* * * * * * * * *
From Kent McCord, Esai Morales and Membership First
WE BELIEVE THAT QUALIFIED VOTING IS A KEY ISSUE IN THIS CAMPAIGN.
It’s not just because Qualified Voting is a threat to the branches, to the minorities who don’t have the work available to them, to those who are new to the Guild and will become tomorrow’s stars, but because it is still being denied by the “Restore Respect campaign.
We are challenging the “Restore Respect” team to tell the truth, not just on this issue, but in all of their statements. This is the reason for the factual representation on our website. We know we can prove everything we say and we know “Restore Respect” can’t.
We urge all of you to demand that the Guild release all of the documents and minutes and actions taken on all issues related to Qualified Voting. This leadership has been hiding behind CONFIDENTIALITY as a means to spread misinformation. This problem has grown like a virus over the two years they have been in charge.
On our website, we present unchallengeable proof that Qualified Voting was a very real part of Consolidation, a claim the “Restore Respect” team continues to deny:
In his latest e-mail Mr. Cromwell states:
· Make no mistake: bizarre accusations about “Qualified Voting” (denying member’s voting rights -
something no SAG officer could do even if they wanted to), are false.
Mr. Cromwell is right, but only as he exactly worded that statement. And that is typical of the word games they play.
At this time Qualified Voting is something that no S.A.G. officer can do anything about. But that doesn’t mean the current leadership hasn’t tried to change the constitution of the Guild—not once, but twice—during the last two years to allow Qualified Voting.
And that’s BEFORE they tried to sneak it by the membership in the 132 pages of AIMA documents. Mr. Cromwell is well aware that any implementation of Qualified Voting requires a change to the constitution of the Screen Actors Guild. That’s why there were so many additions of “reasonable criteria” to determine the “affected members” of a contract or referendum in all the documents the current leadership created.
By approving motions to place their Board activities as “Confidential,” the current leadership has made it possible for Board members to be brought up on charges for releasing information, in some cases even to other members of the union. So we have to be very careful to make sure that we do not use any information we may have gained as a result of Board service in relaying the following information to you.
If the current leadership has ever tried to change the S.A.G. Constitution to allow Qualified Voting, they most likely placed a Confidentiality motion over their actions. So it’s a good thing that everything we learned about the constitutional requirements came from this Daily Variety story, printed on June
16, 2002:
DAILY VARIETY
SAG MAY SET VOTING LIMITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE VOTED ON JULY 15
June 16, 2002
SAG’s agents relations committee has recommended to the guild’s national board that it implement rules that would place limits on which of SAG’s 98,000 members would be allowed to vote through a “working in the trade” requirement.
The committee’s proposal, made in the form of an amendment to SAG’s constitution, will be voted on at the July 15 national board meeting.
Of course, if the board actually did vote on July 15, 2002, or any other day, on Qualified Voting, and then passed a confidentiality rule, no board member would be allowed to confirm the vote.
Unfortunately, nothing prevents a Board member from lying to you and saying that it NEVER happened at all, because THAT wouldn’t be a breach of confidentiality. But any other Board member knowing the truth COULDN’T say a word to offer a correction of fact, because that WOULD be a breach.
This is the problem we face. There would be no way to safely argue against the lies, except perhaps to show you newspaper clippings saying that discussions and votes of Qualified Voting were SUPPOSED to happen in the boardroom, or maybe the stories that reported it as having HAPPENED.
And although Mr. Cromwell has only served on the board for ONE YEAR, we can assure you that he has been exposed to discussions regarding Qualified Voting. How do we know this? Because we read it here, in this Daily Variety story, printed on Oct. 13, 2002, AFTER Mr. Cromwell had been elected last year:
DAILY VARIETY
RESTRICTIONS ON SAG VOTING QUALIFICATIONS, SEEN BY AGENTS AS CRUCIAL
FINANCIAL INTEREST, OWNERSHIP ISSUES STILL DRIVE WEDGE
Oct. 13, 2002
But SAG’s gambit—delivered in the form of a unanimous board resolution—has mixed prospects at best. Panel also failed to include any restrictions on SAG voting qualifications, seen by agents as crucial to getting approval on a deal. SAG’s national board had considered passing a resolution with a pledge to implement “Qualified Voting,” but there was significant resistance during the confab at the Sheraton Universal.
The clause was then dropped from the resolution in the interest of presenting a united front to agents.
The exec director of the Assn. of Talent Agents [Karen Stuart] expressed disappointment...The guild “has know for years that financial interest is an element to be bargained,” said. Stuart noted that SAG needs to fix its “broken” voting system. Agents have long complained that many of those SAG members eligible to vote do not have agents.
Stuart noted that Gilbert recently suggested that only members who work in a specific contract area should be eligible to vote on those contracts. Stuart said that being asked to return to bargaining with no change to the guild’s voting system doesn’t make sense.
