* Member’s Unbecoming “Trial Boards,” SAG’s political, Kangaroo Courts !!

Under Article XIV, Section 3, The SAG Constitution a member may be reprimanded, censured, fined, suspended if found guilty of one of the following offenses.

Section 3. The following offenses are those for which a member may be reprimanded, censured, fined, suspended from the rights of membership for a period of time or expelled from the Guild, namely (a) conduct unbecoming a member of the Guild; (b) working as a performer or making an agreement to work as a performer for any producer of motion pictures who has not made and executed a basic minimum agreement with the Guild which is in full force and effect; (c) violation of the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution and By-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Guild; (d) violation of any of the collective bargaining contracts of the Guild; (e) falsification or omission of a material fact on the member's application for Guild membership; (f) engaging in discriminatory conduct as to another member in the course of employment under a Guild collective bargaining agreement or in the course of any Guild meetings or activities, or to engage in such conduct as to an employee of the Guild, on the basis of race, sex (including sexual harassment), color, creed, national origin, age, physical disability or sexual preference.

Unfortunately for our guild and its membership, Section 3 (a) sans any definition of “Conduct unbecoming a member of the Guild,” has ever increasingly, especially under our new USAN/UFS leadership, been used, not as an instrument of addressing egregious acts against the guild and its membership, but rather as a means of political gain and reprisal.

Case in point the following article posted by “The Cowards of the Internet," the anonymously run USAN/UFS/AFTRA/AMPTP First website SAG Watch which hides behind its anonymity to demean and ridicule those it disagrees with.

What this website, consisting of group of anonymous individuals, conveniently fails to mention, is that--if not for them and former USAN board member Tom Ligon--the comments concerning Sam Freed posted by Terrence Beasor would never have come to light. What is really funny here, is that those who bemoan Terrence for supposedly violating “confidentiality” have themselves violated the confidentiality of the trial board findings.

Now, who do you think gave them this confidential information. Terrence Beasor? Ah, I think not! And assuming the five members of Terry’s trial board did not inform them that only leaves one other person, the person who brought Terry up on charges of violating confidentiality, Tom Ligon. So, the guy who finds violation of confidentiality so repugnant that he brings someone else up on charges, turns around and violates it himself. Neat huh?

What our anonymous ones also fail to mention is that two of those standing in judgment of former Membership First Board member Terrence Beasor were UFS board members.

Now, let’s have a look at the background and the facts in this case--and I’ll let you decide who the bad guys are in this matter—and who should be brought up on charges for conduct that might be “detrimental” to the membership.

As, I mentioned above, the charges in this case were brought by a former NY USAN Board Member. and admitted Membership First Hater Tom Ligon. Mr. Ligon’s hate for Membership First borders on Fanaticism. To give you an idea of how far over the edge that he goes, here is a comment he made about Ralph Morgan Award recipients Scott Wilson and Kent McCord along with Tom Bower, who was instrumental in instituting SAG’s Rule One.

Mr. Ligon’s style of posting using vulgar language and abusive analogies has caused him to be booted from two other Bulletin Boards. And he has made no secret of the fact that everything is ‘fair game’ whenever it comes to getting Terrence. As to his mental stability; well read the following posts that he directed, not only, toward Terry, but, also Terry’s lovely wife. (I deleted her name in the following post)

Ahh, the Ol’ Dog ain’t no psychiatrist but there seems to be some mental issues inherent in such a vulgar and vindictive statement.

I mean what can you say about a guy that would go on a public bulletin board make such a vile remark about another posters wife.

Now when it comes to conduct unbecoming a member who would you say better deserves censure, a member that accuses another member’s wife of “crapping” out of his mouth, and of “pimping” his wife, or one who reveals that a SAG negotiator was part of a publicly announced UNANIMOUS group that voted down the AMPTP offer made to SAG’s membership?

In regards to the revelation about Mr. Freed, one might say, but, but, so the vote was unanimous, okay, but Terry revealed that Sam Freed was part of the negotiating team…and negotiators are supposed to be anonymous so as to protect them from reprisals from employers.

Well, Terrence didn’t reveal that Sam Freed was on the negotiating team. Sam Freed did that himself.

Not only did Mr. Freed announce that he was co-head of the New York negotiating team, he apparently felt that since certain aspects of the negotiations had already been reported, it was okay for him to violate the confidentiality agreement by talking about the terms agreed upon--without getting the okay from the negotiating chairman.

