« Nikki Busted Again Shilling for Membership First | Campaign Watch: Unite for Strength’s Ken Howard Blasts Membership First “Fuzzy Math” Push Poll - updated »

Negotiations/Campaign Watch: The Push Poll IS a Trojan! - updated!

In an astonishing admission, SAG’s Director of Governance has reportedly admitted that the postcard push poll on TV-Theatrical is not a secret ballot, and is a way for the union to track by name each member who votes against the Allens’ campaign to avoid a direct ratification vote on the “last, best and final” offer of the AMPTP. Each postcard sent to a member has a unique bar code that the union has tabbed to the member’s name, and if a member returns the vote, the union brass will have complete access to exactly how you voted.

Here’s the report from one of the regular contributors to this blog - we know his name, even though he chooses to post under a screen name (VoiceGuy).

This morning I placed a call to Integrity Voting Systems to find out some answers about the bar codes on these postcards. I was only able to leave a voicemail message. After several hours had passed I assumed that my inquiry must have been passed on to SAG for response. I was right.

at 3:45 PM today I received a telephone call from Michelle Bennett of SAG, whose title is National Director of Governance. She said she was returning my call to Integrity Voting Systems.

Here is what she told me, as best as I can reconstruct it. I asked her to let me repeat it for her to verify that I had it accurately recorded, but she refused and cut the call short.

1. The bar code is unique. It is not the SAG membership number per se, but it is uniquely associated with that member. It also shows whether the member belongs to the Hollywood Division, the NY Division, or the Regional Branch Division.

2. Repeatedly throughout the conversation Ms. Bennett stated “this is not a secret ballot,” therefore the secret ballot procedures do not apply.

3. Each member’s vote will be tallied BY NAME. In other words, a record WILL be made of who voted yes and who voted no. This information will be available to “authorized staff members” at SAG. It will not be made public (that’s the “confidentiality” assurance from the flyer).

4. So, I asked, in other words, if I send in the card and vote “no,” there will be a record available to SAG staff that I submitted that vote? Answer: Yes.

5. So, if someone said, “Give me a list of everyone in the New York division who voted ‘yes,’ that list could be compiled easily?” Answer: Yes. But why would a staff person want to make such a list, she asked.

6. “Suppose Alan Rosenberg walked in and said, ‘Give me a list of everyone who voted to accept the AMPTP offer on this postcard,’” I asked. Answer: He could not get it, because we don’t give member information out to other members.

7. “All right, then,” I asked, “suppose Doug Allen walked in and asked for that list? He’s the boss, right?” Answer: Long silence. Then: “I don’t want to deal with hypothetical questions.”

Again, many repetitions of “this is not a secret ballot” and “the Guild will maintain the confidentiality of this information.”

Why, I asked, couldn’t the cards be processed to determine validity, and to perhaps run statistics as to how many people in each division responded, without making a record of how each person voted? No good answer.

I told her that based on this information, I was not inclined to send in the card, and I suspected a lot of other people would feel the same way. Who? she asked. People I tell about this. At that point she cut the call short, refused to let me summarize what I had heard to make sure I had gotten it correctly, and declared that any further communication on this would have to be in writing.

So, there you have it. It is a Trojan Horse, and there is potential for each person’s vote to be known by an unknown circle of people within SAG. I told her that I thought members deserved to know this in connection with deciding whether to respond. She disagrees.

–

UPDATE: Steve Diamond writes on Vallywood that the Allens have tried this kind of stunt before:

This is akin to a voice vote in a public arena, something that federal labor law has outlawed for many decades when it comes to union organizing elections.

This will further undermine the claim that the vote has any legal or political significance. This is unfortunate for SAG because if the leadership is attempting to use the vote to demonstrate greater backing for their delaying strategy at the bargaining table this is not a very good way to do that.

But of course SAG’s MF leaders are even more nervous that the the membership would accept the offer in light of their failed “go it alone” strategy.

So one explanation for the bar code approach is that it serves to decrease the likelihood that union dissenters will vote thus artificially increasing the illusion of support for Membership First.

This recalls the use of union staffers to bolster the rally organized by SAG to interfere with the ratification vote of their sister union, AFTRA.

This entry was posted on September 3, 2008 at 17:47 and is filed under SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print

29 Responses to “Negotiations/Campaign Watch: The Push Poll IS a Trojan! - updated!”

  1. Dr. Giggles says:
    September 3, 2008 at 17:55

    Does this surprise anyone? This is what I’ve been saying for days …. and, as per what I know to be a reliable source - the bar coding was not part of the postcard approaved at the Emergency Nat’l Board meeting - it was added post-mortem.

    MF - it’s good to be king.

  2. dayplayer says:
    September 3, 2008 at 19:10

    I agree with the suggestion that we cut out the bar code, this is an outrage. But SAG would only report those as ruined ballots - so I think we should draw in a new box marked: “Dont Trust SAG Leaders” check that box and mail it to the AMPTP.

  3. dayplayer says:
    September 3, 2008 at 19:12

    I just did exactly that:

    AMPTP
    15301 Ventura Boulevard
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

  4. vested says:
    September 3, 2008 at 19:35

    Dr. Giggles -
    You’re right. I was in the room for that “emergency” (read, “SAG’s screwed up royally so now they’ll spend a bloody fortune to fly NB members across the country so they can sit in two rooms and look at each other on big TV screens and listen to the Allens talk on aud nauseum about how much AFTRA sucks”) meeting . The barcode and its implications were never mentioned. I think it’s safe to say that the NB members - at least those not of the MF stripe - simply assumed that the same precautions and protocol would be followed with this vote as has been followed with every previous balloted vote in SAG’s history; that is, the voters are anonymous, per labor law.
    So now the question becomes, what to do with the frigging card. How you vote - or how you otherwise fold/spindle/mutilate the card - “can and will be used against you.”

    Holy crap. Or should I say, “Wholly crap.”

  5. Marc Baron says:
    September 3, 2008 at 20:16

    Vested & Dr. G - I was also in the room during the Emergency Appendectomy and there was no mention of any coding.

    At different meeting, where the flyer content was vetted (I hate that overused word), I asked what measures were taken to be sure that no one could send in bogus or duplicate cards…and was told there would have some simple coding …and I kick myself HARD for not asking what information the coding would or would not have. Sorry, I dropped that ball, not that my query would have made a difference.

    It shouldn’t matter that this is a survey and not an official vote - members should have the right to make their ‘mark’ without making it a ‘brand’….and they should have been told exactly what is in the code.

  6. Voiceguy says:
    September 3, 2008 at 20:46

    I don’t understand why SAG needs to compile the information as to how people individiually voted. They should instruct Integrity Voting Systems not to send that personally identifiable information to SAG. I can’t think of any legitimate purpose for anyone at SAG to know what vote a particular member submitted.

    VG

  7. fried says:
    September 4, 2008 at 04:53

    Where was the disclaimer that read: SAG EXECS WILL BE ABLE TO KNOW HOW YOU PERSONALLY VOTED. Wasn’t the use of the address of Integrity Election Systems misleading, since the average member would assume his identity was protected.

    We need an injunction that prohibits revealing any names. Give them the count and that’s all.

  8. david cooper says:
    September 4, 2008 at 06:24

    My postcard says “The confidentiality of your response will be maintained.” So I guess you’re saying “confidential” has a different meaning than “secret”. I agree that if it allows compilation of a list of members who need “education” then I won’t be returning mine.

  9. vested says:
    September 4, 2008 at 07:38

    VG -
    SAG doesn’t ‘need’ to know who voted how; they are overreaching their authority to help themselves to this information “because they can.” Who’s stopping them? Somebody needs to, and soon. Things are going from mean-dog nutz to actually bona fide cruel and deliberate abuse of members’ rights.

    I think this stunt is probably illegal, particularly in light of the fact that the general membership will no doubt assume that their vote will be as anonymous as all previous balloted votes have been. THERE IS NO DISCLAIMER!

    And the disingenuous and misleading line of “The confidentiality of your vote will be maintained” is not full disclosure. Full disclosure would have been to say, “While all votes will be recorded by name, the confidentiality of your vote will be maintained.”
    That’s still bogus, because who believes the second part of THAT line?

    What they’ve chosen to print on the card is a carefully selected load of crap that is meant to make members think that their vote is, as always, anonymous.

  10. Dr. Giggles says:
    September 4, 2008 at 07:48

    Here’s one example how the information could be used> They could announce that some particular board member(s) voted a certain way on the survey - and ask “is that who you want to represent you?” during an election.

