Act Acting » Acting Drama » SAG: Your $$$$$$$

SAG: Your $$$$$$$

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Your $$$$$$$ By: Rick This "special" meeting that we are forced into having because of the stalling tactics of New York and the Branches last night is going to cost you about $35 grand of your dues money! Many of the SAG board members from New York and the Branches said they were "too tired" to continue last night…and one of the many stated reasons was that a bunch of them had to attend the AFTRA convention today because they are also members of the AFTRA board! Oh for crying out loud Riley, the meeting went on til 11pm Eastern Time. People on the west coast might have a little energy left at 8pm, but it’s 11pm for the East coast people, and I don’t know very many people that are fresh after going all day long, and starting a debate when they should be in bed. If you weren’t so biased, you’d understand there was nothing unreasonable or underhanded about this. [snip] My comments: I agree with this and I’m a member of both SAG & AFTRA. There is nothing wrong with being in both unions, BUT when a member is on the BOD’s of one union or guild, it is a conflict of interest to be on the BOD’s of a SISTER union or guild. This would never happen in any other private or public sector company. How is this a conflict of interest? These are sister unions organized to do the same thing for the same people? If they sat on the BOD of film studios a definite conflict would be there, …but I do not see a conflict as SAG & AFTRA are not competitors. For the record: I’m for the reduction of the BOD’s to 60 members, =8^0) Oh really! …I wouldn’t have guessed. 8^) and also to pass a rule that a SAG member can not hold a BOD position in more than one union or guild at the same time (SAG, AFTRA, AEA, AGVA). If someone is a member in good standing of said union or guild, they should have a right to hold a BOD position. Why should membership in SAG preclude them from full participation in the other unions to which they are also members, unions that have the jurisdiction over other areas of their professional lives as well?

PS – They are not there to serve SAG or to serve AFTRA. They are there to serve the SAG and AFTRA *MEMBERSHIP’S INTERESTS*

Response:

DQ, these aren’t Riley’s words.  They came from, most likely, Rick Barker, a Hollywood board member that would have *NO* reason to communicate with a creature like Riley if it weren’t for the fact that they’re both stuntmen.  

Thanks Steve, I’ve pretty much figured out that most of what Riley spews about Towers Perrin and the Governance plan are opinions that have been spoon-fed to him by others, (sorry Riley, …but geewhiz! I think you might have made one too many falls and landed on your head if you’re for the Governance Plan as is) Frankly, I’m just as glad that governance didn’t come up until 7:55 last night, and was bumped to a special meeting.

From what I understand about the proposal, I’m glad too. Jane Kazmarek asked me to fill her seat yesterday but she neglected to notify the board replacement committee before the 24 hour deadline expired, so somebody had to place my name in nomination once the meeting was called to order.  Fortunately, I was voted down 22-14, based on (this is what they’ll TELL you, not the REAL TRUTH) upholding the sanctity of the 24/hr board replacement notification rule.

I understand the jockeying BS, …it sometimes goes on on this side of the border as well. It’s a bit of a catch22 situation isn’t it. We need *Working* members in charge and in positions of power to effectively know what is going on out there in the field, …but at the same time, it’s difficult for them to attend the board meetings because work gets in the way. The alternative of having non-working career politicians in charge is completely unacceptable, so the best thing I recommend is for as many people to attend and sit in on as many meetings as possible, so they know what’s going on. Then if they have to pinch hit for someone, there’s no learning curve to be had and can vote and voice intelligently and with foresight, …something clearly missing from this Governance Plan. I drove home and took my wife to see Planet of the Apes.

Ugh! Was the theatre air-conditioned at least? If you got to sit in air-conditioned comfort with your eyes closed throughout the movie, …you might have gotten your money’s worth?   A board member called me last night report that, luckily, I had missed, probably, one of the most nonsensical, dysfunctional board meetings in the history of the Guild.  Fine with me.  I don’t suffer fools too well.

I know it can sometimes seem like a waste of time & effort, …but just think what the alternative would be if you or others like you weren’t there to keep an eye on things? Hmmmm. What then? <shudder – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What was *REALLY* going on in the vote over my filling Jane’s seat was jockeying to keep the seat (and vote) vacant if governance *were* to have come up.  The architects of the plan would rather vacate a potential adversarial vote than rely on a TRUE CONCENSUS of the majority of the FULL BOARD through the strength of their presentation and thoughtful debate.  If they had been willing to send the plan back to the RBC for thoughtful study and tweaking, with a follow-up presentation at the next full national board meeting in October, I would have voted it up in a second.  That wasn’t the plan, most likely.  Its proponents are using a "gun to the head" approach (which includes what I feel is an empty threat to take it to a membership referendum) that prevents serious study of a plan that hasn’t been touched by ANYBODY except committee chair Gary Epp since it was moved into continuance at the Spring plenary.  Not a single full governance committee meeting since that plenary.  So it’s basically the same plan from before, with some tweaking by Gary.  Unacceptable.  And then there was David Jolliffe’s strange behavior last night, I’m told, flailing his arms and crying out, "Okay, then it’s referendum!  It’s referendum!  Gary, it’s referendum!", when discussion was scuttled because of the lateness of the hour in NY.

