99 As I See It (Yeah, it's long)

Some have asked my views on the 99-Seat situation in Los Angeles. Here are some thoughts:

I am an actor first and a trade unionist second. I consider my Equity brothers and sisters in Los Angeles County fellow professionals. I have seen great brilliance in productions in Los Angeles' intimate houses.  I do not sneer that Angeleno actors are "fighting for their right to work for free." I have friends and colleagues who regularly perform as well as produce in small theaters.  I want this art and community to continue.  I also want actors and stage managers there to be under Equity contracts.  I took issue with the original Council proposals which were put to referendum.  My main objection was the rule about membership companies. The final Council-adopted rule is better, but not perfect. Also, Equity's typical ineptitude as regards communication made things much worse than they had to be.

Putting aside the viability of California minimum wage or Hat-to-99, the main reason I want my brethren and sistren to be under contract is for the protections that the institution of a contract would provide.  Remember that the (newly) old 99 Plan was a code and not a contract.  What this means at its base is that it was unenforceable. Equity contracts have the best safe and sanitary protections compared to similar contracts anywhere.  The various clauses in our contracts cover almost any situation that can occur in a theatre. With the old 99, if there were problems, one could call the union, who would in turn have a staffer call in a stern voice and admonish the producing entity to repent and change, but as for muscle - there was none.  The codes assume adherence to industry practice, but the actor or stage manager is essentially on his own.

The other reason that I want to do whatever we can to establish contracts is participation in the health care plan and pension credits. I don't think I have to elaborate on why health care is important. It's harder to qualify under the SAG Producer Pension and Health Plan and the AFTRA Health And Retirement Funds than ever.  (O may they one day merge!) Having access to an alternative health care plan under an Equity contract would be a boon for L.A. area actors.

Many members, especially younger ones, don't give retirement much thought. Under the Equity League (our health and retirement plan) one need only work two weeks of covered employment out of a year to qualify for a pension credit. After ten years (not necessarily consecutive) one is vested and can receive a pension when you reach the right age. And while it's early to even broach this subject, (not to mention beginning a sentence with 'and'), many of our contracts include 401(k) savings plans.

Another element to all Equity contracts is bonding. This is an element of the contract that AEA members rarely have even a passing relationship with. Equity requires each producer to put aside two weeks salary - a bond - so that if something goes wrong; the production runs out of money, the production is prosecuted, etc, the actors are the first to be taken care of.  This is one of the bedrocks of Actors' Equity contracts.

Stage Managers. I'm sure I do not have to inform anyone as to the difference between an Equity Stage Manager and one who is not. A contract would require that the PSM be an Equity member.  'Nuff said.

All the above is what we aspire to in establishing contracts in Los Angeles. This is not immediately the result of Council adoption of the new 99-Seat rules. It is, however, the eventual goal.

Now - Salary.

This is the thing, of course, that has caused the rift between L.A. members and their union. The minimum wage floor has now been set by the union for those that would qualify (see link, above) and this does not even include the above fringe benefits. This is cheap as compared with the national average salary, but still unattainable for some producing entities using their current business models.

And changing the business model is the whole point. There was heretofore no incentive to change the actor and stage manager line items in a show's budget. I am a realist, though. I know that some producing entities will fold. These theaters are not just items on a spread sheet.  They represent actual human beings: colleagues, lovers and friends. These theatre collectives contain memories and some of our collective theatrical experiences, both as creators of art and as a society. They have also provided showcases that have allowed industry folk to consider us for further work.

My feeling is that L.A. intimate theatre will not go away - but it will change. Theatre is created by humans for other humans. The human actors and stage managers are still in Los Angeles. They will adapt, as they do in every other community around the country. Those that produce, be they producer/actors or full time producers will learn how to do so with the new rules. It will be more difficult. It will be different.

Most of my work is not in New York City.  I work quite a bit in theaters around the country with shoe-string budgets. (And some can't even afford shoe strings) Some of these have existed for decades, despite the vagaries of economy, the waning and waxing of charitable giving and other circumstances and situations which seem to conspire against them.  I daresay that what these long-suffering (but thriving) theaters share with some of the venerable smaller theaters in Los Angeles is an individual or very small cadre of committed individuals, without whom the structure would collapse.  The theatre may have dozens of artists and other volunteers who are passionate about their mission and would do anything asked of them to keep their theatre alive, but when push comes to shove, as the old saying goes, it is this tenacious person upon whose shoulders living or dying is decided.

My prediction is that in each extant theatrical organization or collective there will be that one person who seeks to make the organization thrive despite whatever rules or other road blocks are presented before them. Essentially what the new rules are forcing L.A. intimate theatre to do is to learn a new producing model.

Some of these individuals will not wish to produce under a new model or these newly-needed skills may not be in their wheelhouse of talents. If another within the organization does not step-up, that organization may fold.  Or it may morph into a new entity.  The new rules will also see new players create new theatre.  This is what happens to theaters all over the country.

Now, before you say, "Fuck you, Roddy, you don't live here (that is, L.A.) and couldn't care less about us. Go back to living in your own private Idaho where unicorns and rainbows abound," let me tell you that I have seen this scenario repeat itself time and time again. Theatre keeps re-inventing itself.  I see this in communities with nowhere near the funding potential that Los Angeles has.  I have worked in a theatre for the last couple of decades which is the third generation of the original.  Many different buildings, charters, mission statements, boards and donors and different Equity contracts - same artists, though.

Long Beach Playhouse, as you might know, recently posted on its Facebook page that it is "first and foremost, a community theater. We are not, and never will be, a professional theater..." Though I am sure that the Equity members who worked there previously did wonderful work, LBP is now saying that keeping a working relationship with professionals in not a priority.  I'm not disparaging Long Beach Playhouse. They will probably do wonderful work in the future, but they don't seek to be a professional theatre.  One does not need a union card to make art.

There is an implicit compact that one agrees to when one joins a union. It is a political act. For the betterment of my fellows, there is some work that I agree not to take, so as to raise the tide for all boats. I have been offered, dozens of times, plum roles that I was itching to play if would only work off the card, under a different name. Being a union member is a solemn pact to me.  Another actor may not have the union zeal that I have. Lacking passion for, even hating ones union, does not mean that ones actions do not affect others. We are all connected, in a very deep way.

To establish a beachhead in terms of a contract, a group of people (a union, if you will) has to establish a minimum or no progress can be made. I know that we're not dealing with Sam and JJ and this isn't 1919. There are some who should have gone to contract years ago, but the cases of actual wage abuses are rare.  Just as important as stopping unfairness is establishing a mindset within ourselves that will make ameliorating the condition of the actor and stage manager in the upper areas of our psyche.   There is a canard that I have heard for decades now that making a living in L.A. theatre is impossible and never will be possible.  I don't believe it.

Part of changing 99-Seat, be it this change or not this change, was to get rid of the Settlement Agreement so that we may find bargaining partners to negotiate with. This is how contracts are established.

I will leave it those who are actually working under them to tell me how they view the other tines of the new rules, namely the 50-or-Less showcase and the Los Angeles Self-Produced Contract Code. It seems to my eye that these, combined with the contracts above cover most bases.  I know that there are still AEA members in Los Angeles who are unhappy - even lividly angry - over the new rules. It is not an attempt to mollify you to say that I consider this a still evolving situation.  Having served on contract committees and a term on Council (2004-2009), I can tell you that at heart, Equity wants its members to work. When pressure is brought to bear by the members, (as it is now) change happens. Rumors of the Council cynically toasting each other behind closed doors over the adoption of the new rules is false.

To be Pro-99 or not to be?  That is no longer the question. The reality for us all is what Council has voted up. I do think establishing a contract is a high priority.  I also don't pretend as though it is a settled matter.  Even with the new rules, it is still a work in progress.  I am glad that the Los Angeles theatre community (and others around the country) have stepped up and passionately raised their voices. I sincerely hope that we will all continue doing so. Union matters can often be tedious and the minutiae of NLRB rules, state and federal work rules and clause-and-sub-section contract language can make many a crusader lose interest or run screaming into the night. Stay in it.