    It is entirely possble, but not probable, that the information will not be used at all. But confidences are always broken by MF releasing board actions to Nikki Finke minutes after they happen. Would you like to see a list of names and their votes on Nikki Finke’s blog?

    We’re entiteld to a confidential vote. When people know their vote is being watched they may not vote the same as if it were truly secret.

    It affects the outcome. Thr push=poll gets an extra push.

  11. Voiceguy says:
    September 4, 2008 at 08:15

    I sent the following e-mail to Michelle Bennett yesterday at 4:39 PM. I have not received any response.

    ————

    Michelle –

    Thank you for taking time to speak to me about my questions to Integrity Voting Systems concerning the confidentiality of the postcards that SAG members are being asked to return, indicating their views on the current TV/Theatrical negotiations.

    These are the questions about the postcards that I left for Ian Morrison of Integrity Voting Systems:

    1. Are they individually personalized?

    2. Will any compilation be made that associates a person’s identity with the way they voted?

    3. If so, who will have access to it? How long will it be maintained?

    4. What steps, if any, will be taken to prevent unauthorized access to such compilation?

    I believe you answered most of them, although part of the second question remains unanswered. Because you declined to let me summarize my understanding in our telephone call, but insisted that I communicate from now on by e-mail, here is my understanding from our conversation:

    1. Are they individually personalized?

    Yes. The bar code contains an identifying number that is not the member’s SAG ID number but is uniquely associated with that member. The bar code also contains information about whether the member is in the Hollywood, New York, or Regional Branch Division.

    2. Will any compilation be made that associates a person’s identity with the way they voted?

    Yes. The votes will be tallied by name. In other words, if I vote “yes,” a record will be made that that’s how I voted.

    3. If so, who will have access to it? How long will it be maintained?

    “Authorized SAG staff” will have access to it. You declined to say which actual staff members this refers to. We did not discuss the issue of how long this compiled information would be maintained.

    4. What steps, if any, will be taken to prevent unauthorized access to such compilation?

    You indicated that SAG staff members are subject to preexisting confidentiality obligations and expressed confidence that the information would not be made public.

    Elsewhere in our conversation, I asked, What if Alan Rosenberg came in and asked for a list of every member who voted a certain way? You stated that he would not be allowed to receive such a list, as he is a SAG member and members are not given access to other members’ information.

    I then asked, What if Doug Allen came in and asked for such a list? Eventually you declined to answer this question on the grounds that it was “hypothetical.”

    It is my view, which I made clear in our telephone conversation, that there is no legitimate reason for SAG to compile and maintain information on how the individual members have voted on this postcard. It does not serve any valid purpose from the standpoint of verifying that legitimate postcards are being tallied; that process could be carried out by IVS without revealing individual member votes to SAG.

    It is also my view that the level of SAG’s disclosure to members about how their votes will be tallied, and the fact that their individual votes will be recorded, compiled, and made available to SAG staff, is totally inadequate.

    I understand that this is not a formal election and that secret ballot procedures are not in effect. Nonetheless, I think it is a disservice to SAG members to depart so drastically from secret ballot procedures, by tallying their votes by name, when there is no conceivable legitimate reason to do so.

    In my opinion, SAG should reconsider this unwise decision, and let members know. The votes should not be tallied by name. The bar codes should be used only to validate cards, and perhaps to run statistics on how many responses came from which division (and any other appropriate aggregate statistics). However, this work should be done by IVS and personally identifiable information should not be released to SAG. Then, the valid cards should be tallied anonymously.

    You obviously disagree with my view. You obviously win in terms of how things will be handled. However, I retain the ultimate choice of declining to send in a card.

    Thanks again for your time.

    VG

  12. goforit says:
    September 4, 2008 at 08:45

    i really don’t care if they know how i voted…come on guys…

    just vote for them to take the deal and stand proud of your vote.

    actually, how can it be used against us if we vote to take the deal? the allens don’t hire us, the producers do.

    i say send it back and have the “sane” board members make a stink about the bar codes i should think something in the constitution may have been breached and i think it’s time for these guys to pay for trampling our rights as members..

  13. vested says:
    September 4, 2008 at 08:48

    Voiceguy,
    I look forward to seeing any response you may get from Michelle Bennett … but I’m not holding my breath. You might want to copy Duncan Crabtree-Ireland on what you’ve sent Michelle Bennett. He’s SAG legal, and he will no doubt get back to you. At least that’s been my experience.
    His email address: dci@sag.org

  14. Voiceguy says:
    September 4, 2008 at 09:31

    Done.

    The important thing is that if I receive NO response to my e-mail to Michelle Bennett, it confirms that I correctly understood what she was saying. I have a high level of confidence that I did in any case, but it’s nice to have corroboration.

    VG

  15. Neil Hassman says:
    September 4, 2008 at 09:43

    VG - Thank you thank you thank you!!! What a yeoman, selfless effort on your part to clarify and define this ridiculous postcard poll. I have tasked each of my 20 clients to read your posts and in turn task 3 friends to do the same, then they task 3 of each of their friends…..and so on. You’ve modestly, yet brilliantly, provided a most definitive beginnings of a groundswell!!!

    And - GoForIt has a really strong point - send the card in with your “take the deal” vote and stand tall in doing so. Enough of a turnout and not only will this send a clear message, but coupled with the impending UFS majority, serious actions can then be started against those who perpetrated this push-pull “hoax”. (And enough people standing up and doing this will silence, or at least limit, any vindictive reprisals). I, too, believe the SAG constitution must have something in it disallowing this type of vote sans confidentiality. In addition, the flyer the postcard’s attached to is very, very thinly veiled electioneering, which is definitely not allowed when done this way (under the “Education” guise) during an election.

    (Ok, now back into anonymity, I promise…I’m really trying…I was even starting to bore me…).

  16. Brian McCabe says:
    September 4, 2008 at 10:16

    I don’t like the “take the deal” option, mostly because the deal needs to be altered (and can be) in key areas. The truth is the poll meant nothing before, as it’s a push poll. It now means even less. The AMPTP is not going to look at the results and fear a strike. The poll will not and does not show whether the membership is willing to give strike authorization. I say don’t send it back.

    Membership First: because the Enemy List worked so well for Nixon

  17. Dr. Giggles says:
    September 4, 2008 at 10:34

    Because this is puch-poll is a ’survey’ and not a ‘vote’ the confidentiality issue gets by-passed. However, you can bet the farm, no matter what the result, it will be spun, spun, spun….like the victory over the AFTRA contract vote…..this is their specialty, spin….the identity of voters names may be used against thme, if it serves the politics. And damn the timing, of course it’s electioneering……

    I have heard many members rections and what they plan to do.

    Some will toss out the postcard…some will vote their minds, some will check off both boxes, some will altar the bar code by marking it up, or cutting out a piece …. Some are writing in commecnts such as “Get a mediator”…or “Stop wasting SAG funds”…or something else. Surley any card that is not simply a checked box will not be counted.
    See, the thing of it is, they want your opinion they way they want it, any other opinion doesn’t matter.

  18. Mike says:
    September 4, 2008 at 11:24

    What a bunch of nuts.

    Do you actually believe Doug Allen is going to associate the bar codes with names?

    If you believe that, you really need help. What, pray tell, will Mr. Allen do with this “Enemy List”

    Some of you anti MFers are freaking out. This usually happens when a group, like this group of SAGwatch commenters, doesn’t hear enough opposing views. Opinions spiral out of control. You all sound crazy.

  19. Voiceguy says:
    September 4, 2008 at 13:55

    The bar codes ARE being associated with names already. That’s what Michelle Bennett told me.

    If there’s no reason for Doug Allen or anyone else to misuse this list, why create it in the first place?

    There is simply no legitimate reason for the compilation to be made. And there are too many opportunities for mischief.

    People who vote on things like this expect that their votes will be totaled and the results announced as aggregate numbers. They don’t expect that any SAG staff member can punch a button and look up how each member voted.

    Sorry, but I’m not changing my view on the utter impropriety of secretly making this a roll-call vote.

    And the fact that no one from SAG has communicated with me any further on this suggests that SAG itself is struggling to develop an explanation that is even remotely plausible.

    VG

  20. Rik Deskin says:
    September 4, 2008 at 14:09

    Our suspicions are not unfounded. The list of the amount of member rights abused continues to grow, thanks to the Mfers.

  21. Brian McCabe says:
    September 4, 2008 at 14:18

    Mike:

    I don’t know the intentions behind the barcode. I know it’s possible to tally the votes without knowing who voted what. So, why set it up to know which way every vote is cast if you don’t intend to use that list?

    I’m willing to hear the rationale behind the decision.

    p.s. the “enemy list” was a joke.

  22. vested says:
    September 4, 2008 at 14:25

    The decision, made in the dark, and withheld from the membership and elected leaders across the country, smacks of The Caine Mutiny, with Allen in the role of Lt. Cmdr. Queeg.

    And the issue is not specifically that SAG will have the votes recorded by member name (a first in SAG history, and illegal in referendums, per Federal labor law).
    There are other issues in play here:

    One of the issues is that SAG not only failed to, but refused to inform the membership of how the votes would be recorded … choosing instead to print a misleading reassurance on the card: “you vote will be kept confidential.”

    Another issue is that this decision to record votes by name was not made by National Directors. “Someone,” “somewhere” made the decision without so much of a “whaddya think?” to the National Board or even the NEC. If this were supposed to be a dictatorship, or a corporation run by one man, that’s one thing. But in unions, which are protected by Federal law and are designed to function with “little d democracy” that’s an approach that’s patently verboten.

    And finally, the facts of how the votes are being tabulated were “outted” on the SAGwatch site by a poster who took it upon him/herself to find out for certain what the dynamics were regarding the bar code. If that had not happened, we’d still be in the dark … which might be fine with some.

    As far as I’m concerned, I want my membership fully informed on things that are happening in this union, including how their votes are being recorded. Then – once they know the facts – they can make a truly educated decision.

    The group currently in power ran on a platform of “members first” and “transparency.” The trouble is, what has become patently transparent is their refusal to be candid and up front with members. They have usurped member rights nationally and with broad strokes; they have isolated elected leaders from those who elected them, so that the general memberships across the country cannot hear candid opinions from their local leaders on anything.

    And yes, Doug Allen will do whatever he wants to; he’s done that throughout his professional career, which has become his sordid hallmark.

    If there were no plan to use or at the very least observe how each member voted, why structure the bar code to record each member’s name? That has never been done in the history of SAG, so is a “new approach.”

    Does anyone here want to predict what “someone” wants with that information? Given Doug Allen’s unilateral and arbitrary decision making practices, members are wise to exercise caution and to demand complete information. Then, when it comes to the push poll card, do what you want to … knowing all the facts.

    It’s that simple.

  23. david cooper says:
    September 4, 2008 at 15:41

    Ah, gee, Vested, I was with you right up to “sordid”. Your presentation and reason are plenty.

  24. Mike says:
    September 4, 2008 at 15:42

    If you haven’t noticed, Steve Diamond who used to weigh in with somber analysis befitting an unbiased academic, is posting what seem to be more and more unsubstatiated anti MF rants.

    If Mr. Diamond really believes what he is posting, his reputation which he seem to value, is in jeopardy. He sounds desperate and kinda nuts, yet he doesn’t seem to realize it. This lack of self awareness is an ominous sign.

    He, as well as many SAGwatch commenters, is beginning to sound more and more unhinged.

    New visitors to this site who have not benefited to the incremental (which causes this group psychosis to be less obvious to regulars) decent into madness, that 90% of the commenter seem to subject to, will think they have stumbled upon an online loony bin full of paranoid kooks!

    With sincere concern,

    Mike

    –

    Ed. Response - Sincere? Right…

  25. Brian McCabe says:
    September 4, 2008 at 16:43

    Mike:

    Nice bait and switch.

    And great response on why the poll is being conducted the way it’s being conducted. Call the concerned people crazy and leave it at that!!

    Membership First: Why be honest when you can be evasive?

  26. Steve Diamond says:
    September 4, 2008 at 21:47

    Mike,

    Who would have thought Doug would cross a picket line and a picket line manned by OJ Simpson for chrissakes or that his pride and joy, Players Inc would be sued for diverting millions of dollars out of the pocket of deserving retired players in order to help pay the late Gene Upshaw $7,000,000.00 a year?

    Now that’s a union salary worth writing home about, eh?