<LOL Your meetings sound about as theatrical as ACTRA’s. I know it all sounds disgusting, …and actually is, but I gotta tell you, it’s the same thing in boardrooms all over the continent. We’re just actors so we’re a little more vocal about it, but it’s the same crap everywhere. You should have seen the jockeying and the lobbying that went on over our condo corporation meetings. I couldn’t believe it! I have a girlfriend who has survived close to 30 years of state politics, seeing many administrations come and go. When you get the inside skinny on dirty politics at the state level, …it would blow your socks off. Talk about a dirty pool. SAG politics pales in comparison. Look on the bright side, you have the power to keep all radicals and loose cannons in check by keeping yourself informed about the real issues, not what they tell you are the issues. Do it! As I say, I’m glad I wasn’t there for it…despite being a moderate on the governance issue and very willing to open-mindedly isten to a well presented, thoughtful proposal. ST P.S. I won’t bother replying to anyone who isn’t either a board member or someone who actually participated in yesterday’s meeting.  Anybody else is just repeating something they’ve been told and I’m not interested.

I can understand that Steve, …but even though I’m not a board member, …you’d be surprised about what I know about what takes place in your board meetings. 8^). As well too, your input with the truth can crush the spread of rumour, propaganda and innuendo, and would serve the members well. Drama Queen

Response:

Steve Tom is a credit to the Screen Actors Guild.  I am a HUGE fan. Especially because when he is here, my burden is light. ;-)

He’s your dietician, too? — Carl We’re bigger than Jesus! – JWLennon

Response:

I wasn’t going to voice my opinion because I’m neither SAG nor AFTRA, but I have to say, "The Governance Plan" as it stands today could do a tremendous disservice to the membership, both inside of LA and especially outside of LA.

I never noticed that stopping you before. How are th esubsidized acting jobs coming along?

Response:

Your $$$$$$$ By: Rick This "special" meeting that we are forced into having because of the stalling tactics of New York and the Branches last night is going to cost you about $35 grand of your dues money! Many of the SAG board members from New York and the Branches said they were "too tired" to continue last night…and one of the many stated reasons was that a bunch of them had to attend the AFTRA convention today because they are also members of the AFTRA board!

Oh for crying out loud Riley, the meeting went on til 11pm Eastern Time. People on the west coast might have a little energy left at 8pm, but it’s 11pm for the East coast people, and I don’t know very many people that are fresh after going all day long, and starting a debate when they should be in bed. If you weren’t so biased, you’d understand there was nothing unreasonable or underhanded about this. [snip] My comments: I agree with this and I’m a member of both SAG & AFTRA. There is nothing wrong with being in both unions, BUT when a member is on the BOD’s of one union or guild, it is a conflict of interest to be on the BOD’s of a SISTER union or guild. This would never happen in any other private or public sector company.

How is this a conflict of interest? These are sister unions organized to do the same thing for the same people? If they sat on the BOD of film studios a definite conflict would be there, …but I do not see a conflict as SAG & AFTRA are not competitors. For the record: I’m for the reduction of the BOD’s to 60 members,

=8^0) Oh really! …I wouldn’t have guessed. 8^) and also to pass a rule that a SAG member can not hold a BOD position in more than one union or guild at the same time (SAG, AFTRA, AEA, AGVA).

If someone is a member in good standing of said union or guild, they should have a right to hold a BOD position. Why should membership in SAG preclude them from full participation in the other unions to which they are also members, unions that have the jurisdiction over other areas of their professional lives as well?

