quote:
Originally posted by <united>:
I think if the NDCA or USABDA were really "serious", they would have some representative participating in these discussions here with all of us, as Mr. Pover has done
Greetings, all.
Inasmuch as I am one of the 10 members of Usabda's dancesport council
who gets to propose and vote on dancesport policies, I suppose I qualify as a
Usabda official, although I am certainly not the last word on Usabda policy.
I have read over these post for the last few days and have even alerted other
Usabda officials that this discussion is taking place. I think Usabda has had
no official response because I'm sure quite sure what there is to say
beyond what has already been expressed on this thread.
It is true, as has been mentioned several times, that Usabda and NDCA have a
long-standing agreement that pro-am will remain under the scope of the NDCA.
Although this agreement pre-dates my involvement with Usabda, I know that
over the years the NDCA has been quite adamant about keeping pro-am under its
umbrella, and Usabda has never found a reason to be adamant about trying to
pry it loose.
Many of us in Usabda assume pro-am makes a huge financial
contribution to NDCA members, so their interest in pro-am is not surprising.
At the same time, it is true that it would be difficult for Usabda to have
authority over an area of dance in which many of the participants were not
its members, so Usabda has never pressed the issue.
So, under the current circumstances, I am not sure what kind of a role Usabda
has to play in the current debate, although the Dancesport council has
discussed NDCA's plans and we're always willing to listen to
interesting and useful ideas. All of the members of the dancesport council are current or recent competitors, and a few have done pro-am along with their amateur partnerships.
Let me add personally, however, that I think the real solutionto this problem, and to other similar issues, is not a single policy. Rather, it is for USABDA and NDCA to
create a joint committee, or to merger its dancesport divisions into an organization to administer ALL of dancesport in
the US, professional,pro-am and amateur.
This is something that national amateur and professional federations
in other countries have been laboring to do, with varying degrees of success,
in the last few years. I think that the Australian amateur and professional
federations were the first in the world to merge, so that there is now one
organization that encompasses everyone in dancesport in that country, and
competitions, registration policies, etc., are all harmonized and
administered by a joint body. (The esteemed Peter Pover can go into much
greater detail about this than I can, given his role with the International
Dancesport Federation).
But other countries have been less successful at these kinds of deals. For
these mergers to work requires accommodations on everyone's part, but
when one considers the issues involved, including the fact that many people
have a huge stake in the current system, change isn't always
so easy.
I'm not sure what else there is to say, but I am always willing to
entertain questions and to take suggestions back to the Dancesport council.
By the way, even when Usabda officials are not participating on this site,
remember that the e-mail addresses of the VP of dancesport, the dancesport
regional delegates, and the heads of Usabda's competitive committees
are all listed on the main Usabda website, under dancesport,
and you can ask questions specifically of your regional delegate, or of the
relevant committee chair.
Thanks.
Steve Malanga
Chair, Usabda competition committee