So, this issue about Qualified Voting is a whole lot more than just who gets to vote and who doesn’t. It goes right to the core of trusting your leadership.
We think we have proven our point, but don’t just take our word for it. We believe in an open and honest union, so if we are wrong, we want you to be able to find out for yourself. Go ask the Union.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE
SECTION 8333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person’s interests as a member.
We back up everything we say with fact.
KENT McCORD for S.A.G. President
ESAI MORALES for S.A.G. Secretary-Treasurer
To get detailed information about the issues
http://www.membershipfirst.com
* * * * * * * * * *
INTEGRITY
This leadership spent close to $2.5 million trying to sell you two failed proposals. This has never happened before in the history of the Guild—where your dues money was used to promote referendums of the Board because they had so little faith in them to start with.
So, having virtually nothing else to claim as achievements:
1) They have tried to claim they “Implemented Global Rule One” adding $2 Million dollars to the Pension and Health plan.
WRONG.
Global Rule One was introduced to the S.A.G. Board at a meeting on Monday, July 30, 2001. The board passed it on October 12, 2002 BEFORE the Presidential elections, for “implementation” on May 1, 2002.
SAG COPS TO RULE 1
BOARD UPS ENFORCEMENT VS. NON-UNION SHOOTS
Oct. 14, 2001
Leaders of the Screen Actors Guild, raising the stakes in the battle over foreign markets, put the guild’s 98,500 members on notice that they are toughening enforcement of rules against working on non-union projects overseas.
In a unanimous voice vote Sunday, SAG’s national board set May 1, 2002 as implementation date for its “Global Rule One” initiative. The board’s action came five weeks after the Guild kicked off an informational push to the 98,500 members not to violate Rule One of SAG’s constitution, which explicitly bars members from working for producers who are not signatory to SAG agreements. or 2) They are claiming to have reduced the Guild’s deficit by $4 million.
Below is a story from Daily Variety questioning James Cromwell’s statement to the press on a “confidential” budget discussion held only a few days before. Again, we would like to point out that not telling the truth about what was said at a board meeting is not a breech of confidentiality, but telling the truth is.
Therefore, by correcting Mr. Cromwell’s statements made on behalf of the Union, Mr. McCord faced the question of breeching confidentiality, despite his elected position as Treasurer of the union.
UNION COMBO FACES COUNTERPOINT
Apr. 16, 2003
[James] Cromwell pointed out that both SAG and AFTRA are running substantial deficits, with SAG’s estimated to be anywhere from $6 million to $3.5 million, and AFTRA’s roughly $2 million.
“There are economies of scale that come from a merger,” Cromwell said, “and a merger will reduce the deficit.”
SAG national treasurer McCord disputes the categorization that SAG’s finances are in crisis.
“What they’re saying about the condition of our finances ignores the fact that SAG spent $700,000 to sell the members on the (now failed) ATA deal and $1.6 million on (publicizing) this deal,” McCord said. “We’ve cut spending, so when you take those items out, we’re in the black.”
Or this story from the Hollywood Reporter:
SAG SPLIT OVER DEFICIT NUMBERS
March 31, 2003
Could it be that SAG’s leadership is dealing in fuzzy math? Some in the guild seem to think so.
As part of an online presentation regarding the proposed consolidation with AFTRA, SAG communicated to its members Thursday that the guild was facing a $6 million deficit for fiscal 2003 (HR 3/28). But according to sources with knowledge of SAG’s finances, that figure is inflated, and in reality, SAG’s deficit is about $2.3 million. SAG leadership is in the midst of a membership educational campaign that is touting cost cutting, increased bargaining leverage and an end to jurisdictional rifts with AFTRA as reasons to endorse the proposed consolidation. In the past few weeks, SAG leaders have come under fire for overplaying their hand in trying to sell the deal to members.
Or this story, printed just last week on the Backstage.com website:
SAG’S DEFICIT LOWER, BUT WHO LOWERED IT?
August 22, 2003
The Restore Respect website—which belongs to the slate aligned with Melissa Gilbert, the current president—states, “The majority of your current board is from the ranks of the Restore Respect candidates. They’ve lowered the SAG deficit by 4 million dollars.”
“Basically, the implementation of the governance proposals that created the costs savings to the union is what’s responsible for lowering of the deficit,” Kent McCord said on Monday. “Some of those recommendations were contained in the Towers Perrin report, which goes back quite a ways.
The implementation by Bob Pisano and Francesca Hickson—to rein in the red ink the union was bleeding—most of that implementation was done under the previous administration.” [Gordon] Drake called Restore Respect’s taking credit for the deficit drop “inaccurate and a misconstruence of facts? They’re trying to steal thunder from the last seated board that assembled the governance plan. The savings are a result of the governance plan, and not the actions of the current seated board.”