    So who knows what he plans to do with the names but why let staff decide such things? Didn’t Membership First get elected to put the Membership “First”? That was certainly a principle I was firmly committed to when talking to the Guild.

    And to think Alan Rosenberg wanted to see SAG pay the same kind of salary they paid the late Gene Upshaw, out of the pockets of thousands of hard working SAG members.

    If my thinking about SAG has evolved it is only because the marvelous enthusiasm and energy I encountered when meeting with SAG in 2006 has been frittered away on sectarian infighting by an isolated union leadership that has no idea how to get the union out of the deep hole it now has dug.

    Steve Diamond

  27. vested says:
    September 5, 2008 at 07:39

    Mr. Cooper,
    Re: post #23.
    I’m using the term “sordid” with the following (researched) definitions in mind: “morally degraded; mercenary; lacking in integrity.”
    I take no pleasure in using it, but Mr. Diamond’s post above supports the accuracy of its usage.
    Feel free to disagree.
    V.

  28. Pithy Monniker says:
    September 5, 2008 at 11:15

    I am a seven-year member of SAG and of AFTRA, struggling through it like the rest of us, and have stayed out of the politics for the most part. What I see happening here, however, is very troubling.

    Below is an e-mail I sent to the Powers that Be back in June, regarding the AFTRA contract. Thereafter, the recorded phone calls started coming in after midnight. I am not saying there is a connection, as I am sure they are honorable men - but there are definitely some troubling politics at play, which seem to be more geared towards a popularity contest rather than the best interests of the membership. This new round of opinion polling harkens to McCarthy, and I wholeheartedly oppose it.

    Along these lines, I am especially sickened by people who log on as sock puppets to try to discount valid membership concerns by calling people crazy. Mike, maybe you could make your own argument rather than stooping to name-calling? This is a union of actors. We all work our asses off. Assuming a modicum of intelligence, please use this board as a place for discussion instead of as a forum for antics best suited for backstage mothers.

    Finally, for your energy, work and passion, I salute all of you who have the courage to dissent rather than just lying back, thinking of England.

    Thank you.

    ————————–
    Dear Alan and Doug:

    I have received several unsolicited e-mails and automatic recordings to my personal e-mail and telephone numbers asking me to vote “no” on the upcoming AFTRA contract. I found it interesting at the time that I had received no similar notifications urging me to vote “yes,” though I am aware that the NY SAG Board is for the contract’s ratification. I, along with thousands of other East Coast actors, am a member in good standing of both unions, and stand by the recommendations of the NY Board.

    I have since found that New York SAG representatives were denied access to my contact information during this time, which has, instead, been summarily used by West Coast SAG representatives to promote a biased agenda. I have a right to receive correspondence from the SAG officials I elected.

    I am outraged that these sort of low politics are taking place within my own union.

    Life out there is difficult enough without this sort of back door, petty posturing. I am an intelligent individual, a dues-paying member, and stay informed enough to make my own decisions; you must understand that there are legions of union members who do not agree with the agenda of the West Coast ranks, and, as we are still a democratic organization (though by your actions I do begin to question this), I am appalled and outraged that this has gone on under your watch and/or approval.

    Please take the time to look at your actions and agendas.
    They certainly don’t meet with my approval.

    I urge you to give the New York SAG Board the same access to contact information that you yourselves have been so enjoying.

  29. vested says:
    September 5, 2008 at 16:27

    These are the facts:

    Those currently in control at SAG have been extremely efficient, passionate and dedicated to eliminating any opportunity for members to hear any position other than that of the current majority. This is in direct contravention of union member rights.
    SAG has now made it absolutely impossible - in fact it is officially forbidden - for locally elected leaders or national directors to have contact information of those whom they represent. Also, those elected are not allowed to let the membership they represent know how to contact THEM!

    From what I have been able to research, these are blatant violations of labor law.

    Shop stewards - which is what elected members of unions like SAG/AFTRA/AEA are - are entitled by Federal law to speak freely with their members without fear of retribution or intimidation.

    In turn, the union membership population is guaranteed access to all sides of an issue so that they may make an informed decision in matters affecting their work and their union.

    It’s the whole “speaking truth to power” principle that has keep organized labor from going completely over a cliff.

    As you can see, SAG is currently ‘careening,’ and the cliff is fast approaching.

Leave a Reply