204
« 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.
Show Posts
