July 31, 2008 by admin.

$257,345.22. That, we’re told is the near final, if not final, total of your dues dollars spent by the Allens in their failed anti-Exhibit A campaign. As in more than 40% more than they told the NEC it would cost, and 250% more than the Allens are telling everyone they spent.

$257,345.22.

For what?

–

Update: Here’s something that may make blood boil all nationwide. The Allens are claiming the cost of the campaign “really” was only $104,897.91, and that’s what they’re telling anyone who will listen.

Where’s the other $152,000+? The Allens “official” cost doesn’t include any expense for the Town Hall Meetings in Hollywood or videoconferences held with the RBD. Those were buried under a line item called “education and outreach.” That’s $46,840.56.

“High Profile member outreach” is said to have cost $4,044.32. But you won’t find that in the Allens’ cost accounting either. That’s hidden in “negotiation expenses.”

Here’s the full breakdown we were sent:

“Negotiation Communications/Education and Outreach”
Mailing: $26,489.93
Video website messages: $687.71
High profile member outreach: $4,044.32
Town Hall meetings/videoconferences: $46,840.56
Advertising: $43,607.10
Public relations firm:
(claims no work on “No” campaign) $30,000.00
Press conference at AMPTP: $777.70

Total left out of “official” expenses: $152,447.31

Now, here’s what the Allens included in their accounting of what they spent.

“Vote No on AFTRA Contract Education & Outreach Expenses”
June 9 rally SAG HQ $1,674.38
Printing: $76,672.61
Automated calls: $9,038.73
Advertising: $15,054.50
Consulting:
June/July - Sheara Reich $1,500.00
Phone banking: $56.77
Videotaping “NO” messages: $900.92

Admitted Total: $104,897.91

–

Update: For another view, take a look at the letter Anthony DeSantis sent us.

Posted in SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 11 Comments »

July 31, 2008 by admin.

This was forwarded to us today, originally from Ned Vaughn and Amy Brennerman.

–

From: Ned Vaughn & Amy Brenneman <info@uniteforstrength.com>
Date:  Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:05:29 -0700
To: SAG Members <info@uniteforstrength.com>
Subject: Unite for Strength: SAG Members Committed to Change

Fellow SAG members,
 
Earlier this year, over 1500 of us petitioned SAG leadership to institute affected member voting on the TV/theatrical contract because we believed it would increase the guild’s leverage going into the negotiation. As we’ve already written you, the leadership dismissed our proposal without discussion, with some even questioning our motives.
 
But that was a tiny misstep compared to their strategy for dealing with our sister union in the run-up to negotiations. Instead of joining forces so we could confront our employers from a position of maximum strength, our leadership went on the attack against AFTRA. Here’s how Sally Field described it in a letter to SAG members:
 
“This spring, with the most important contract negotiation in years pending, the board – or more accurately, Membership First, which is the faction that 49 of 55 Hollywood board members belong to – decided to go to war with AFTRA, our sister union. They threatened to terminate the longstanding practice of jointly negotiating the TV/Theatrical contract and launched an assault on AFTRA in the press, with one Membership First board member going so far as to call AFTRA “a scumbag union.”
 
“Ultimately, they were forced to abandon their referendum threatening to end joint negotiation after receiving a storm of criticism from SAG members that doing so would weaken our position at the bargaining table. But the hostility toward AFTRA continued, and AFTRA ultimately decided it couldn’t trust SAG enough to negotiate the contract together.
 
“And so here we are, negotiating on our own with diminished leverage against a united front of media conglomerates.”
 
We believe actors deserve better. We don’t want to face the same situation again when we negotiate the commercials contract this fall – or any other contract. Too much is at stake. That’s why we and 29 colleagues are running for seats in the SAG board election next month. Our goal is to end Membership First’s control of the board so we can put the Guild on a different path – toward greater unity and strength. If our slate is elected, we’ll end the senseless infighting with AFTRA and instead move to merge our two unions. We’ll work tirelessly to ensure that when we negotiate with our employers in the future, all performers will stand united – not divided into two warring camps.
 
We’ll also work to solve a host of other problems that plague our union, such as fiscal mismanagement, divisiveness between Hollywood and the New York and Regional Branch Divisions, and the lack of any serious effort to negotiate an agreement with our agents, which has left members completely unprotected. (For more on our platform, see our website: www.UniteforStrength.com .)
 
But first we need your help to get elected. Membership First is well organized and well funded, but we’ve assembled a great team of candidates to challenge them. What we need right now is money to help us spread our message to other members. Our time is volunteered, but there are significant expenses attached to such a campaign. For example, the cost of mailing to over 50,000 Hollywood Division members will be enormous. If you agree that SAG needs new leadership and needs it now, please visit www.UniteforStrength.com to make as generous a contribution as you can.
 
With respect and thanks,
 
Ned Vaughn & Amy Brenneman
 
On behalf of the Unite for Strength candidates:
Adam Arkin
Michelle Allsopp
Edoardo Ballerini
Bob Bergen
L. Scott Caldwell
Gabrielle Carteris
William Charlton
Assaf Cohen
Ashley Crow
Tim DeKay
Fred Fein
Googy Gress
Dulé Hill
Ken Howard
Clyde Kusatsu
Matt Letscher
John Carroll Lynch
Anthony Molinari
Pamela Reed
Doug Savant
Bill Smitrovich
Richard Speight, Jr.
Mandy Steckelberg
Keith Szarabajka
Steve Tom
Stacey Travis
Tom Verica
Marcia Wallace
Kate Walsh

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 1 Comment »

July 30, 2008 by Editor.

He was hired in January 2004 to serve as then NED Bob Pisano’s Assistant NED for Administration and Finance. Like Pisano, a former studio exec, Peter Frank replaced Francesca Hickson, who left in the fallout of the failed 2003 AFTRA merger campaign.

In 2005, Frank would become the interim SAG NED when Greg Hessinger was dumped as part of a Membership First-led bloodbath in which several former AFTRA execs were purged from the SAG executive ranks. After current NED Doug Allen was hired, Frank  reportedly negotiated a golden parachute in 2005 when Doug Allen was hired and Frank was returned to the CFO spot.

At that time, Alan Rosenberg wrote, “I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the entire hard-working SAG staff and interim National Executive Director Peter Frank for keeping the Guild on track and productive over the last year. Peter will work closely with Doug Allen, and we are very lucky to have him as a senior executive.”

Now, suddenly, only days after the the SAG budget projections were suddenly “revised” with a $10.5 million change, and with rumors swirling, the CFO is no longer listed on the SAG website as an executive. Though the SAG website search index shows Peter Frank as being listed on the Executive Staff page, if you click the link, it gives you an error message.

There has been no official announcement from SAG. Peter Frank’’s LinkedIn page still shows him working at SAG as Deputy NED.

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 1 Comment »

July 30, 2008 by admin.

Clocks. Two of them, on their homepage. One counting up the dollars the producers say SAG members are losing in pay raises by working under the expired TV-Theatrical contract. It’s approaching $7 million as of this writing.

The other clock counts the days and hours since the expiration of the contract, saying that new media productions are being produced each hour and day under which SAG members don’t get residuals, while other unions do, because SAG members haven’t agreed to the new contract.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | No Comments »

July 30, 2008 by Editor.

As predicted, Membership First is already accusing Unite for Strength of “lying” about the suddenly changed budget projection the Allens announced for SAG, an overnight swing from a $6.5 million deficit to a $4 million surplus, announced just in time for the election campaign.

After calling us “scumbags” for publicizing and questioning the instant and oh-so-fortunate-for Membership First revision of the budget projection, Membership First director Steven Barr attacked Unite for Strength (incorrectly, if perhaps intentionally, calling them “Unite to Merge”). Barr, in a post we linked to (but for which, to read, registration is required) strangely claimed Unite for Strength is “continuing a lie” because in discussing its assertion that Membership First has mismanaged SAG’s money, it hasn’t met Barr’s demand that the group “remove any reference” to the original projection of a $6.5 million dollar deficit.

Only because Barr should know better, we point out that his claim is wildly inaccurate that “The last two years when MF has been in power S.A.G has had surpluses in the 3-4 million dollar range.” The very late filed LM-2 for SAG’s 5/1/2006 - 4/30/2007 reporting year shows a surplus of more than $12 million, which made the swing to a $6.5 million projected loss astonishing.

Even were the downturn to only represent $8 million in the wrong direction, from a $12 million to a newly projected $4 million surplus, it would be a major sign that something in SAG needs immediate attention. But the more cautious among us, to say nothing of the more cynical, still find the quick pre-election budget revision suddenly discovering $10.5 million to be very suspicious.

We note, in postscript, that there is no CFO listed on the SAG website’s current executive staff page. Because we hadn’t checked previously, we can’t say for sure if that’s a change.

–

Update: Unite for Strength candidate Steve Tom has posted a response to the Barr/Membership First claims:

“This is the single mention of the deficit - the one that MF projected, not us - on the Unite For Strength website:

“End mismanagement and bring fiscal responsibility back to SAG. SAG’s coffers were badly depleted by the 2000 Commercials strike, but Membership First successfully fought a needed dues raise, leading to cut-backs in vital services like residuals processing and the monitoring of sets. They proceeded to spend with abandon - on pay-outs to get rid of staff they didn’t like, on the fight to defeat AFTRA’s contract, on weeks and months of stalled negotiations, slick publications, new positions, etc. It’s no surprise that we’re looking at a $6.5 million deficit – and that’s before taking into account lost earnings from the WGA strike and the current slowdown. We’ll get SAG’s fiscal house back in order by streamlining and updating backward and expensive operations like the paper processing of residuals, and stopping the loss of millions from lack of contract enforcement thanks to antiquated reporting methods (both were promised by producers in past negotiations).”

One mention in a single paragraph. Not “time and time again.” Not “hammered”.

Folks, this is the kind of behavior that the United For Strength candidates feel must be eliminated. If you feel this is acceptable, don’t vote for any of us. If, on the other hand, you would like to have a group of people in the boardroom who value truth over sweeping exaggerations and outright falsehoods, please give us a chance to set things right.

Less than three months ago, MF projected the deficit. Now, just in time for the election campaign, we’re suddenly 4 million dollars in the black. Which story is correct, if either? What we heard three months ago is that SAG theatrical income is down because of the writers strike, the defacto lockout and because more and more television work is going to AFTRA. Where did 10 million dollars come from in such a short period of time?

Does this seem odd to anyone? ”

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 6 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by WW.

According to Andrew Salomon in a BlogStage  post, SAG has concluded it wants to extend the Commercials Contract - a decision believed to be the same reached by AFTRA last week. Neither union has held W&WC sessions on Commercials contract proposals.

The post also says the Allens have gone one step further, telling AFTRA that SAG wants to jointly negotiate the contract under the Phase 1 rules, which AFTRA said it suspended earlier this year. The Joint Policy Committee - the management group in commericals - is known to not want to deal with two individual negotiations.

Surprisingly, the post says the request from SAG to negotiate the commercials contract jointly was made in a letter from Doug Allen the day after AFTRA announced its members had ratified the Exhibit A contract, despite the Allens spending an estimated $200,000 in an effort to defeat the AFTRA prime time deal.

Posted in Commercials Contract, SAG Politics, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 3 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by WW.

According to Variety, “The Unite for Strength faction, which is challenging for control of SAG, has endorsed the national board’s stance that the majors’ final offer to the guild is unacceptable.”

Our analysis: The stance would seem a political necessity. Running on the platform of accepting less than Membership First would hand the incumbents a big hammer with which to batter the challengers.

Posted in Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 3 Comments »

July 29, 2008 by admin.

One of the lesser noted points in the weekend board meeting was the discussion of revised budget numbers.

 In a move that qualifies the Allens for national political careers, only three months after projecting a $6.5 million dollar budget deficit, they told the National Board that they’re now, just in time for the election campaign, projecting a $4 million surplus. That’s a $10 million swing in a matter of weeks!

Membership First’s Steven Barr explained in an internet post, “Income and dues payments are looking better than projected while expenses are coming in at less than the projected amounts.” All of which begs the question - were the Allens blowing smoke the first time, or are they blowing smoke now - or both?

It seems incredible that SAG’s fortunes have changed so greatly over so little time, especially given the downturn in SAG theatrical due to the defacto lockout, and the complaints of the Allens that more and more television work is going to AFTRA. Something here doesn’t add up…

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 5 Comments »

July 28, 2008 by WW.

Andrew Salomon takes a look at the weekend board meeting and reaction to it.

Posted in Commercials Contract, SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, SAG-AFTRA | Print | No Comments »

July 27, 2008 by admin.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/pattmorrison/

You’ll need to have Real Player to listen. Here’s the description on the KPCC site:

A move by more than 30 SAG actors to organize and challenge existing leadership may or may not have influence on contract talks. The group, called Unite for Strength, is dissatisfied with SAG president Alan Rosenberg and the progress of the current negotiations. Election results could be announced on September 18, and with the slow pace of negotiations this summer, new leadership might be in place before a contract decision is made.

• Ned Vaughn, spokesman for Unite for Strength. He has been acting for over 20 years in TV and film. He will appear in Ron Howard’s upcoming film “Frost/Nixon.”
• Alan Rosenberg, president of SAG
• Alex Ben Block, senior columnist for Hollywood Today, on the web at hollywoodtoday.net

Our favorite lines: Rosenberg claiming it’s unpatriotic to run against the incumbents because negotiations are underway. We also have to wonder what Rosenberg meant by members “risking their health”  by serving on a negotiating committee.

The strangest line of the interview by far was Rosenberg saying he’s repeatedly offered to AFTRA a way to work together with SAG “in a merged way.” What he mant wasn’t explained in the interview, but presumably what Rosenberg meant was some form of shared services plan, which, of course, isn’t a merger at all.

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 5 Comments »