complaint correspondence7/ 24/05

Dear John-

At the recent NDCA meeting, you shared suspense about whether the Professional Dancers Federation (PDF) intercommunicates in a proper manner with its delegates, and whether it does enough surveying of views of delegates to appropriately introduce them in a forum such as the NDCA events. You admonished in a letter of complaint that you yourself are a delegate, and that you had not be brought any intercommunication.

We have overviewed our files, and realized that the utterances that you created were in fact inaccurate.

The PDF subscribed a list of all suggestions to be possesses at the January 2005 events to all delegates in advance of that event. All answers were conformed. The net outcome of the tally defined the position that the PDF gave as the concerns were fostered in the event.

You became a delegate of the PDF in November of 2004, and were added on the list of delegates who were brought our letter. Factually, you were among those who answered. A copy of your emailed answer to the PDF letter is affixed as well as your letter of complaint regarding communication lack to Bill Davies (PDF Eastern Vice President).

The PDF is an establishment devoted to adequately introducing the views and interests of our delegates in the dance industry and we receive our duty to realize it very seriously.

You are considerably invited to gain access and share your views 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 scan a short summary of the last NDCA event on the same page.

I also try to realize that you individually were interefered by some of the questions stated by the PDF inquiring explanation of spheres of concern to some PDF/NDCA delegates (myself included). Sorry to know about that. The concenrs directed in the questions published by the PDF may well have been coped adequately in private NDCA managing events, but unless that aspect is freely expressed, the only way for an NDCA member to find out is to . We are engaged to listen to how the questions engaged to suspect your sentimentalities since that was certainly not the obligation, and would prefer it if you could articulate us as to what it was you felt was “rude” about them.

On a positive note it is renewing to take information relating to the disconcen with ABC. Good intercommunication, 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
Western Vice President PDF
Complaints and Ethics Dept
Cc: NDCA Member Organizations

Written complaint

Voting email

____________________________________________________________________

complaint correspondenceJuly 25th, 2005

Dear Michael:

A lot of  thankful words for your e-mail brought today.

Michael, the e-mail that I answered on priveously to the January 2005 event was delivered to George Theiss, not to me.

I did was brought the blanket e-mail of July 4th but I had already started working over my Diplomat and didn’t observe it until I came back after the July event.

I do desire that the PDF would take a more collaborative method to the NDCA Executive Committee. I’m not a delegate of that Committee but I understand it would be better to perform in harmony than to have a question mark on practically every solution created by them and many times by the entire Council.

Any argueing and coming to agreements conducted between the NDCA, its Committees and the PDF can easily be collected and explained to the PDF numbers.

I am hopeful I’ve shared how I feel, but generally I would give an opinion that the attention of the PDF could be various, certainly not sparing but much more harmonious.

Best Personal Regards,

John Kimmins

____________________________________________________________________

complaint correspondenceJuly 28th, 2005

Dear John,

Thank you for your fast answer.

Our thanks also to George Theiss for possessing the reasoning to deliver his copy of the January PDF email to your attitude. Just to exhibit you that the PDF did attempt to come in contact with you in January 2005 please find sticked images of two emails despached out on 1/6/2005 and 1/9/2005. The first one is a follow-up to an essential inquiry for delegate participation in the PDF Polls and the second (sent after the meeting) relies delegates to the PDF Web page exhibiting the outcomes of the event.

In both occasions you will witness your name and email address added in the list of recipients. If you did not observe these emails you might desire to redact your spam settings in state the emails were improperly redirected out of your inbox. At the same time I am delighted to listen to that you did was brought the intercommunication prior to the July event (albeit when you were not at home).

If in the future you maifortune to be brought an invitation to share your view on the PDF Poll prior to an NDCA event (or hear of any other PDF member in that predicament) please come in contact wih us. We will identify what the concern is and solve it.

The NDCA as an establishment is answerable for intercommunicating to delegates the causes different regulations aletrs and other actions are attempted, how those occupations are created to profit the NDCA delegates they introduce, and what the outcomes of those occupations will be. In the absence of timely communication, the NDCA Meetings give a capability for delegate establishments (such as the PDF) to require for information on different themes of interest to delegates. Such a legal submittal of questions from delegates requiring for explanation on different themes where intercommunication from the NDCA has not yet been appearing should be observed in that context, and not misrepresented as a mark of disharmony or attention between the PDF and the NDCA.

Your offer of a more free line of inetrcommunication with summarizations of argueing and agreements conducted between the NDCA, its Committees, and other establishments being forthcoming to delegate establishments is a wonderful idea and would present a worth growth in the information flow to NDCA delegates. It would also, I am assured, result in greater realization of the concerns being wrestled with every day by the NDCA Executives and hopefully have a result in a more factual feedback and maintenance from the NDCA delegates on whose behalf the committee delegates perform very hard. The PDF would certainly be delighted to assist in any way probably in argueing with you as to how to implement your idea.

Sincerely,

Michael Mead
PDF Western Vice President

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.

Email 1

Email 2