_____________________________________________________________________ 7/ 24/05 Dear John- At the recent NDCA meeting, you expressed concern about whether the Professional Dancers Federation (PDF) communicates appropriately with its members, and whether it does enough polling of opinions of members to adequately represent them in a forum such as the NDCA meetings. You indicated in a written complaint that you yourself are a member, and that you had not received any communication. Given the public nature of the comments that you made, we feel that it is appropriate to respond with the resolution of the issue, not only to you, but to all the member organizations of the NDCA. We have reviewed our files, and find that the statements that you made were in fact incorrect. The PDF submitted a list of all proposals to be considered at the January 2005 meetings to all members in advance of that meeting. All responses were tallied. The net result of the tally determined the position that the PDF took as the issues were brought up in the meeting. You became a member of the PDF in November of 2004, and were included on the list of members who received our letter. In fact, you were among those who responded. A copy of your emailed response to the PDF letter is attached as well as your written complaint regarding lack of communication to Bill Davies (PDF Eastern Vice President). The PDF is an organization dedicated to accurately representing the opinions and interests of our members in the dance industry and we take our responsibility to do so very seriously. You are cordially invited to access and express your opinions on the latest PDF Polls (only PDF members responses are used to determine the PDF position on the issues, but we encourage dialogue from all interested parties, PDF member or not), relevant to the January 2006 NDCA meeting, at: http://www.pdfusa.org/Poll.html You can also read a brief summary of the last NDCA meeting on the same page (we attempted to outline the meeting and comments as accurately as possible, but you will kindly bear with us if it is not 100% accurate since we were not permitted to audio tape the proceedings in case, the argument went, we did not reproduce what was said at the meeting with 100% accuracy). I am also given to understand that you personally were disturbed by some of the questions asked by the PDF requesting clarification of areas of concern to some PDF/NDCA members (myself included). Sorry to hear about that. The issues addressed in the questions posed by the PDF may well have been resolved satisfactorily in private NDCA executives meetings, but unless that information is openly shared, the only way for an NDCA member to find out is to ask. We are interested to hear how the questions managed to offend your sensibilities since that was certainly not the intent, and would appreciate it if you could illuminate us as to what it was you felt was "rude" about them. On a positive note it is refreshing to receive information concerning the disagreement with ABC. Good communication, as you alluded in your comments at the NDCA meeting, is important, because it clears a path to greater understanding and facilitates cooperation. The timeline of the current ABC situation and the copy of the charter/license supplied by Brian McDonald was certainly a positive step forward in that regard. Sincerely, Michael Mead ____________________________________________________________________ July 25th, 2005
July 28th, 2005 Dear John, Thank you for your quick response. Our thanks also to George Theiss for having the forethought to bring his copy of the January PDF email to your attention. Just to show you that the PDF did try to contact you in January 2005 please find attached images of two emails sent out on 1/6/2005 and 1/9/2005. The first one is a follow-up to an initial request for member participation in the PDF Polls and the second (sent after the meeting) refers members to the PDF Web page showing the results of the meeting. In both cases you will see your name and email address included in the list of recipients. If you did not see these emails you might want to check your spam settings in case the emails were erroneously redirected out of your inbox. At the same time I am glad to hear that you did receive the communication prior to the July meeting (albeit when you were not at home). If in the future you fail to receive an invitation to express your opinion on the PDF Poll prior to an NDCA meeting (or hear of any other PDF member in that predicament) please contact us. We will find out what the problem is and correct it. The NDCA as an organization is responsible for communicating to members the reasons various rule changes and other actions are initiated, how those actions are designed to benefit the NDCA members they represent, and what the repercussions of those actions will be. In the absence of timely communication, the NDCA Meetings afford an opportunity for member organizations (such as the PDF) to ask for information on various topics of interest to members. Such a legitimate submittal of questions from members asking for clarification on various topics where communication from the NDCA has not yet been forthcoming should be viewed in that context, and not misinterpreted as a sign of disharmony or attitude between the PDF and the NDCA. Your suggestion of a more open line of communication with summarizations of discussions and agreements held between the NDCA, its Committees, and other organizations being forwarded to member organizations is a great idea and would represent a valuable increase in the information flow to NDCA members. It would also, I am sure, lead to greater understanding of the issues being wrestled with daily by the NDCA Executives and hopefully result in a more active feedback and support from the NDCA members on whose behalf the committee members work very hard. The PDF would certainly be happy to help in any way possible in discussions with you as to how to implement your idea. Sincerely, Michael Mead P.S. Ironically John I did not actually receive your email personally, but fortunately, due to the forethought of a PDF member it was brought to my attention. My email address is actually mjmead@cox.net not mjm@cox.net. __________________________________________________________________ |