Response:

Steve Tom is a credit to the Screen Actors Guild.  I am a HUGE fan. Especially because when he is here, my burden is light. ;-) L. Lewis

Response:

Hey, Steve? Thanks for the dish. — Carl We’re bigger than Jesus! – JWLennon – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -DQ, these aren’t Riley’s words.  They came from, most likely, Rick Barker, a Hollywood board member that would have *NO* reason to communicate with a creature like Riley if it weren’t for the fact that they’re both stuntmen.  Frankly, I’m just as glad that governance didn’t come up until 7:55 last night, and was bumped to a special meeting. Jane Kazmarek asked me to fill her seat yesterday but she neglected to notify the board replacement committee before the 24 hour deadline expired, so somebody had to place my name in nomination once the meeting was called to order.  Fortunately, I was voted down 22-14, based on (this is what they’ll TELL you, not the REAL TRUTH) upholding the sanctity of the 24/hr board replacement notification rule. I drove home and took my wife to see Planet of the Apes.  A board member called me last night report that, luckily, I had missed, probably, one of the most nonsensical, dysfunctional board meetings in the history of the Guild.  Fine with me.  I don’t suffer fools too well. What was *REALLY* going on in the vote over my filling Jane’s seat was jockeying to keep the seat (and vote) vacant if governance *were* to have come up.  The architects of the plan would rather vacate a potential adversarial vote than rely on a TRUE CONCENSUS of the majority of the FULL BOARD through the strength of their presentation and thoughtful debate.  If they had been willing to send the plan back to the RBC for thoughtful study and tweaking, with a follow-up presentation at the next full national board meeting in October, I would have voted it up in a second.  That wasn’t the plan, most likely.  Its proponents are using a "gun to the head" approach (which includes what I feel is an empty threat to take it to a membership referendum) that prevents serious study of a plan that hasn’t been touched by ANYBODY except committee chair Gary Epp since it was moved into continuance at the Spring plenary.  Not a single full governance committee meeting since that plenary.  So it’s basically the same plan from before, with some tweaking by Gary.  Unacceptable.  And then there was David Jolliffe’s strange behavior last night, I’m told, flailing his arms and crying out, "Okay, then it’s referendum!  It’s referendum!  Gary, it’s referendum!", when discussion was scuttled because of the lateness of the hour in NY. As I say, I’m glad I wasn’t there for it…despite being a moderate on the governance issue and very willing to open-mindedly isten to a well presented, thoughtful proposal. ST P.S. I won’t bother replying to anyone who isn’t either a board member or someone who actually participated in yesterday’s meeting.  Anybody else is just repeating something they’ve been told and I’m not interested. Your $$$$$$$ By: Rick This "special" meeting that we are forced into having because of the stalling tactics of New York and the Branches last night is going to cost you about $35 grand of your dues money!

Response:

Agreed.  The first step toward eliminating a branch (whose members, by the way, were charged with the same responsibility for honoring last summer’s strike – and taking the same financial hit – as their bretheren in Los Angeles) is taking away its voice from the national board. During the strike we were constantly bombarded with cries for "solidarity" in our NATIONAL effort.  So we’re a national Guild or we’re not.  When you eliminate a branch or water it down, among many other things, you’re taking away one of the few real products that this ‘company’ called SAG actually produces:  service and representation to ALL of its dues-paying members, no matter where they happen to live. ST – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I wasn’t going to voice my opinion because I’m neither SAG nor AFTRA, but I have to say, "The Governance Plan" as it stands today could do a tremendous disservice to the membership, both inside of LA and especially outside of LA.

Response:

DQ, these aren’t Riley’s words.  They came from, most likely, Rick Barker, a Hollywood board member that would have *NO* reason to communicate with a creature like Riley if it weren’t for the fact that they’re both stuntmen.  Frankly, I’m just as glad that governance didn’t come up until 7:55 last night, and was bumped to a special meeting. Jane Kazmarek asked me to fill her seat yesterday but she neglected to notify the board replacement committee before the 24 hour deadline expired, so somebody had to place my name in nomination once the meeting was called to order.  Fortunately, I was voted down 22-14, based on (this is what they’ll TELL you, not the REAL TRUTH) upholding the sanctity of the 24/hr board replacement notification rule. I drove home and took my wife to see Planet of the Apes.  A board member called me last night report that, luckily, I had missed, probably, one of the most nonsensical, dysfunctional board meetings in the history of the Guild.  Fine with me.  I don’t suffer fools too well. What was *REALLY* going on in the vote over my filling Jane’s seat was jockeying to keep the seat (and vote) vacant if governance *were* to have come up.  The architects of the plan would rather vacate a potential adversarial vote than rely on a TRUE CONCENSUS of the majority of the FULL BOARD through the strength of their presentation and thoughtful debate.  If they had been willing to send the plan back to the RBC for thoughtful study and tweaking, with a follow-up presentation at the next full national board meeting in October, I would have voted it up in a second.  That wasn’t the plan, most likely.  Its proponents are using a "gun to the head" approach (which includes what I feel is an empty threat to take it to a membership referendum) that prevents serious study of a plan that hasn’t been touched by ANYBODY except committee chair Gary Epp since it was moved into continuance at the Spring plenary.  Not a single full governance committee meeting since that plenary.  So it’s basically the same plan from before, with some tweaking by Gary.  Unacceptable.  And then there was David Jolliffe’s strange behavior last night, I’m told, flailing his arms and crying out, "Okay, then it’s referendum!  It’s referendum!  Gary, it’s referendum!", when discussion was scuttled because of the lateness of the hour in NY. As I say, I’m glad I wasn’t there for it…despite being a moderate on the governance issue and very willing to open-mindedly isten to a well presented, thoughtful proposal. ST P.S. I won’t bother replying to anyone who isn’t either a board member or someone who actually participated in yesterday’s meeting.  Anybody else is just repeating something they’ve been told and I’m not interested. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Your $$$$$$$ By: Rick This "special" meeting that we are forced into having because of the stalling tactics of New York and the Branches last night is going to cost you about $35 grand of your dues money!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Riley, Why do you continue to post one-side,  information about something you did not take part of? Where do you get your info … surely not the board minutes.  I agree with Drama Queen. The meeting was started 2pm NY time and ended at 11pm. Our board members are volunteers…how long should they attend a single meeting. I would rather have them fresh before a decision is made for the wrong reason. I was on the replacement list and had I attended I would have asked for a continuation. About the cost … how many more lawsuits will be launched by certain NY board members against SAG to help further their personal agendas? Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent defending these attacks, and every one has been dismissed as without merit. But you don’t mention that … Riley, you’re a NY local member. Do you want LA making all the rules without your voice heard? That’s what will happen if the Towers Perrin is passed as is. The for the info you posted… it is clearly by an LA member that only wants LA to rule. We’re a NATIONAL UNION and so all members need fair representation on the National Board. LA would like to see extras not covered, and that no member can gain membership through extra work. Hmmm, that would mean our local president would have to resign. That’s not an attack on her, but I simply feel extras are actors, unlike LA. Would you want to give that up without a chance to vote in NY? As for Board members on both AFTRA and SAG … there’s another reason why we should have MERGED! So we don’t compete for jurisdiction. There is no conflict … remember, the unions negotiate our contracts together. Riley, If you’re concerned about SAG (and I believe you are), why not hear BOTH SIDES, get the real FACTS, before you take a position. And why not VOLUNTEER for a committee so you contribute?

I wasn’t going to voice my opinion because I’m neither SAG nor AFTRA, but I have to say, "The Governance Plan" as it stands today could do a tremendous disservice to the membership, both inside of LA and especially outside of LA. Under ACTRA, if we adopted an approach similar to that specified in the Towers Perrin governance plan, our national executive would be dominated by Toronto. Instead, our numbers are such that Toronto is unable to dominate and dictate for the rest of the country. While I personally don’t have a problem with Toronto dominating the executive, I can see where it wouldn’t be fair to those performers elsewhere in the country. Yes, Toronto is the biggest branch, yes, Toronto has the majority of members, yes, Toronto provides the lion’s share of income as well as dues, …but ACTRA is a National union, and that is reflected on our executive, …as it should be. All branches are represented, as are all members across the country in all regions. BTW – For those who think a lack of SAG presence is gonna cause films to go non-union in right-to-work states, …it won’t. They can’t go non-union because the stars are union. What they’ll do is go north of the border, where they can still shoot union outside of the expensive locales of NY & LA, but they will have no one organizing and persuading them to shoot in the midwest, …all while very busy Canadian promoters continue to do business. Close your Boston office? …that’s OK, ACTRA has a branch office in Nova Scotia, and Nova Scotia can substitute for Boston in a pinch. Close your Dallas office if you must, …that’s OK too, …cause ACTRA-Calgary will be open and able to organize producers while providing those wide open spaces. Thinking of leaving your NY office ineffective and without a voice? No problem… ACTRA-Toronto will be there to pick up the slack.  You can bank on it. And now that Robin Chetwynd is no longer at the helm, we got Raymond Guardia acting in his stead. We’re more than willing, & more than capabale of handling additional work flowing north. You guys do recall Raymond Guardia don’t you? He’s the former Montreal "film cop" (as I like to call him) who refused work permits for American actors, and made producers see Toronto & Vancouver branches for English speaking actors when they claimed they couldn’t find them in the province of Quebec. I like him …ALOT! 8^) Food For thought, Drama Queen

Response:

