Author Topic: San Francisco Bay Area general membership meeting  (Read 3380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hbelden

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Experience: Professional
San Francisco Bay Area general membership meeting
« on: Oct 14, 2008, 09:26 am »
I went to the SF meeting last night and woke up at 3:00am thinking about it.  My personal thoughts about the meeting are below.  But first I want to say that, like many union members, I have had only the vaguest idea of how our union actually represents us. 

Anyway, there's a ton of resentment, concern, and even rage in SF about the closing of our satellite office, which has been in place since the '70s.  I felt sorry for Ms. Westerfield, who had more than an earful from all the passionate, articulate speeches about the high-handed manner in which this critical decision was communicated to SF membership.  As the face of AEA for the rank-and-file, she probably felt that a lot of this anger was directed at her personally; and from what I heard, it seemed like many members thought the staff of AEA was responsible for the decision.  I hadn't thought about it, but that's probably what I would have guessed.  One actor in particular had a real desire for John Connolly to personally come out and defend the office closing.  Now that I've read the AEA website, I know it's actually our representatives on the council that made this decision, and they're the ones who owe us an explanation, who need to make the case for closing the office in a way that we can support.

A motion was made, seconded, and passed at our membership meeting, calling on the national office to re-open the San Francisco branch, and to respond to our call in a substantive manner.  (I'm paraphrasing there.)  47 ayes, 3 nays, 3 abstentions.  I voted nay, because I think that AEA's current staffing plan has a much better chance of success than the San Francisco office has had in the last ten years.  However, I fully support the call for more transparency and accountability in the council's actions.

I know how to be a member - file my contracts, pay my dues, obey the agreements - but I didn't know in what manner I was represented by the union.  I've dealt with Business Reps in terms of understanding agreements; as many of you know, I'm often misunderstand the sticky stuff.  Somehow, I never understood the difference between AEA staff positions and council positions.  It's like the staff is separating members from councillors.

The council structure of AEA makes the laws, negotiates agreements, and amends our constitution, with advice from the staff positions; the staff structure executes the day-to-day operations of the union, lobbies with our country's government on our behalf, and deals with press and public.  The council positions are elected and volunteer (i.e., un-paid); the staff positions are hired by the council and are paid.  My question is, how much does the council rely on the staff for information and recommendations?  How much power does staff, in a practical manner, wield in terms of governance? 

I've always been pretty blah about voting in AEA elections, because I never know any of the people who are running (except VSM, through these boards) and I didn't understand what their responsibilities were.  The bios and personal statements in EQUITY NEWS have always been missing something - voting records.  We don't have party affiliations (Republican/Democrat), which are really a shorthand for voting records.  Are my councillors representing my interests?  They may very well be; I'm sure they are; but is there any way I can check?  I can't go to the meetings, I'm in San Francisco.  I always thought that SF-BAAC had a handle on that, but they clearly weren't part of the deliberations about closing our office.  So maybe I should know who's representing me and how to contact them and get a response.

One thing this night has taught me is the desperate need for each union member to become educated about our union and to get involved in the workings of the union.  Like I say to many complaining actors, "It's your union--fix it!"  Now that I have found myself in the position of complaining, I'm going to take my own advice; I'll start sitting in on BAAC meetings and I'll look into committee work.
--
Heath Belden

"I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." - Sondheim
--

centaura

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 405
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Experience: Professional
Re: San Francisco Bay Area general membership meeting
« Reply #1 on: Oct 17, 2008, 09:02 pm »
Thank you for your thoughtful post.  I especially liked your comment:

Quote
"It's your union--fix it!"  Now that I have found myself in the position of complaining, I'm going to take my own advice;

So many folks just want to sit around and complain, when the only way to "fix" things is to get up and do something.  Good for you that you've been inspired to take a step in furthering your own knowledge, and sharing it here.

-Centaura

VSM

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • http://www.vernonwillet.com
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: PSM - Laguna Playhouse
  • Experience: Professional
Re: San Francisco Bay Area general membership meeting
« Reply #2 on: Oct 17, 2008, 09:52 pm »
There is a ton of resentment, concern, and even rage in SF about the closing of our SF office, which is most unfortunate. Ultimately, the decision to open or close any office lies with the Executive Director and his National Staff advisors. The notification to the Bay Area Advisory Committee (BAAC), the Western Regional Board and the National Council were simply courtesies and requests extended to us for comments and reactions. The decision was not ours to make; that decision was the responsibility of Staff. Staff run the business offices because that is what they are hired to do. And the "buck" stops with the Executive. The bottom line is that keeping the SF office open is simply not the most effective use of our national resources. San Francisco is no longer the leading liaison city in terms of work weeks. There are many cities across the country that have an equal or greater numbers of work weeks and these cities are all governed from the 3 major office cities of NY, CHI and LA.

The full resources of the LA office and it's newest Business Rep, dedicated to the Bay Area and it's many areas of growth and participation, will be available to handle the Bay Area and it's contracts - just like the other major cities across the country.

"Are my councilors representing my interests?"
ABSOLUTELY. The committees of AEA are all chaired by councilors. They are peopled by councilors and rank & file members. These meetings are a sight to behold. Open debate is a constant. Pro and Con are ENDLESSLY discussed because we are passionate, concerned individuals that care about changing the workplace where we all make our living. The meetings of the Regional Boards and National Council are where the committee decisions are approved or denied.

An excellent way to make certain that your interests are addressed is to join the process. Make your voice heard in person; how else can AEA know what to do unless we, the members, speak up? I am very pleased to see that you intend to join a committee. We need you. We need every member. Welcome Heath...

Ordo ab chao

hbelden

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Experience: Professional
Re: San Francisco Bay Area general membership meeting
« Reply #3 on: Oct 18, 2008, 02:53 pm »

Thanks for your thoughtful reply; as I meant to say, I'm just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding how our union works. 

Ultimately, the decision to open or close any office lies with the Executive Director and his National Staff advisors. The notification to the Bay Area Advisory Committee (BAAC), the Western Regional Board and the National Council were simply courtesies and requests extended to us for comments and reactions.


This isn't what I heard Ms. Westerfield say at the meeting; I heard her say that decisions like this were made by council/President Zimmerman.  I'm sure that the misunderstanding was on my part: there was a lot of crosstalk and I probably lost the thread of discussion for a while.

And anyone who got that letter from Equity about the office closing would certainly not describe it as a courtesy.  Many of us don't quite understand how technology has leveled our union and made it easier for people in far-flung regions to participate; the comparison of the bay area to other theatre regions, such as Seattle, Dallas, Denver, etc., was not made in a clear manner.  I should stop before I begin putting words in people's mouths, but we feel insulted, frankly, and since it's our own union, betrayed.  The decision was, I'm sure, made in good faith and for the good of the union as a whole; but it definitely was communicated poorly on the ground here in SF.

As I said, I met Bethany Umbach and I think she's going to do a great job as our business rep.  I'm sure she's going to learn the theatres around here well and I hope she lasts longer than our average SF business rep in the last fifteen years has lasted.
--
Heath Belden

"I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." - Sondheim
--

 

riotous