SAG named Pisano its national executive director-chief executive officer in September 2001, when Daniels was still president. The guild’s national board approved the new governance plan in October, with Daniels still in office. Hickson was named SAG’s deputy national executive director for administration and chief financial officer at the end of October. At the time, Gilbert was a candidate for the presidency. She was elected that November.
All three current presidential candidates seem to agree that Pisano and Hickson’s efforts have led to a deficit reduction. But Gilbert stands by her contention that the present board of directors had led the deficit-lowering effort.
“I think that set us in the proper direction,” Gilbert told Back Stage on Tuesday, speaking of the previous board’s approval of the governance plan. “You can set policy all you want, but the present board implemented it. The implementation of all this happened in the last two years, with this board.” It is the job of the S.A.G. Board to set policy. It is the job of the paid staff of the Guild to “implement” that policy.
From the Thesaurus:
Implementation
Discharge, Execution, Completion, Put into practice, Apply, Put into operation, Put into action, Put into service. Implementation DOESN’T mean: Create, Originate, Build, Conceive, Develop, Invent, Put together, Come into being. Nor does mean: Build on, Flesh out, Elaborate, Upgrade
Those are what we believe the Board SHOULD be doing.
* * * * * * * * * *
SPENDING YOUR MONEY WISELY and LEGALLY
Flyers from around the country, as well as e-mails from “Restore Respect” have claimed those at Membership First: “unanimously voted to spend the money to develop Consolidation while actively working to destroy it”
The plan shown to the Board, which we at Membership First freely admit supporting, was a basic outline that promised one thing, while the final plan delivered something greatly different. But the ONLY expense we—or even the National Board—voted to approve, was a continued expense for the process of formulating the plan, NOT any amount close to the final $1.75 million the Guild claims to have spent.
DAILY VARIETY
March 16, 2003,
The Screen Actors Guild has allocated $1.6 million to campaign for its merger with the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists, CEO Bob Pisano told Sunday’s Hollywood membership meeting.
The figure—which covers anticipated costs such as attorneys, documentation, membership meetings, postage, the hiring of political consultants and campaigning—amounts to 3% of SAG’s annual budget.
That figure was later raised to approximately $1.75 million. But the S.A.G. Board of Directors never voted to approve that expenditure. The ONLY group that voted to spend that money was the National Executive Committee (NEC), which is NOT allowed to vote on any amount greater than $50,000
UNLESS IT IS AN EMERGENCY.
Section 2.
The National Executive Committee (N.E.C.).
(G.) The N.E.C. may take any action it deems appropriate except as follows:
(1.) the N.E.C. may not take any action which is in contravention of policies adopted by the Board of Directors or of the Constitution or By-laws;
(2.) the N.E.C. may not take any action either with regard to matters reserved to the exclusive authority of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 1(H.)(2) of this Article;
(3.) the N.E.C. may not take any action with regard to matters within the authority of the Board of Directors pursuant to Section 1(H.)(3) of this Article, unless the N.E.C. determines that it would prejudice the Guild if the N.E.C. did not act before the next scheduled meeting of the Board of
Directors;
(4.) the N.E.C. may approve budget additions in an amount not exceeding $50,000, provided that, the N.E.C. may approve greater budget additions in emergencies where such budget additions are needed to conduct necessary business of the Guild;
A Special Board meeting was called to introduce the outline of the Consolidation plan. Another special meeting was called to approve the final “Consolidation” plan. BUT the Board wasn’t asked to approve the budget at the same time.
Exactly what “emergency” was the NEC using to allow the approval of the entire $1.75 million?
Do you think they have only lied to you about this?
We think we have proven our point, but don’t just take our word for it. We believe in an open and honest union, so if we are wrong, we want you to be able to find out for yourself.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE SECTION 8333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person’sinterests as a member.
We back up everything we say with fact.
KENT McCORD for S.A.G. President
ESAI MORALES for S.A.G. Secretary-Treasurer
To get detailed information about the issues http://www.membershipfirst.com
ON MERGER:
We had no desire to discuss Consolidation, because—despite all of the money, resources, staff time, mailers, e-mails, and flyers they used; despite every method they could utilize to deny anti-merger information from reaching the membership, including the elimination of the entire history of the Guild from the S.A.G. website—merger lost. It should be over.
Despite all of the serious issues that were raised during the campaign, Media Consolidation, equalizing S.A.G. and AFTRA contract terms, and running the business of the Union more effectively, the ONLY issue they are trying to run on is their belief that Consolidation is more important to our membership than anything else.
Obviously, this campaign shouldn’t be about who won or lost on merger. It should be about the policies and the practices of how the Guild should be operated.
THAT’S WHY WE HAVE POINTED OUT the creation, against all Guild rules, of a
“One-Minute Movie” contract that only the Guild staff approved.
