IT HAS BEEN MY GREAT PRIVILEGE to attend almost every concert of the Vallejo Symphony Orchestra since I began writing reviews for The Herald five years ago. I continue to marvel at the skill, professionalism and overall quality of VSO productions, which consistently rival those of other, larger area orchestras.

So I was disheartened to learn not only that VSO Maestro David Ramadanoff will be retiring after this, his 31st season at the baton, but also that there is such controversy surrounding that decision that it threatens to cast a negative pall over Ramadanoff’s tenure, and over the integrity of the symphony’s board of directors.

When the news of Ramadanoff’s retirement was first announced, it appeared that he had made the decision himself. It was sad but not too surprising considering his long tenure, the solidity of the core symphony he has established and the fact of his involvement with other Bay Area music programs.

But then came the bombshell: In an Aug. 14 article in The Herald, the conductor revealed that retirement was “not my idea.” In fact, he stated, the symphony board of directors had asked him to step down. Their reasoning, as it was explained to him: The symphony was continuing to lose attendance, and they felt “a new face might make a difference.”

In a phone interview on Sept. 23, Ramadanoff explained to me how it all came down.

“Around mid-July, the executive committee asked to meet with me. They told me, ‘We love what you do, we appreciate all that you’ve brought to the community, but we feel we need to make a change.’ I asked them if they realized that the musicians are all here to play with me. I asked them, ‘What will change by hiring a new director?’ Their answer was, ‘A new face will sell tickets.’ It just stunned me. I suddenly realized the understanding the board lacked.”

How, I wondered, did the board decide to announce the change as a mutually agreed-upon decision, one that Ramadanoff later countered as something he opposed? At what point did the conductor decide to speak out against the board’s decision? Where are the missing pieces to this puzzle?

In an effort to clarify the issue, I met recently with symphony publicist and board member Tim Zumwalt. It was a somewhat frustrating meeting. Tim had a lot to say about falling attendance and shrinking subscription sales, but nothing specifically about why the board felt that hiring a new conductor would improve the situation. Each time I tried to turn the conversation back to that question, he was evasive, only repeating the board’s unsupported assertion that a “new product” would generate renewed interest. Tim seemed determined to elaborate on the problems of declining attendance and financial sponsorship, and equally determined to avoid discussing any specifics about why the board felt a new director would turn things around.

Tim had told me prior to our meeting that he had confidential documents that would help explain the apparent discrepancy regarding Ramadanoff’s role in the decision-making process. He showed me copies of emails exchanged between Ramadanoff and some of the board members confirming that the conductor knew about the board’s decision back in July. He laid the pages down gingerly, explaining that the board had only that day — Monday, Sept. 22 — decided they could release the information, as a rebuttal to Ramadanoff’s surprise interview in The Herald in August. It was as if the board felt that this sensitive information was somehow vilifying, since it seemed to indicate that Ramadanoff was originally on board with their decision and that the opposition he expressed in the Aug. 14 Herald article was a surprise turnaround.

In fact, the correspondence was simply a discussion of conditions that Ramadanoff was requesting of the board after they informed him of their decision — for example, that the news not be released until after his speaking engagement at the September conference of the Association of California Symphony Orchestras. The emails contained no indication that Ramadanoff had ever been in favor of resigning.

At the time, Ramadanoff had seen no reason to make a public statement about his opposition. “Then,” he explained to me, “I saw (board President) Suzie Peterson’s letter to the musicians.” The letter stated, among other things, that the maestro’s resignation was “a mutual decision, accompanied by much soul-searching on both sides.” That, Ramadanoff said, is simply untrue. By continuing to remain silent after that, he said, “I felt I was abandoning the musicians.”

Tim Zumwalt said the board began discussing the possibility of retiring Ramadanoff more than a year ago. They felt then, and continue to feel now, that they have exhausted every avenue they could think of for improving attendance, ticket sales and corporate sponsorship. Tim said they felt they had no alternative but to “change things from the top down” to save the symphony from dissolution.

In fact, there is at least one resource at the board’s disposal that they neglected to tap, VSO advisory board member Rhonda Lucile Hicks told me in a phone interview on Tuesday.

Tim had mentioned the existence of a symphony advisory board, but he had described it as little more than perfunctory. True, Rhonda said: the advisory board lacks the authority to make binding decisions. But they are there for the express purpose of offering professional advice, and they represent a pool of talent that could be extremely helpful — if only they were consulted. (Other advisory board members include former Vallejo Mayor Tony Intintoli, Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau Director Mike Browne and Benicia Realtor Renee Jordan.)

About the decision to replace Ramadanoff, “We were blindsided,” Hicks told me. “We were not even informed that there was a problem. Whenever I would see Tim (Zumwalt), he always said things were going great.” The board did meet with them, she said, but only after the decision had already been made. In fact, when Hicks offered suggestions at that meeting, she said she was stiffly rebuffed. “If you want a voice,” she remembers board President Peterson telling her, “you should apply for a position on the board.”

Hicks said because she lacks information she is not certain that replacing Ramadanoff is a bad idea. However, “I would absolutely say that the process was faulty. The subject (of Ramadanoff’s retirement) should have been approached more gradually.” In her opinion, Ramadanoff should have been a part of the discussion early on, including his input on when he would like to retire and how he would like to see such a transition handled.

In defense of the board of directors, Ramadanoff and several of the symphony’s musicians will attest that board members have worked diligently to keep the orchestra afloat — “within the limits of their abilities,” the maestro said. It appears they simply came to a point of exasperation and truly felt they had no remaining option but to scrap the whole thing and start over, well aware that losing Ramadanoff would almost certainly mean losing many of the symphony’s core players. Later, when the board came under fire for what appeared to be an ill-conceived decision, their back was against the wall and they have since behaved defensively, as though determined to make the tough choice and shoulder the opposition.

The fact is, Ramadanoff has developed a core of musicians who click so well with each other, and with him, that they often turn down other work to play for him — and usually for half the pay they would receive elsewhere. That sense of mutual enjoyment is consistently conveyed in their music. It’s a situation that most agree would be difficult to replicate.

Even if it were to eventually become clear to all that Ramadanoff’s symphony is no longer sustainable, the board would still benefit greatly by retaining the support of the symphony’s passionate fan base. Many talented people stand poised and ready to help them do whatever it takes to keep the symphony together.

It’s a shame that news of the board’s decision unfolded in such a way as to place them in opposition to their musicians and fans. After lengthy discussions with all camps, it seems obvious to me that everyone wants the same result — to save the symphony. But the board stands alone in its opinion that replacing the maestro is the best way forward. I believe a spirit of transparency and cooperation on the part of board members could pave the way for a solution to the symphony’s woes that is more palatable for all concerned.

Elizabeth Warnimont is a freelance writer specializing in the performing arts. She is also a substitute teacher for the Benicia Unified School District.