NPS2008 Postscript: Dispute between organizers leads to new city for next year's event

Weeks after it ended, the behind-the-scenes story of this year’s National Poetry Slam is coming to light in all of its acrimonious glory. For participating poets and spectators, the event seemed to go fairly well: thousands came from around the country to take part in the contest that spanned a week and several downtown venues. The final bout, held in the lovely Overture Hall, featured dancers, musicians and poets and an appreciative audience. There was talk of the whole thing being held in Madison again next year, and things seemed good.

Less publicly, however, relations between the host city organizers and Poetry Slam International (PSI), the parent group of the event, had not been friendly for some time.

Shortly after the conclusion of events, PSI issued a statement claiming that host city organizers had failed in their “fiduciary duties” by “refusing to communicate by forum, or email or phone; disregarding its contractual obligations; withholding vital information regarding prices and contracts for venues until well into the week of competition; and implementing a weak and unapproved marketing plan in the months and weeks leading up to the event.”

Pulling few punches, the official release made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that PSI organizers were deeply displeased with how the slam had been run.

Dasha Kelly, director of the Milwaukee-based Still Waters Collective and one of the main host city organizers for this year’s Madison slam, was not pleased with this public denunciation.

In her only public statement on the matter, Kelly sought to refute much of what PSI had claimed about her group’s organizational abilities and good-faith efforts.

“PSI contracted to contribute a minimum of $18,000 to this event, to be paid in installments by the end of July,” Kelly explained to dane101. “This commitment--along with numerous other broken promises--did not happen. Upon their arrival to Madison, the organization had only forwarded $6,000 to this event. Needless to say, our conversations with them by that point were terse. To make matters worse, the Executive Director has broadly promoted that the Madison team failed to honor the contract but is unable to validate any of his claims.”

In a response to PSI’s original open letter, posted publicly on the organizer’s internet forums, Kelly went on to list a timeline of events as she saw them leading up to the slam. Among her contentions were that PSI failed to meet its stated financial obligations to the host city in a timely fashion, that it also stalled progress with secured venues through poor communication, and also issued spotty contracts that had to be reviewed by host city attorneys and re-written accordingly.

PSI has demanded that the host city make a full accounting of its budget and activities by Sept. 30, though it won’t make a difference in terms of where next year’s slam is held. The commitment for hosting the NPS in 2009 will go to an as of yet unnamed city in Florida.

Still, Kelly and her fellow organizers are determined to continue bringing poetry slam to Madison. Next year, however, it will take the singular form of the Lyrics on the Lake Festival and be unaffiliated with PSI.

“There will be workshops, individual competitions and an elite team slam (for which several cities have already expressed an interest),” she explains. “I'm disappointed in the PSI debacle, but extremely pleased with the success of the event and excited about the new tradition it’s launched for Madison and our peers across the country.”

-------

Below, review the timeline of events as alleged by Dasha Kelly:

• Host city (HC) secured the bid for NPS in 2006
• HC contracted hotel and secured (free) venues in 2006
• At Spring 2007 SM meeting, we were instructed to find larger venues
• PSI contract due to HC in Spring 2007. HC receives contract in Summer 2007
• Contract outlines stipends and an appointed Tournament Liaison
• PSI reneges on stipends in Winter 2007 and does not appoint Liaison (President briefly assumes role in April 2008)
• HC secures new (not free) venues in Fall 2007
• PSI cancels site visit, does not reschedule
• In November of 2007, PSI alerts HC to expect new contract
• HC submits final event plan in December 2007, to include theme, schedule, staff, marketing and budget. EC provides no programming feedback.
• Winter 2008, HC informed budget is excessive and adjusts to match figures from NPS 2007 and 2006. No feedback
• HC pays most venue deposits in March 2008
• PSI forwards new contract in April 2008, on the eve of SM
• During SM, President, Executive Director and Tournament Director agree that PSI had "not done right by" the HC and will be "a better partner" moving forward.
• At this meeting, Execs also inform HC that PSI was turned down for its NEA grant and that PSI would only contribute $18,000 - $27,000 to NPS.
• Executive Director clarified that the sum would "not be sent at once, but in installments." Contract further clarified that all funds would be forwarded by July 31.
• HC points out erroneous language in new contract. Executive Director asks HC member (who is an attorney) to review and correct, offering to "work in the spirit of the Contract" until the document is cleaned and signed.
• Immediately following SM, PSI refuses request for first disbursement without contract.
• President requests another revised budget in May 2008 "showing only expenses totaling the $18,000 PSI is paying." HC complies, including venue balances, advertising and collateral.
• HC loses venue night as a result of delayed payment. In May 2008, HC forwards PSI duplicate list of all venues, fees and necessary balances.
• HC makes bare necessity changes to contract (not afforded time to fully reconcile document). Sends contract in May 2008.
• PSI sends $6000 in June. Contract stipulates balance to be paid by July 31.
• HC requests remaining disbursements in June 2008. PSI requests copies of hotel contract.
• HC questions PSI delays, stresses cash flow urgency while sponsorships come in. PSI notes "contractual right" to have aforementioned documents on file. HC reassured PSI that all copies and reports would be filed post-event, as required, but could not afford the burden of "busy work" less than two months before the event.
• HC members personally augment sponsorship income to secure venue expenses and event collateral
• PSI continues to request hotel contract and fails to respond to disbursement pleas. Frustrated, HC ceases to make responding to these messages a priority.
• In July, HC requests venue contracts.
• By end of July, all paperwork and reporting requests are honored. July 31 passes without final disbursements.
• Prior to arriving in Madison, HC warns Executive Director that finals venue is in jeopardy without balance of promised funds.
• HC and PSI meet on NPS Day One. Executive Director states PSI would have paid bills if they'd received invoices. HC reiterated PSI's verbal and written instructions to expect disbursements, not to submit invoices.
• To date, PSI has still not met its financial obligation. Leaving Madison, in fact, owing balances to some venues.
• HC made arrangements to intercept payment from Finals venue to ensure payment of such balances and, PSI threatened to continue its pattern of not honoring its obligations.
• HC opted to continue its track record of honoring The Contract and not adopt PSI's duplicitous ways.