THAT’S WHY WE HAVE POINTED OUT the $1 million being collected from the commercials contract for each of the past three years that is sitting in a bank account, when it could be spent on Commercials Monitoring. This isn’t money that will cost the Guild anything to make use of. It is money coming out of our pockets every time we shoot a commercial or get paid a commercial residual, because it was bargained for and won in 2000.
We don’t want to go back and relive this merger discussion, but since they have forced this issue, here is our position:
We don’t know of a single actor who doesn’t want one set of contracts with one set of rates covering all of his/her work. A solution to this problem has been sought for over fifty years. More than a dozen attempts have been made, although only two proposals have been voted on and ultimately turned down by the membership.
The leadership would like to place the entire blame upon those who opposed the plan, as if the membership didn’t have the right to read and form their own judgment of the proposal.
RIGHT UP FRONT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT PERFECTLY CLEAR, DESPITE ANYTHING YOU MAY HEAR OR READ OTHERWISE:
KENT MCCORD: “I am for a self governing autonomous actors union where all actors are represented under one contract that controls its own finances and destiny.”
The Screen Actors Guild Board members were misled by not being provided a complete and honest representation of AFTRA’s finances and their Health and Retirement Fund. What we have learned in just the few shorts weeks since the vote count proves the lack of due diligence of the National Board and the Executive staff in making a recommendation to the membership to support a merger at this time.
Throughout the campaign:
YOU WERE WARNED THAT AFTRA’S FINANCES WERE IN TROUBLE. The unions denied this. The AFTRA convention just approved a minimum 20% increase in AFTRA income from dues and assessments over the next two years.
DAILY VARIETY
AFTRA HIKES MEMBER DUES
COIN TO COMPENSATE FOR ORG’S OPERATING DEFICIT
August 17, 2003
Citing the need to stablize AFTRA’s finances, leaders of the performers’ union have assessed each member $50 per year for the next two years along with bumping up the base dues rate by 10% and the initiation fee by $100.
The moves, made over the weekend at AFTRA’s national convention in Nashville, are not a surprise given AFTRA’s announcement earlier this year that it was running at a $2 million deficit on revenues of $25 million. If all 80,000 AFTRA members pay the $50 assessment during the next two years, that would raise $8 million in revenues.
A $25 million budget times 2 years equals $50 million. 20% equals $10 million.
The dues Assessment equals $8 million in income over 2 years. Add the 5% dues increase on (an estimated) $20 million collected in current dues equals $1 million per year or $2 million.
Total collected under increases = $10 million or 20% of total Budget
This is REALLY a 25% increase of the estimated dues collected currently.
YOU WERE WARNED THE CONVENTION SYSTEM ALLOWS DIRTY POLITICS TO BE PLAYED AGAINST THE MEMBERSHIP: Can you imagine the furor if S.A.G. tried to increase their members’ dues by 25% WITHOUT sending out a referendum to the entire membership? So how was AFTRA able to do this without any of the 44,000 dual S.A.G./AFTRA cardholders having any say in this decision, let alone the rest of their members? Well let’s say it again—
YOU WERE WARNED THE CONVENTION SYSTEM ALLOWS DIRTY POLITICS TO BE PLAYED AGAINST THE MEMBERSHIP: The Convention process that allowed the dues to be raised without the entire membership being allowed to vote was approved by the LAST Convention two years ago. This too was done without a vote of the entire AFTRA membership.
YOU WERE WARNED THE AFTRA HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUND WAS IN WORSE SHAPE THAN THEY WOULD ALLOW YOU TO KNOW: Two weeks after the votes were counted, every AFTRA H&R Fund participant received letters proving the depth of AFTRA’s pension problems.
THE LEADERSHIP CONDEMNED THE S.A.G. MANAGEMENT TRUSTEES FOR MAKING A DECISION AGAINST A MERGING OF THE PENSION FUNDS before all of the reports were in:
The promised Pension study that was to be delivered one week after the votes were counted was never held (because AFTRA trustees placed Confidentiality rules on the release of the information that made it essentially worthless). This decision was made WEEKS before the Consolidation campaign was over BUT THEY NEVER TOLD YOU.
We back up everything we say with fact.
KENT McCORD for S.A.G. President
ESAI MORALES for S.A.G. Secretary-Treasurer
To get detailed information about the issues and see a complete list of our candidates, go to
http://www.membershipfirst.com
“The greatest good for the greatest number.”
Ralph Morgan, First President, Screen Actors Guild
IN ORDER TO REACH THE FULL MEMBERSHIP WE NEED YOUR HELP. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERY S.A.G. MEMBER YOU KNOW.
| Home
| Contact
| Links
| Subscribe
| Classics
| Archive
| Search
| Watchdog Goodies
|