Hazel Friedman
CONFUSION reigns at the Pact ballet and dance companies as members and mana= gem
ent come to terms with their imminent transition from a government-supporte= d d ance company to what they hope to be an independent company – due to the dr= ast
ic reduction in state funding.
This week, for example, senior management of Pact ballet appointed a board = of=20
trustees for the future Pact dance company, but initially failed to tell cu= rre
nt Pact board members who the appointees are.
Pact Ballet’s artistic director Dawn Weller-Raistrick announced the appoint= men
ts on Monday, three days after the Mail & Guardian reported on horrific con= dit
ions under which Pact ballet dancers allegedly work.
Weller-Raistrick, senior ballet mistress Nicky Middlemist and ballet master= Br
uce Simpson have been accused of abusing dancers.
Pact’s future remains precarious, as it faces financial uncertainty, the fa= llo
ut of a spate of resignations by senior ballet management, and allegations = of=20
unfair labour practices.
In response to the criticism that was levelled at her in last week’s editio= n o f the Mail & Guardian, a tearWeller-Raistrick summoned staff and dancers to= a=20
sudden meeting, where she asked for a vote of confidence in her management= st
yle.
Dancers present voted overwhelmingly in her favour. Three days later – on M= ond
ay this week and after a three-month delay – the names of the new ballet bo= ard
were announced.
According to insiders, the eight names came from a list supplied by an inte= rim
dance committee, which Pact’s current board established at the end of last=
ye
ar to try to ease the transition.
The new company incorporating both ballet and contemporary dancers is suppo= sed
to be established by April this year.
But Pact dancers’ contracts end on March 31. So each dancer will have to ap= ply
to the new company for a position.
No one knows who will be incorporated into the new company – if indeed ther= e w ill be one – and what will happen to those who do not.=20
The old guard of Pact set up a controversial trust fund in 1995 to provide = ret
renchment packages for staff members employed before April 1 1995.
How the trust, worth an estimated R14-million, was funded remains unclear. = The
cut-off date for applications is April this year.
But dancers who have applied for retrenchment complain of being “fobbed off= ” b y management. Only after taking industrial action, they allege, have they b= een
compensated, often in the form of unexplained deposits in their bank accou=
nts
.
One dancer who left Pact at the end of 1995 says she was never informed abo= ut=20
the retrenchment package. She lodged an unfair labour practice and was even= tua
lly paid.
A document called Schedule One details the trust fund, and contains the nam= es=20
of Pact staff eligible for retrenchment packages, but according to several = mem
bers of Pact’s existing board, copies of the document “are seemingly unavai= lab
le”.=20
“Everyone knows Schedule One exists,” said one board member. “But no one ha= s s een it, and as is the case with the finer details of the trust fund and the= fu
ture of dance at Pact, no one knows what is going on.”
* Pact chairperson John Kani has called an emergency full board meeting on = Feb
ruary 10 to discuss the crisis at Pact.