(NYT) Dining: Elite Wine Group Elects New Board

[AKR]

Dining: Amid Sexual Harassment Scandal, Elite Wine Group Elects New Board
2020-12-04 02:01:50.879 GMT

By Julia Moskin

(New York Times) -- But the Court of Master Sommeliers’ new leaders don’t look
so different from the old.

The Court of Master Sommeliers, the most elite body in American wine, has
elected a new board of directors following a sexual harassment scandal in
October and accusations of racism this summer.

Of the 11 new board members, three are women, and two identify as gay and two
as Asian-American; seven are white men. (The two Black men who were eligible
for the board did not run.) The outgoing board had two women, one Black man
and no one who identified as gay among its 14 members; 11 were white men.

In the wake of a New York Times report in October, 12 men are currently under
investigation for having inappropriate relations with female candidates for
the title of master sommelier, which the court confers after a yearslong
testing process. The conduct ranged from unwanted touching to quid pro quos to
sexual assault. Women quoted in the Times article said that many board members
had long been aware of the abuse, or were perpetrators themselves.

One of the men, Geoff Kruth, resigned from the court; the remaining 11 were
suspended, pending the results of outside investigations. Still, they remained
eligible to vote in the election. (A spokeswoman for the Court of Master
Sommeliers, Americas said that was required by nonprofit governance laws in
California, where the court is incorporated.)

The revelations of systemic abuse, coming after recent accusations of racism
and smoldering suspicions about favoritism from a cheating scandal in 2018,
have threatened not only the organization’s credibility, but the organization
itself.

Following a fractious town-hall meeting last month, the board promised to
resign en masse after the election of a new slate on Dec. 1. During the
campaign, internal debates exploded onto social media, the idea of dissolving
the entire organization was aired, three prominent women members resigned
(many more have threatened to do so), and a deep generational rift in the
court was exposed.

In interviews and on social media, younger members (including most of the
group’s women, who make up about 15 percent of the total) have said that
systemic change is needed to promote transparency, diversity and ethical
standards. Older members, most of them white men, have argued that the court’s
problems have now been exposed, and can be fixed without drastically reshaping
the organization.

That view was reflected in candidate statements by three of the white men just
elected to the new board, who have served on it in the past: Keith Goldston,
from 2007 to 2015; Rob Bigelow, from 2003 to 2012; and Christopher Bates, from
2019 to 2020. (Mr. Bates, who wrote that the organization should not be
“dismantled or destroyed” because of the actions of “a few,” resigned along
with the rest of the current board, and was the only member to run for
re-election.)

Since the court’s newest members are not allowed to run, there was a notable
lack of diversity on the slate: 13 of the 18 candidates were white men,
ensuring them a majority, and there were no Black candidates. Four new members
— Emily Wines, Mia Van De Water, Kathryn Morgan and David Yoshida — now
constitute all the diversity of gender, sexuality and race on the board. To
those who have argued for sweeping change, the election process and results
were not encouraging.

“There are mostly conservatives and moderates, not many progressives,” said
Jill Zimorski, a master sommelier who was not eligible to run for the board
because she has been a member for less than two years.

The court’s spokeswoman said, “The beverage and hospitality community’s
passionate engagement over the past few weeks has been necessary for
confronting the truth of the CMS-A’s identity, and it also brings forth great
optimism for what the organization can now become.”

The master sommelier title represents an enormous investment of time and money
for those who hold it. Since 1997, when the court’s Americas chapter was
formally established, fewer than 200 people have climbed all four rungs of
testing: introductory, certified, advanced and master. Those who make it
through then supply mentorship, education and examinations to the next
generation of candidates.

As high-level players in the $30 billion beverage industry, master sommeliers
also have access to lucrative job opportunities, luxurious travel, expensive
wines and other perks. The combination of money and power, guarded by the men
who had it, has long proved toxic for women who tried to gain access to the
court’s upper levels.

Some changes to remedy that are already in effect. Sexual relationships
between masters and candidates they are mentoring are no longer permitted by
the court’s code of ethics. The requirements to run for the board, previously
complex, have been simplified to two years of membership. Four additional
board seats have been set aside to be filled later by people outside the
organization, in order to “bring new voices to the table,” according to the
spokeswoman. A chief executive officer will be hired to lead day-to-day
operations.

Karen MacNeil, a wine expert and educator, said it is too soon to rebuild the
court, but if major strides are made toward inclusion, objectivity and
fairness, it may be possible. “When an organization is seeded with pain and
distrust, it’s difficult to restore from within,” she said.

“The men that have been called out are just the tip of the iceberg in the
court,” she said, “and the court is just the tip of the iceberg in the
industry.”