Now, if it is Okay to talk about terms ‘already reported,’ why then is Mr. Beasor in violation of confidentiality by revealing something that Doug Allen had already announced to, not only, the AMPTP--but the SAG membership. That something being that the AMPTP offer was UNANIMOUSLY rejected by the negotiating team. Not only was the unanimous vote announced at a SAG informational meeting but it was reported worldwide.

Look, any information concerning how Sam Freed might have voted, revealed by Terrence would have gone for the most part unnoticed, if Tom Ligon’s concern was protecting his former USAN board mate. According to documentation presented in Terrence’s defense, it was most likely that only a few readers saw the post before Terry edited out the Sam Freed reference.

To put this matter in its proper perspective, Terry took it upon himself to remove the Sam Freed reference shortly after he had posted it. On the other hand, by reposting it, Tom Ligon, his accuser, made it possible for the 735 total readers of the string to see it--rather than the four or five that most likely would have seen it if it hadn't been reposted.

But in his fervor to get Terrence, Tom Ligon the plaintiff in this case, copied the post and not only reposted it, but gave a copy to the the anonymously run SAG Watch which also posted it. Obviously, in both instances, there was no concern about compromising Sam Freed’s “confidentiality.” They, instead, were more intent on fulfilling their agenda of getting Terrence Beasor, a Membership First member.

If there is any doubt that Tom Ligon could have cared less about Sam Freed, but, rather that his sole intent was to get Terrence, here is his post following Terrence’s editing out the Sam Freed reference.

Too Late! This is not "Conduct Unbecoming" but rather a political fanatic playing a game of gotcha! A delusional who actually refers to the Baghead Blog "SAG Watch" as the media.

Rule 10: The Presiding Officer at Board meetings and the chair of each committee shall be empowered to invoke a rule of confidence with regard to any subject to be discussed which is deemed to be of a confidential nature, on which outside discussion might be detrimental to the best interests of the members of the organization. This rule of confidence may be overruled by a majority of the Board or committee members present.

No, one has yet explained, how a remark made on a Bulletin Board, which was posted on a slow Sunday afternoon and seen by only a few visitors, until it was resposted, rises to the threshold of detrimental to the best interest of the members of the organization—while on the other hand, it is not detrimental to the best interest of the membership when the New York board issues a public statement in the midst of ongoing negotiations that not only undermines our negotiators but gives aid and comfort to our employers?

In failing to bargain realistically with the AMPTP and remove unattainable items from the table, our negotiating team, controlled by the current Hollywood leadership, has pursued an agenda that has more to do with politics than with securing a beneficial contract and has betrayed the trust of the membership.

While you ponder whose actions were detrimental to the SAG membership, here is what SAG President Alan Rosenberg said about the NY Boards ill-advised resolution.

This advisory motion is not in the best interests of New York Division SAG members or any SAG members across the country. It could tend to delay and prolong the negotiations by emboldening management with a false belief that SAG actors are split on the issues.
The plainly political nature of this action is cynical and unfortunate. It is an attempt to damage SAG’s negotiations and New York Division members may well wonder why this action is being taken by their elected representatives,”

As I said at the beginning of this post, it is unfortunate but our SAG Probable Cause and Trial Boards have become little more than Kangaroo Courts where the current New York/Branches and UFS are using their political edge to go after their opponents.

Terrence Beasor, a staunch Membership First supporter is only the first victim. It is my understanding that at least three other Membership First Members have been brought up on charges by them. But then USAN/UFS controls the Probable Cause Committee and they have, and will continue to use their political edge to try and discredit their opponents especially in this time before upcoming elections.

As far as the Ol’ Dog is concerned the whole “Conduct Unbecoming” process needs to be overhauled, or it will end up being little more than a venue for settling personal and/or political vendettas.

In light of the fact that SAG’s board is made up of two opposing political groups, if a board member is brought up on charges, neither side should sit on a probable cause committee, or on a trial board. Those in judgement should have no conflict of interest or overt political bias.

If the current politicalization of the process continues to be allowed, it will continue to engender lawsuits, which SAG will lose--and we the members will end up paying the price with our dues money, not to mention the integrity of our beloved guild.

At the end of the day, the question to be asked is that if Sam Freed felt he was injured in any way wasn't he the one to file charges? But then that seems to be the USAN/UFS way. He and his pals usually get the 'Cowards of the Internet' to do there dirty work for them, but then you can't file charges against another member anonymously !!

* As a matter of disclosure, I am a close personal friend of Terry's, and, as such, was aware of certain aspects of the case. I, also, chose to honor the confidentiality requested, and therefore made no mention of the matter on this website.