Hazel Friedman
Pact is in turmoil a year after it began its transformation process, say some members of the board appointed to the beleaguered arts council in November 1995. But chairman John Kani and Pact CEO Alan Joseph insist that ‘teething problems’ are a natural part of the process.
The conflict centres on the imminent restructuring of the Pact Ballet Company, and the controversial secret trust set up by Pact’s old guard, which was exposed by the Mail & Guardian in February this year.
Two secret trust funds, the Pact Employees’ Fund and the Pact Senior Managers’ Fund, were uncovered by members of Pact’s new board soon after they took office. The Employees’ Fund was established for Pact to arrange financial security for employees whose service was terminated under certain conditions (like voluntary resignation, retrenchment, unfair labour practices and the like).
The Senior Managers’ Fund was established for ‘heads of department who have had more than 10 years’ service at Pact and who resign’…’. But no one seems to know exactly where the money for the two trust funds came from as this was never reflected in Pact’s financial records. And apart from the 10 department heads whose contracts were amended in terms of the fund’s provisions, no other Pact staffers knew about the controversial funds until they were uncovered by the new board.
After the drastic reduction of state subsidies to Pact earlier this year, it was decided that from April 1 1997, the Pact Ballet Company and Contemporary Dance Companies would be replaced with the Pact Dance Company. The new company would fall under the Pact banner until 1999, by when it was hoped it would be self-supporting.
Dance contracts would end by March 31 1997 and those not employed by the new company would be entitled to retrenchment packages, in accordance with the Employees’ Trust Fund. Also, all employees opting for voluntary retrenchment would be entitled to benefits from the fund.
Since taking the helm, Joseph stated that from April 30 the Employees’ Fund would become available to all Pact staffers. But six dancers, who wish to remain anonymous ‘ for fear of victimisation’, allege being bullied by management during and after their tenure with the company. Some report receiving letters in response to their applications for retrenchment packages telling them they were ineligible for payments.
Yet, after the disillusioned dancers retained labour lawyers or approached the Industrial Court, the equivalent of six months salary (as stipulated in the Employees’ Fund) appeared in their bank accounts. And other dancers, who resigned after October 1995, are allegedly still waiting for their retrenchment payouts.
But delays in retrenchment packages are just one of several grievances being levelled at Pact management by dancers and board members alike. In October 1996 Joseph announced the opening of nominations to the new dance company board, which would act as an independent fundraising entity for the company. Pact board members Merridy Wixley and Sam Moss were appointed to the Interim Dance Committee which, together with the Dance Alliance and representatives from the corporate sector, compiled a shortlist of nominees and recommendations for the future board.
But, allege several board members, when Joseph announced the names for the new dance company board at the AGM on November 29, the interim committee proposals were ignored and Wixley was suspended from the board for unilaterally making decisions.
Wixley refused to comment on her suspension, except to say, ‘The process of transformation is a difficult one. There are many reactionary forces at work.’
But Joseph insists the transformation process is on track: ‘The year has been extremely difficult. We inherited one hell of a mess from the old guard, but we are desperately trying to implement changes. Transformation doesn’t happen overnight, Pact has come a long way and we are determined that nothing will get in the way of the changes.’
Adds Kani: ‘We have succeeded in making what was once an elitist organisation into one that is accessible to everyone, by redressing past injustices and ensuring every deserving arts organisation gets an equitable slice of the pie.’ He adds: ‘From the Windybrow project to the restructuring of the dance company, changes have taken place. But inevitably when you’re trying to weed out the old and introduce the new, clashes will occur. This is an incredible challenge, one that is not easy to meet, but which has to happen if real transformation is to take place.’