Don Smith

FYI:

Here is a post I made "over there" in response to some inaccurate comments ("spinning") Brenda made "over there" trying to provide an "alibi" for the fact that ITA did not speak out on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer or Eyewear at the TEPRSSC meeting.

Brenda:

As I told you last night on the TanTalk "chat", you have got to quit "spinning" and tell the truth!

I came to the ITA meeting Wednesday morning as a courtesy (when I would have preferred to attend the session on Computerized Tomography) to (1) let those attending the meeting know what I was going to present, and, (2) provide the sheet I gave eveyone there that set forth what Dr. Cyr would present (no one there had this information!).

It had been decided by either the group before I arrived or by ITA that Joe Schuster would "speak" for ITA. (Personally, I think that Joe Levy should "speak" for ITA at these meetings. If I could not speak, he is the one who I would choose to speak for me!)

I VERY SPECIFICALLY stated in the meeting and at the start of my presentation that I was representing the UVR Research Institute and the North American Alliance of Tanning Salon Owners. IF I had been "representing" ITA, I would have said so because you are "obligated" to state for the record who you respresent. Since I DID NOT say that I was speaking for ITA, it was perfectly obvious that I was not doing so. That shouldn't be too hard to understand!

Joe Schuster identified himself as speaking for ITA and he spoke for about 2 minutes on "warning labels" and DID NOT "speak out" about either Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer or the "Eyewear" issue. I do not know why he and/or ITA decided not to comment upon them

And, AS YOU KNOW, I asked Dr. Cyr if they would "make an exception" and let YOU and/or Dave from Lucas Products speak about the "Eyewear" issue because they had not given the required 21 days advance notice. He agreed and then YOU and Dave decided NOT TO SPEAK. That was your decision, Brenda, not mine!

I was supposed to have only 10 minutes to speak but because no one else was speaking, TEPRSSC kindly let me speak for more than double my alloted time. During that 23 minutes, I did my best to represent ALL SEGMENTS of the indoor tanning industry BUT AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY (which should be no surprise to anyone!) my PRIMARY INTENT was to represent the "best interests" of tanning salon owners.

If what you are REALLY saying is that ITA decided to let me "carry the ball" because they had confidence in me, then I am flattered.

If, on the other hand, they decided to let me "carry the ball" because they had nothing to say about Amendment 3-Definition of a Manufacturer and Eyewear, then THAT is a problem you should discuss with ITA!

And, if ITA was "silent" on Amendment 3 - Definition of a Manufacturer because they wanted it to pass, THAT should concern all thinking tanning salon owners!

BTW, Brenda, one of the ITA leaders privately thanked me for being so well prepared to discuss these important issues when, obviously, no one else was. I appreciated his/her comments.

Don "Who ALWAYS Tells It Like It REALLY Is" Smith

PS: I wanted the members of "Ask Don's Army" and those who come to the "Ask Don" forum to know the truth.

Don




[ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-24 10:54 ][ This Message was edited by: Don Smith on 2002-05-28 09:18 ]

Tan Talker

I believe ya Don. If Brenda chose not to speak, she must have had a good reason. Thanks for being there for us. See ya next week some time.