by cupric oxide on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 12:37pm.

Very Clever!

Please dont talk about what you dont know.

Submitted by OFSer on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 9:07pm.

I will not stop comparing Jeffrey to amazing teachers because he has been one for many of the volunteers who have worked with him, including myself. I have been a member and volunteer for thirteen years and have never heard anyone who has worked with Jeffrey say that he flaunts his knowledge or abilities, or uses them in a way to hold power over anyone else. Rather, he is more than happy to expound at length about any aspect of the technical operations of the Capitol Theater to anyone who is curious.

As far as whether or not he is an artist, I suppose it depends upon your definition. Jeffrey has been a creative force behind many of the unique events at the Capitol Theater (some of the best in my opinion), whether he takes the credit for it or not. So you may object to calling Jeffrey an amazing teacher and artist, but not on the grounds that it is absurd. Spouting off about the qualities of someone you evidently know so little about does not contribute constructively to the conversation.

Rick

Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 11:21am.

The pattern I'm seeing is that if you disagree with me (as you did my first post introducing myself on Olyblog), I have no right to comment.

You've accomplished what you set out to do.

As I said before, this is not life and death with me and I refuse to play into the drama.

Anyone that wishes to speak with me is welcome to email me at LarryHillMusic@comcast.net.

"There is only one race, the human race" - The Neville Brothers

Now Larry,

Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 11:40am.

There is a difference between Rick's opinion of your posts and your right to post. Your famously thick skin should allow you to surmount that obstacle. If my experience in these types of venues has taught me one thing, it is that force feeding your experience or brand of wisdom on people who don't have an appetite for it usually just results in a messy puddle of vomit for every one else to slip in. All we can do really is set the table, invite people to sit down, and hope for the best. If they turn their back on it, pushing the same dish in front of them again is not going to improve their appetite. At that point it's time to change the menu. Now that I've devoured every calorie this metaphor has to offer, I’m off for dissert on another thread.

that was awesome metaphoring

Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 09/05/2007 - 5:03pm.

that was awesome metaphoring

buitenkant

Submitted by stevenl on Thu, 09/06/2007 - 7:11am.

Are you really 85 years old? I hope you continue to post here on OlyBlog, I'd like to read more about your take on Oly and life in general. It seems ironic that a post calling for mediation has resulted in so much fireworks in the comment thread.

I occasionally enjoy attending films at OFS, and was even a member once. Time and money prevents me from being more active. I don't know anything about the internal politics of OFS, but I would really hate to see the organization go away or lose its artistic edge due to inner strife. OFS is worth preserving and it makes Olympia a more attractive town.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: