* B) Can Ned Vaughn and his UFS Prowl Change Their Spots ?? Read the Watchdogs "Smoking Gun" Response !!

A group of SAG Members led by actor Ned Vaughn and actress Amy Brenneman formed a group and a website called "Working Actors Voices." The primary reason for doing so was to implement affected or qualified voting in the Screen Actors Guild. They started a petition and gathered about 1500 members signatures for their Qualified Voting Petition. They drafted a proposal to take to the SAG leadership. These working actors set certain REQUIREMENTS and criteria they believed that members should meet in order to be ALLOWED TO VOTE on SAG Contracts. Those standards, if implemented, would take away the vote of MOST of our membership.

They then scurried off to SAG with their elitist proposal in hand! Well, to make a long story short, their proposal, according to them, "was eventually voted down 60/40 and it was referred to the GGRC in a fashion that guarantees it will remain unresolved for the upcoming contract."

The vote went pretty much according to party lines, USAN for the Qualified Voting, and Membership First, lead by President Alan Rosenberg, against it.

Well, this group was not about to give up IN FACT THEY BASICALLY VOWED TO NEVER GIVE UP. In order to impliment their Pledge, Ned Vaughn and Amy Brenneman, the co-founders of the Qualified Voting group, formed a political slate to run against Membership First, the group that voted down their Affected Member Voting proposal.

In what was probably a wise, but calculated move, this DETERMINED group favoring AFFECTED VOTING didn’t call themselves the "Working Members Voice" Slate. Let’s face it, when a group starts a slate with"Working Members in the title, it sounds a tad elitist. So what to call themselves?

Ah, well there was always the "Affected Member Voting" slate, naw, when your qualified voting agenda would disenfranchise most of the membership, ah ,not a really good idea.

They needed something to completely distance themselves from their true agenda. Ah, how about Unite For Strength? PERFECT!

It always amazed me that a group that wanted to take away the vote of MOST of SAG’s members and divide them into two camps--those who could vote and those who couldn’t vote--would have the gall to call themselves Unite For Strength.

The Ol’ Dog always felt, considering their divisive agenda, a more appropriate name would be "Divide For Weakness."

So, now they have their slate together, and they’re getting appearances on all these TV shows, positive articles in all the trade papers…hey if the agents and Entertainment Power Brokers like you and your ideas, you are going to get all kinds of perks!

Yep, things were going well for this merry slate. There was not much being made about their true agenda of affected/qualified voting. It was pretty well being kept under the membership radar.

Hell, there isn’t even a mention of it on their UFS website. Well, come on, no use to make the natives restless, right? There would be time for that once they were elected, and began to implement their little Qualifing surprise!

It would be simple, but affective. First they would get your vote, ah, then they would take it away.

Well, things were going well for these false uniters. But then the damn Ol Watchdog did a little research, and the dog posted the names of all the candidates in the election, and pointed out the names of those who were for qualified voting.

The problem for the USAN and UFS slates is that most of them had signed the damn Affected Member Petition. All of a sudden, they and their agenda was exposed.

So, what is the first thing any politician, or political group does when they are caught red handed in a bad situation? Why, DENY, DENY, and DENY some more.

In that regard, the "Unite For Strenght" people didn’t dawdle. They immediately sprung into action and released a statement. Ah, no they didn’t post it on their website. Hey, no need to make the natives restless.

Like I said, it didn’t go up on their website, but was released through the SAG Watch “On The Rhine” website.

A website channeled through Germany so as to keep the identity of its owners secret. There’s much speculation about who is BEHIND this website. Many insiders believe its proprietors are either USAN members, AFTRA Operatives, or the AMPTP. Or, perhaps ALL THREE in a, sort of, Phase One agreement. One thing for certain, they are not shy about posting links that lead straight to the AMPTP website.

Anyway, the fact that they had their "denial" statement released by the anonymous website is ironically appropriate.

One wants to keep their identity secret, while the other wants to keep their agenda secret.

Unite For Strength Denies It has Qualified Voting Agenda

August 18, 2008 by Editor.

Here’s the statement issued today by the group:

We came together under the Unite for Strength banner to run for the SAG Board of Directors to accomplish one goal above all others – unify SAG and AFTRA to give actors more power at the bargaining table. However, Membership First has attempted to mislead members about our intentions by suggesting that we seek to strip some members of their union voting rights, including the right to vote in elections such as this one.

This suggestion is absolutely false. Earlier this year, prior to the rupture of the long-standing joint negotiating agreement between SAG and AFTRA, some of us supported a proposal to apply to the TV/Theatrical contract a principle already used with other SAG contracts. This would have limited ratification voting to those members with at least minimal experience working under the contract. Contrary to what Membership First is telling members, the proposal would not have limited the ability of any member to participate in elections to select Guild leaders or in strike authorization votes.

Moreover, we have repeatedly stated that affected member voting is not part of the Unite for Strength platform or a goal of the slate. Regardless of the merits, it is a non-issue in this election – and Membership First knows that.

Because our unions no longer have a functional partnership, our goal is clear. In order to remove any doubt about our intentions and to focus attention on the real issue in this election – whether SAG should seek unification with AFTRA or continue fighting them – we offer the following pledge:

We will take no action as members of the SAG Board of Directors to take away any member’s right to vote on SAG contracts or any other SAG matter.“

Read their lips, folks! Hey, when, I hear a statement like that, I'm always reminded of the scene in the movie “Stalag 17.” One of the prisoners. who has been in the camp for years, gets a letter from his wife, back home, telling him that she had found this adorable little baby on their doorstep, and he sits there with a bewildered stare muttering “I believe it, I believe it…”

Well before you believe it, here is a statement that they made on their website after their qualified voting proposal failed before the SAG Board of Directors.

“That the proposal has now been referred to “the committee where things go to die” (as one board member called it) makes it clear that the current Guild leadership lacks the will to address this issue. However, we are not giving up. We’re going to take time during the contract negotiations to plan our next steps, but rest assured, we will keep fighting until working actors have an effective voice at SAG. And we will continue our efforts with AFTRA to see that affected member voting is implemented there.

Hey, if you believe that, and, if you want to chance it, and vote for them, go for it--but remember, it might be the last vote you’ll ever make, on contracts that will decide your future...as a second class member.

I believe this missive the Ol' Dog posted on SAG Actor, will add more perspective on UFS's apparent Flip-Flop on the qualified voting issue.

Here’s what Unite For Strength is are saying NOW after the Watchdog post revealed that most of them signed the Qualified Voting Petition:

Hey, the MO of most politicians, who are exposed in a negative way, is to DENY, DENY, and then, DENY some more.

Here's what this same group stated when the very Qualified Voting proposal their group was founded on, failed to pass the SAG Board.

“That the proposal has now been referred to “the committee where things go to die” (as one board member called it) makes it clear that the current Guild leadership lacks the will to address this issue. However, we are not giving up. We’re going to take time during the contract negotiations to plan our next steps, but rest assured, we will keep KEEP FIGHTING until working actors have an effective voice at SAG. And we will continue our efforts with AFTRA to see that affected member voting is implemented there

So what does their new pledge to NOT implement qualified voting SAY ABOUT THEIR WILL TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE?.

Not only is UFS now saying THEY will they not address the issue, they've gone even further, and stated THEY WILL NOT IMPLIMENT QUALIFIED VOTING.

So, it's up to the membership, I suppose. They can believe what they said in the past, BEFORE they were running for office, or they can believe what they’re saying NOW that they are candidates trying to get elected.

Seemingly, they’re NOW backing down on their pledge to keep fighting until affected member voting is implemented, and working actors have an effective voice in SAG. What does this say about their commitment to working actors? That they are willing to break their word to them in order to get elected.

So, how can working actors believe a group that broke a promise to them? Is this really the kind of leadership they want?

And what does breaking their word to working actors, say to most of the membership, who would be disenfranchised, if now, as they did to working actors, they turn around and break their word to them, on their new promise not to implement affected voting. It means they will no longer have a vote when it comes to agreements that will shape the future of their guild.

So, it seems no one can be comfortable voting for this group--whose word to members is now in question!

How does the old saying go? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.