Riley, Why do you continue to post one-side,  information about something you did not take part of? Where do you get your info … surely not the board minutes.  I agree with Drama Queen. The meeting was started 2pm NY time and ended at 11pm. Our board members are volunteers…how long should they attend a single meeting. I would rather have them fresh before a decision is made for the wrong reason. I was on the replacement list and had I attended I would have asked for a continuation. About the cost … how many more lawsuits will be launched by certain NY board members against SAG to help further their personal agendas? Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent defending these attacks, and every one has been dismissed as without merit. But you don’t mention that … Riley, you’re a NY local member. Do you want LA making all the rules without your voice heard? That’s what will happen if the Towers Perrin is passed as is. The for the info you posted… it is clearly by an LA member that only wants LA to rule. We’re a NATIONAL UNION and so all members need fair representation on the National Board. LA would like to see extras not covered, and that no member can gain membership through extra work. Hmmm, that would mean our local president would have to resign. That’s not an attack on her, but I simply feel extras are actors, unlike LA. Would you want to give that up without a chance to vote in NY? As for Board members on both AFTRA and SAG … there’s another reason why we should have MERGED! So we don’t compete for jurisdiction. There is no conflict … remember, the unions negotiate our contracts together. Riley, If you’re concerned about SAG (and I believe you are), why not hear BOTH SIDES, get the real FACTS, before you take a position. And why not VOLUNTEER for a committee so you contribute?

Response:

Your $$$$$$$ By: Rick This "special" meeting that we are forced into having because of the stalling tactics of New York and the Branches last night is going to cost you about $35 grand of your dues money! Many of the SAG board members from New York and the Branches said they were "too tired" to continue last night…and one of the many stated reasons was that a bunch of them had to attend the AFTRA convention today because they are also members of the AFTRA board! Being on the boards of competing businesses would be looked upon as a conflict of interest in just about any business around…except for SAG and AFTRA! These two unions seem to think that there is no conflict for them to allow people to do this. They also seem to see no conflict when they have jointly occupied and staffed offices around the country…and in SAG’s case they see nothing wrong with having a competing union handle all of the SAG business in several areas around the country. The offices handling Cincinnati, Columbus-Dayton, Indianapolis, Louisville, Kansas City, New Orleans and Pittsburgh are all AFTRA offices. In Arizona, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Georgia, Hawaii, Houston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Nashville, Philadelphia, Portland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington-Baltimore they are "jointly run " SAG/AFTRA offices. Cleveland, Miami, New York,Orlando, Los Angeles, Nevada, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and Seattle are the only SAG-only offices we have. SAG’s national board is comprised of the following people: The President, 12 vice presidents [!] a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer and 94 board members from around the country. From Hollywood you have the President, the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 11th vice presidents, the Recording Secretary, the Treasurer and 47 board members. Total 53 votes plus the president to break any ties. New York has the 2nd, 4th, 10th and 12th vice presidents along with 20 board members. Total 24 votes. The branches have the 6th, 7th and 8th vice presidents plus 27 board members. Total 30 votes. Do the math…once you remove Amy Aquino, Jane Kaczmarek, Melisa Gilbert, Alan Blumfield, Dianne McBain and Kevin Kilner from the Hollywood votes we are screwed every time a national vote is taken. These "Hollywood" members will always vote with New York and the branches on any given issue. For the most part…with a few rare exceptions…all of the board members from New York and the branches were in favor of merger with AFTRA, and they have never gotten over the fact that a majority of our members rejected that overwhelmingly at the ballot box. Amy Aquino has been pissin-and-moanin ever since that happened…and the defeat of her buddy Richard Masur just pissed her off even more. If Bill Daniels came up with a way to end child abuse and world hunger New York and the branches (led by Amy) would vote against it ! These are the people that have been placed in charge of spending your dues dollars ladies and gentlemen, and they are the people doing everything in their power to keep from doing anything to implement the recommendations from the Towers Perrin report that was designed to make the Guild operate at a more economical and efficient level for the benefit of the dues paying members across the country. While We’re Petitioning… By: Joe Couldn’t we also gather votes to eliminate the conflict of interest that is caused by board members holding seats in both SAG and AFTRA? Seems that since we’re out collecting signatures, a second clipboard is definitely in order. My comments: I agree with this and I’m a member of both SAG & AFTRA. There is nothing wrong with being in both unions, BUT when a member is on the BOD’s of one union or guild, it is a conflict of interest to be on the BOD’s of a SISTER union or guild. This would never happen in any other private or public sector company. For the record: I’m for the reduction of the BOD’s to 60 members, and also to pass a rule that a SAG member can not hold a BOD position in more than one union or guild at the same time (SAG, AFTRA, AEA, AGVA). Signed, Riley G Actor-Stuntman http://www.RileyG.com/index1.htm

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply