Boards must be proactive

By now this scenario is becoming all too familiar:

A man with power is alleged to have spent decades sexually assaulting, bullying and harassing women who worked for him. But they didn’t complain for fear they would forfeit their careers.

No, we’re not talking about Harvey Weinstein. Instead it’s Soulpepper Theatre’s co-founder and former artistic director, Albert Schultz, who is the latest to be accused of such disturbing behaviour.

As is well known by now, last week four actresses filed lawsuits seeking $4.25 million in damages from Soulpepper and $3.6 million from Schultz himself.

The plaintiffs — Diana Bentley, Kristin Booth, Patricia Fagan and Hannah Miller — allege they were victimized by “a sexual predator who . . . had well-developed methods for targeting actresses and luring them into situations that he considered optimal for sexually harassing and assaulting them.”

Schultz vehemently denies the accusations, which will be tested in court. But where has Soulpepper’s board of directors been all these years? While its members say they had no knowledge of the claims until last week, the actresses behind the lawsuit say it was “Soulpepper’s best-known secret.”

In short, whether board members knew or not, they should have. And in that, there are lessons for other companies and organizations who want to protect their employees, their brand and their very existence.

First among them is that boards must become proactive to ensure the well-being of their employees and the health of the organization they oversee.

That was something apparently sorely lacking at Soulpepper, if 33 artists, including the theatre’s new artistic director, Alan Dilworth, are to be believed. “There has been an unhealthy workplace culture for a long time,” they said in a recent statement.

A large part of the problem, the plaintiffs allege, was that the theatre’s workplace violence and harassment policy required cast members to report issues in writing to the executive director — a position held until Saturday by Schultz’s wife, Leslie Lester. Alternatively, they could report incidents to the director of human resources, Sarah Farrell. But she was also the company’s general counsel. In what world could this harassment policy be considered adequate to encourage staff to come forward?

Still, the board claims that an independent review by a workplace policy expert in the fall of 2017 had “assured” them the procedures would “maintain a safe and healthy workplace.” Subsequent events have shown that to be a particularly hollow guarantee.

Miller says one employee informed the board of Schultz’s claim that he had “hid in a female dressing room as a ‘joke’ while an actress was changing,” but the members did nothing about it.

Now Toronto’s largest not-for-profit theatre company is facing more than just a lawsuit. Its very survival is at stake. Already it has cancelled next week’s production of Amadeus at the request of its artists. And one can only wonder if those who have given generously to the theatre in the past, or bought tickets to its productions, will continue to do so.

Funding from the government for part of its $12-million budget is also in question. Last week, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly said the ministry is reviewing its funding policies to ensure that “recipient organizations promote healthy and harassment-free work environments.”

That should serve as a sharp reminder to the boards of directors of all arts groups to get out ahead of the fundamental cultural changes now underway. They must put in place robust systems designed to prevent abuse or risk seeing their organizations shaken to the core.

As for Soulpepper, it’s not enough that the theatre has severed ties with Schultz and Lester. The entire board has no choice but to step aside and let new leadership chart the way forward. Saying you didn’t know is not enough. Putting policies in place so you will know about problems as they develop and can investigate them fully should be the minimum requirement for any board.

Whether Soulpepper’s board knew about allegations against Albert Schultz or not, they should have