Anyway, I hope this tells you where I stand on things 99-Seat. Whether this influences your vote or not, please do vote for someone.  It's very important.  I know it is a difficult choice when all you have to go is a 250 word blurb in Equity News, but not voting at all is a huge mistake. I am open to learning and I would love to hear from you.  Please visit my candidate website and you can always email me at buzzforcouncil@gmail.com

Buzz Roddy 2015 candidate statement from Equity News

The New 99-Seat Rules

Equity Council voted new rules regarding the 99-Seat Plan in Los Angeles. This is from the AEA website:

"The Council voted to make substantial changes to the 99-Seat Theatre Plan that will eliminate the availability of the Plan. They have adopted new, internal union membership rules that contain several important changes to the original proposal – including a Showcase Code and changes to the Los Angeles Membership Company Rule. They have allowed for the use of the Small Professional Theater Agreement, which up until this point has not been available in Los Angeles, and they have provided for a 13-month implementation period so that theaters have time to adjust.

In the coming months, Equity will be reaching out to members to have small group discussions about these important changes. Equity will also hold meetings with independent producers and multi-employer groups to discuss how they can utilize these contracts and hire our members.

This broad set of options is a nuanced, tiered approach in response to the serious concerns expressed by members about the particular needs of the L.A. theater community.

Equity will make available for members and producers in L.A. County the following stepping stones:

• Los Angeles Transitional 99-Seat Code. This code, with many of the same terms as the existing 99-Seat Theatre Plan, will be in effect from April 22, 2015 to May 31, 2016, and will be available to existing 99-Seat Theatre Plan producers, so they may have time to transition to the newly-available options.
• Los Angeles Self-Produced Project Code. This is an internal union membership rule allowing Equity members to collaborate as a group to self-produce theater without the requirement of an Equity contract. 
• NEW Los Angeles 50-Seat Showcase Code. The Council has adopted an internal union membership rule, which allows members to work without the requirement of an Equity contract in theaters with 50 seats or fewer, where the budget for the production does not exceed $20,000, for up to 16 performances. For use up to three times per season, this Code puts L.A. in alignment with other areas of the country. The Showcase Code provides for reimbursement of actual expenses, favored nations compensation, and future rights for actors in subsequent productions. 
• NEW Los Angeles Membership Company Rule. In the Council’s original proposal, membership companies would have been limited to their current membership. Council amended this new internal union membership rule to allow any Equity member to participate with any membership company as long as that company was in existence prior to Feb. 6, 2015, had registered their company by April 1, 2015, and had previously produced under the prior 99-Seat Theatre Plan. This new internal union membership rule allows Equity members to participate in their membership companies without the requirement of an Equity contract. Members may negotiate their own compensation, expense reimbursement and other working conditions. 
• Los Angeles 99-Seat Agreement. A collective bargaining agreement to be negotiated with producers for productions in theaters of 99 seats or fewer. The Agreement provides no restrictions on budget, length of the rehearsal period, ticket price, or the length of the performance run. The Agreement would provide for salary payments based on the legally-mandated minimum wage in Los Angeles County (currently $9 per hour) with minimum call requirements, but with no pension or health benefit payments required. The Agreement would require future rights based on the terms of the subsequent Equity collective bargaining agreement and would also require basic workplace standards. 
• NEW Small Professional Theatre Agreement (“SPT”). The SPT Agreement, which has long been available in other parts of the country, would now be permitted for productions in Los Angeles County in venues with a capacity up to 349 seats. There is no budget cap per production, no limitation on the length of the rehearsal period, and no restriction on the length of the performance run. The Agreement provides for salary payments ranging from $229 to $664 per week, based on the maximum number of weekly performances, with pension and health contributions required. The Agreement requires future rights based on the producer’s future involvement with any subsequent production and would also require basic workplace standards. 
• Hollywood Area Theatre Agreement (“HAT”). The HAT is an existing collective bargaining agreement for use in Los Angeles Theatres of 349-499 seats. There is no budget cap per production, and no restriction on the length of a performance run. Productions may rehearse for no fewer than 2 ½ weeks. The Agreement provides for salaries between $229 to $582 per week and based on a 5-performance week (up to three additional performances may be purchased), with salary increases every 20th week of employment. The Agreement requires pension and health benefit payments, future rights based on the producer’s future involvement with any subsequent production and would also require basic workplace standards. The HAT Agreement is an all-Equity agreement.

This is an important moment in our history – one in which we can work together to build upon the foundation of these internal membership rules and agreements. We are proud of the members in Los Angeles who shared their insightful views and spoke with passion about the importance of intimate theater. We are proud to continue with Equity’s long-standing principle of valuing the work of actors and stage managers. In customizing efforts to grow the L.A. theater scene, Equity believes it is being responsive to the needs of members and advocating for the lives and livelihoods of working artists. Growth and sustainability of the intimate theater scene in Los Angeles is going to be key. "

Related Information Regarding the Changes to the 99-Seat Plan 

Transitional L.A. 99-Seat Theatre Code
L.A. Self Produced Project Code
L.A. 50-Seat Showcase Code
Membership Company Rule
L.A. 99-Seat Theatre Agreement
SPT Rulebook
HAT Rulebook

My speech at the 2015 National Membership Meeting

Brothers and sisters, no one got into this business because they wanted to join a labor union. But I am so grateful that I am a member of this Association. I make my living as a professional actor. If you didn't already know it, unions are under attack. I'm not just talking about teachers and autoworkers. It was famously over heard by one of our bargaining partners during a contract negotiation that shall not be named, "Do you hear actors are buying houses now!?" I am running to keep us vital and relevant and increase our strength. Obviously we always have at hand the task to negotiate better contracts. And we have to strongly enforce those contracts. But my biggest goal on Council will be to strengthen from within; to get these 50,000 freelance actors and stage managers to think of Equity as "us" rather than "them." Only then will we strut the theatre landscape with Local 17 Teamster-like fear and respect. How? Education certainly. That's what we do in the Member Education committee. But Council can engage us better. Some things said in Council are confidential, but much is not. Just like the US Government publishes the Congressional Record, so can we publish reports on Council dealings, and by the way - publish Council meeting dates so it's easier for members to observe, as is their right.

Me and the other 21 candidates in my category are vying for 8 seats. If you don't know us, all you have to go on is our EPA-like, two-minute speech and 250 words in Equity News telling you that we're anti-cancer. All of us are heartfelt in our wish to improve the conditions of Equity members. I would be a vote well-cast. I have experience, and I don't mind publicly fighting for our rights. I show up and do the work. Want in-depth?. www.Showbizbuzz.info or email me at buzzforcouncil@gmail.com

99 Seats or Art For Bucks

If you do not live in Los Angeles, you may not  care anything about the current debate over the proposed changes that Equity Council wants to make to the 99 Seat plan. But know that this controversy goes right to Equity's reason for being.

If you are a New Yorker, you may be familiar with the Showcase Code.  This code (as opposed to a contract) is only for productions in New York City.  The 99 Seat Plan (again - a code and not a contract) is for productions in Los Angeles and mirrors the Showcase Code in a number of significant ways, but the main similarity is that Actors and Stage Managers get little or no money.

Let's start with what most all of us agree on: the 99 Seat Plan is out of date and needs to change.

Unfortunately, there has been not so much dialogue, as sniping, much of it on Facebook and Twitter.  Social media are useful when planning a family reunion, circulating a petition and the like - but debate? It's pretty impossible, and so normally even-headed participants in such discussions soon devolve into malcontents lobbing bombs at one another.  We are all, no matter in which region or city one resides or whether Council member or rank-and-file, on the same side in terms of wanting to improve the lot of our members.  I write this a couple of weeks after the Town Hall meeting on February 23 where members and union staff and Councillors met face-to-face. I was not there, but it was, by all reports, civil and useful. Encouraging.

First of all, what is the difference between a Contract and a Code? In simplest terms: a Contract is a legal agreement between two parties, which states duties and services expected of both parties and has a mechanism for resolving disputes.  A Code, on the other hand, is suggested and less legally-binding. There are no grievance procedures if one of the parties does not deliver on the agreement.  Much AEA staff time and money - our dues money - has been spent on trying to enforce the unenforceable.

There are the three main points of Council's proposal. And remember - this is a proposal, not an edict from the tsar.  I am amazed at the number of members vilifying Council who have not even read the various materials provided on the AEA website, but have taken for gospel the précis provided to them second and third hand.  It's somewhat dry reading, but we should all read it and understand it in order to have an informed debate.  I will try to walk you through the proposal, below.

1) Members who want to self-produce on a per-show basis, would be able to use the Los Angeles Self-Produced Project Code. This means if a group of colleagues wish to produce a production of
HAMLET - they can, without an Equity contract.

2) The Los Angeles Membership Company Rule is the part of this proposal that most seem to take issue with.  Essentially, the number of membership companies in LA are frozen, as are their constituent memberships.  Company members would not have to be paid the California State minimum wage.  Under this rule, it is conceivable that Hamlet could be working for nothing and Rosenkrantz would be getting a salary.

3) There would be a new promulgated 99-Seat Theatre Agreement that Producers could employ that would pay our members the California State minimum wage.  This is an actual contract.  It is a good start.

Many people have taken issue with the word "promulgated" This is a legal term for an agreement that the union crafts when there is no bargaining partner to negotiate with.  AEA has several of these, including the Guest Artist agreement and Small Professional Theatre (SPT) contract. You will notice that on these documents there are no signatures at the bottom, like on the Production contract. There is not a bargaining unit of 99 Seat producers with which to negotiate.  For this reason, Equity will come up with its own terms, looking out for the best interests of the membership.

The coming referendum will be advisory. Why is it an "advisory referendum"? Equity's Constitution and By Laws state that:

"The general management, direction and control of the affairs, funds and property of the Association and the determination of the relations and obligations of members to the Association, of the Association to members, of members to each other and of members to employers, except as expressly limited and/or controlled by this Constitution and By-Laws, shall be vested in the National Council."

That means that it would not be possible for a vote from Los Angeles members to accept or do away
with the proposal.  But this also does not mean that the proposal is a fait accompli.  After a non-binding referendum, the issue goes back to Council where it is debated and then voted on.  Remember - Council works for you.

Me? I am completely in favor of the intent of the proposals. Practically, I like two out of the three items in the new package. I see problems with the membership company issue as it is proposed.  Either new companies should be allowed to form in the future or there should be flexibility in existing companies future member rolls.  Perhaps even established companies could, under certain circumstances, utilize the LASPPC (above).  This tine of the fork is easily fixable.  Of course, this is a proposal to be voted upon by Council for its members. If its members then decide that it is not working there can be a redress.

I have seen some excellent theatre in L.A., both by established companies and one-offs.  I know of no one, Councillor or otherwise, who does not want it to continue. But for too long we have not valued ourselves as much as we deserve and many of those who produce us (I can not really say 'hire' us') have not either. What we are faced with is a leap of faith.  If this goes through, we are saying that our work has value. Please note that I am not calling anyone's work 'crap,' or some such.  I am talking about the life of the actor. I have found in my career that my worth is determined by me.  The first time I tried to ask to be paid over minimum salary I was terrified and sure that I would never work again.  I believe I asked for an extra $20 per week.  It turns out that the producer in this instance didn't even pause when he accepted my counter-offer. The only thing stopping me from getting more was my asking for it. The 99 Seat dilemma is more than about minimum wage.  It's about raising the floor for all actors and stage managers. As the economy continues to get stronger, arguably now is the strategic time to ask for a raise.  Later this year, we will begin negotiations on our flagship contract - Production. It will sure help our position if we show a groundswell of demanding more. Even Wal-Mart gave its employees a raise recently.

To some, AEA Council is, at the least out of touch or at worst, on a power-mad crusade to destroy 99 Seat theatre. I am glad that there is passion - which is the currency we most work with and for - on both sides of the issue.  At issue is the inherent value of the actor or stage manager. There is a bit of a "build it and they will come" aspect to the 99 Seat proposals.  Yes, it is a risk.  So was the Actors' Strike of 1919. Council is seeking to establish a floor, beneath one cannot grovel.

The contention of the ILove99s, as a cadre of theatre people have styled themselves, is that imposing this plan will kill theatre as it currently exists in Los Angeles.  The target in the sights of Equity Council is the producer who has a business model whereby its existence depends on actors as volunteers. My take on it is that the proposals, if adopted, will most definitely change L.A. theatre.  And for the good.  Realistically, of course, some theaters will close. Other companies will change their business models and new companies will form.  L.A. theatre will thrive.

Why do I have such a rosy view of the future?  It has been borne out by experience.  When the New York Musical Theatre Festival (NYMF) caused members to complain that this code was being abused by producers, Council formed a hybrid contract/code. It attempted to straddle developmental and contract work.  Many thought it was the end of NYMF, but the number of productions in the Festival has grown each year and those seeking to work under this agreement have ballooned, as well. Equity has intervened in similar situations.

A friend of mine gives his experience thus:

"I remember working at a theatre that will remain unnamed. . . when we worked for free, they abused our hours, called spur-of-the-moment rehearsals, and played on our good graces to give them more and more time. . . as soon as we went AEA and started getting paid, the hours and responsibilities were revamped and they made damned sure we were out on time so they didn't have to pay OT. . . the mark of being paid, regardless of the stipend, gives us the rights and respect of professional artists. . . unfortunately the only recourse we have with theater management is through the wallet and their respect, not for us, but for the $. . ."

These are not as in the days of Sam & J.J. Schubert.  Many of these companies are just being held together by duct tape and are not the monolithic entities of another era, getting rich on the backs of the actor (or stage manager).  And that is precisely why there are the other two provisions in the 99 Seat proposal.

Many will say that as a New Yorker, I have no horse in this race.  I disagree.  I constantly have to deal with people thinking that because I am an actor that I don't really work for a living.  I am not talking about civilians now, I mean from my fellow collaborators. There is a now infamous quote made during a major Equity contract negotiations where a long-time theatre producer was overheard to share indignantly with a colleague, "I hear actor are buying houses now!"

I will bow to the will of my Los Angeles brethren and sistern. I hope that they will take the leap.  Change is frightening.  Standing tall against strong opinion is daunting. The 3500 or so eligible members will tell the Council when the referendum results come in.  I hope they vote "Yes."

AEA Elections - Who gives a crap?

In 2012 there was an important national election for the office of President of the United States.  As it was important to participate, I showed up at my local polling place, pulled back the curtain and started turning levers.  There was more on the ballot than just the office of President.  There were city councilmen.  There were ballot initiatives.  And there were judges up for election.

Judges.

I had done research about all the candidates, except for the judges. I know that who we have on the bench, making decisions in our courts was vital to our democracy but for the most part, I closed my eyes and picked the first lever I touched.

How do you decide who to vote for in Actors' Equity Council elections?  Do you end up just not voting?

Most Equity members know how important it is to have a Council who represents their best interests.  There are those who dig assiduously into the backgrounds of AEA candidates.  They attend membership meetings.  Some contact the candidates directly. When casting ballots, their choices are well-considered.

Most of us, if we do vote at all, use criteria such as the likeability of a candidate. Perhaps we have seen candidate "A" in a play and she was wonderful.  Perhaps Candidate "F" submitted a really good-looking photo to Equity News.  If you use either criterion, you cannot really be blamed.  Our election procedures are not such as encourage much engagement by members.  That said, member apathy is a fact.  Most of us do not even want to think about the union and its dealings in our day-to-day lives.  We just want to work and are happy that our contract provisions are in place.

What type of person runs for a Council seat?

Not anyone who wants a cushy job, that's for sure.  Many do not know that Equity Council members do not receive a salary.  There are over 80 Councillors: 8 officers; 75 Councillors-at-large and 9 Councillors Emereti (retired Councillors who can not vote).  There is a meeting every month, averaging about 4 hours in length.  In addition, every Councillor serves on the board of his or her Region. That's an additional monthly meeting. Special meetings pop up from time to time.  Most Councillors serve on several committees and often chair many of these.  This represents additional hours in a given week. Often, being on Council is a full-time, unpaid job. So I can tell you that any one who chooses to serve doesn't do it just for the nakhes.  I have respect for anyone who does this work, whether I agree with them or not.

I'll tell you what I get out of it. Perhaps you have heard the phrase, "do well by doing good." I am trying to make my life as an actor better by improving the industry as a whole. This is work that I enjoy.  Why?  First, I have known many of the serving Councillors for several years.  We work together well.  They are wicked smart, as Bostonians say.  I have always enjoyed being in a great ensemble in a show. It's about the collaboration. Union service, for me anyway, is a facility which feeds on itself.  What I mean by this is the more I learn about how things work, the more I want to make them work.  I do a lot of research at law libraries, on-line and with labor attorneys and officials. I suppose I might be termed a "labor geek."

I have some pet projects:

• Public Policy is a large interest of mine.  Lobbying elected leaders for arts funding; tax reform for artists; marriage equality; unemployment reform - these are all things that I have gotten enormous satisfaction out of working on, even though the progress can be glacially slow. I was so glad when AEA got its own AFL-CIO charter. As much as our funds and staff can afford, without displacing our contract negotiation and enforcement capability, we must work with big labor to make things better for everyone. (The better people do, the more they are willing and can afford to see theatre)

• Election procedures.  This is the genesis of this particular blog post. Our elections do not engage the Membership.  Part of this is Equity's fault.  Some of this is due to the draconian and counter-productive anti-union labor laws. This relates back to public policy, above.  The other side of this equation is member apathy.  One of the benefits of the current touring controversies is that more of us care about who is in the room when we negotiate our contracts.  I hope that this energy increases.  I am positive at the moment that it will.  I hope we all keep the pressure on our fellows to get involved.

• Membership Education. An educated and informed membership is our most valuable tool in maintaining a strong union and achieving our goals.  If you are an AEA member and are reading this, count yourself as part of the solution.  Thank you. I would love to have a permanent institution in our union.  Similar to the AFTRA-SAG Conservatory.  Call it Equity University.  In addition to free workshops and classes to improve our performing skills, many of us need business training and need to learn about how the union works.  This will take some major money.  We have an under-used and under-funded Actors' Equity Foundation. This is an organization separate from the union and not in any way funded by union dues that could be used to bring this about.  Right now, we have periodic seminars and workshops that spring up when we can cobble them together.  I have taught a few. We could use more.

• Access to work. Equity Principal Audition and Equity Chorus Calls (EPA/ECCs) Agent Access Auditions (AAAs) are all programs that people are getting real work from. The former has grown in value due to vigorous contract enforcement. The latter is a result of our quite good relations with talent agents that we have nurtured over many years.  Organizing new work is vital.  There are two methods: top down and bottom up. Our preferred method is top down - we bargain with an employer who agrees to engage in collective bargaining with Equity.  Bottom up - organizing stage managers and actors to unionize is often not practical. By the time a vote to unionize is taken the show either closes or is abandoned by the producer.  But one form of bottom up organizing we can do is to go to areas where there is a non-union acting community and teach the value of Equity work and offer support. We will never be rid of non-union theatre, and indeed there is a place for it, but we can make Equity work the thing to aspire to.

It is vital to make ourselves available to the Membership.  This is why I have this blog.  This is why I make my email address available to any AEA member who wants it.  Questions? Comments?  Hit me back.

AEA Council Man On The Street Video

The ACTogether people who sponsored the Meet The Candidates event at the Players Club in NYC last week, made this man-on-the-street video, which is quite fun and in which you can see some of the candidates (including me) in action, rather than just our black and white still photos in Equity News. (NB: To the Snark Factory - no bad hair day jokes, OK?)