Well, Cy... I'd like to play devil's advocate here... It would stand to reason that the rules are in place to regulate those artists who cannot be completely trusted (from taking advantage of the venue). Therefore it would also stand to reason that the person with the rules would not apply it to himself as he trusts himself not to ruin the place.

In reading this discussion, I think it's important to remember that only so much can come out in a mainstream newpaper article. But in a grassroots resource like criticaldance.com, a real, effective dialogue can take place. Probably a lot more research took place than could be printed in a piece where events must be documented carefully or be open to libel.<P>I am curious about others' practical experiences and concerns with the RCA.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It would stand to reason that the rules are in place to regulate those artists who cannot be completely trusted (from taking advantage of the venue). Therefore it would also stand to reason that the person with the rules would not apply it to himself as he trusts himself not to ruin the place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's a little early in the morning for me to be lucid (I'm at my best from 1:10-1:13PM), but here goes.<P>It seems to me that Denison can't have it both ways. I'm assuming here that his rationalization for holding the professional companies to the same rigid rules as the non-professionals is that everyone should be treated the same -- that if the pros are cut slack, the amateurs will point and ask, "Why can <I>they</I> do that and we can't?" (This was what we had to do in Houston). If this is the case, then Denison cannot justify a double standard.<P>In his defense, I would point out that often, rules that seem on their face to be arbitrary are based on a logic that may be unperceived or unappreciated by the presenting organization. One that comes to mind is the ban on going into the lobby.

Fifi, thank you for reminding us of the practicalities of publishing an expose such as this. I think you are absolutely right. And I realize now that we should set the scene somewhat for our international readers (I haven't checked recently but we were getting 20,000 hits a day worldwide sometime last year).<P>Walnut Creek in which the venue is located is a bedroom community about an hour's drive (over a bridge and through a tunnel) east of San Francisco. The Contra Costa Times that published the article is located in Walnut Creek. It is the main paper in that region but it is very definitely a regional paper, unlike the San Francisco Chronicle for example which is read throughout the SF Bay Area.<P>So, here we have a venue and a paper in the same small town. For the paper to print this story, it's like someone speaking ill will of a neighbor (another anecdotal sidebar to illustrate a point: it is common wisdom that you <I>not</I> challenge a traffic violation when driving through a small town, for the judge works and lives in the same town as the sheriff's deputy. Even if the judge is fair, there will be personal hell to pay for him or her to go against the sheriff's department. Those of you who know me know that I am a constant champion for honesty and integrity but even I know when to pull out and cut my losses).<P>Therefore, it took conviction for Blair Tindall to write this story and courage for the paper to publish it. However, it is likely that some of the original text was deleted by editors, both known and unknown.<P>I also encourage others, especially those who have written to me privately, to participate in this positive discussion for the good of the community. It is difficult but oftentimes you have to cause some hurt to prevent hurting the bigger things that are more important to you.

One other detail that was missed in the Times article and that no one has mentioned here, is that Mr. Denision is also the general manager of the Fantasy Forum Actors Ensemble. They produce four shows a year(at the Center) for children and families and the winter show has a prime weekend(every year)in the Lesher Theatre. <BR>Looks to me like a follow up article needs to be done. <BR>Cy

Although not always the case, I have seen several instances in small communities where one extended family was involved in several aspects of theatre and/or art. (Artists being attracted to other artists, and then producing artists - not too unusual.)<P>Any conflict of interest that might arise would need to be shown by the unequal treatment (read "better")accorded to those entities directly associated in the "incest," as opposed to the way non-associated organizations are treated.<P>If such documentation COULD be demonstrated, I assure you that the City Attorney's office would be standing on their head to try and correct the matter before someone decided to bring suit against the City for unfair business practises.

Like Cyman, I too have lurked on these pages for a long time. I am not familiar with the center and I don't even live in California. I am writing because I take umbrage against the comments made by the Diablo Ballet president. He (I am assuming he is a man) insults artists the world over by insinuating we have an attitude. Does he not know we do it because we love dance? We take whatever we can get. Whilst he sits in his Ivory Tower, we artists struggle from day to day. I was up very late reviewing the financial arithmetic for an upcoming performance. When we hand our hard-earned money to the theatre, we expect to be treated with respect, regardless of our fame or professional status.<P>From the article and the comments here, the complaints appear legitimate. Is this Diablo Ballet president also affiliated with the center? He will never be on our board of directors if he cannot respect the artist.

Edit

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>He (I am assuming he is a man) insults artists the world over by insinuating we have an attitude. Does he not know we do it because we love dance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Here's what Ashraf Habibullah, president of Diablo Ballet, said: "I have 7,000 clients but only talk to a few personally. The artist types come with an attitude that they're the best, why isn't this guy doing this for me?"<P>Alas, in many cases, he's undoubtedly correct. I know that I often encountered this attitude in Houston; I have no reason to doubt that it also exists in California. For what it's worth, it's an attitude that I found to be more prevalent in musicians than in dancers, but that might have been the result of my experience with one particular problem client.

Uh-oh... Maybe I shouldn't have encouraged others to speak... I was afraid this might happen, given the number of messages I received regarding the quoted board member's comments. Also this is getting interesting as it places me in my own conflict of interest (<I>everything</I> is interesting -- it's a matter of perspective). Here however are some factual generalities I can state:<P>- Given our collective assumption that the article was heavily edited, it may be that only a few of his comments were included, to back up the venue's side of the story thus providing a balanced viewpoint in the article;<P>- Board members typically don't speak for the company, as they don't run day-to-day operations -- they <I>serve</I> on the board to support the artistic vision of the director. The fact that none of the actual company management is directly quoted in this article is telling.

Cy, getting back to your point about the scheduling conflict of interest, I think this is something difficult to prove being that it is based on hearsay. Unless there is some definition somewhere of what constitutes a prime weekend, an article alleging preferential treatment would border on libel; who's to say the same weekend is a prime weekend for all parties who want to rent the space?<P>Another way to possibly prove the illegal preferential treatment is to obtain an affidavit from a number of companies stating that their request/s for particular weekend/s had been turned down for the last several seasons and it can be shown that the company affiliated with the venue's director had been awarded those weekend/s. Even then all you have is a pattern; you still have to prove premeditation or deliberate intent. And which reporter would be willing to build a strong enough of a case so that they can write an article about it?<P>This I am afraid will be up to the City of Walnut Creek.

So, what I'm getting here - I think- is that no one here is really concerned that the man who is the General Manager of the center (and a city employee) also has his hands in a number of other (theatrical/presenting) pots? That it, in itself isn't a conflict? I'm not even referring to scheduling dates,etc. YET! <P>Cy<p>[This message has been edited by Cyman (edited May 21, 2001).]

Oh no, Cy, I think people <I>are</I> concerned, gauging from the messages I've gotten. The problem lies in trying to prove the conflict of interest. You can't print something based on hearsay and not expect a libel lawsuit, especially when you are a regional paper like the Contra Costa Times.<P>Now, a paper like the San Franciso Chronicle, with a broader base and legal savvy, on the other hand may be able to tackle the conflict of interest issues... right, guys?

Hmmm.....so what is the definition of "conflict of interest?" Literally I mean. <P>Thanks,<BR>Cy

In this case, it would probably be a conflict of interest if he had a financial interest in one of the shows playing the venue.