September 14, 2008 by Editor.

Tonight, it goes to the fine folks at the Hollywood Reporter, for their story headlined, “Stakes High in SAG Election.”

Really? We hadn’t noticed.

But if you get past the “duh” stuff, buried inside the article is another slap at the Allens for their transparent claim that they’re continuously engaged in back channel negotiations on the stalled TV-Theatrical contract.

Here’s a chunk from the article:

“With this SAG election looming, it would not make sense for that to be happening because of the uncertainty as to what’s to come next,” said one studio exec.

But MembershipFirst’s Anne-Marie Johnson, who sits on the national board and is a member of the negotiating committee, insists private talks are taking place.

“I have absolutely no idea why there are denials from our employers that any talks are going on,” said Johnson, who is not up for election but who acts as a spokesperson for MembershipFirst. “It’s purely to discredit Doug Allen and SAG and make ourselves out as liars. That type of vilifying isn’t working too well.”

Well, far be it from us to contradict Ann-Marie, but the jury’s still out on that one.

In the back to the obvious department, there’s this from Ned Vaughn of Unite for Strength, and THR’s comment.

Vaughn: “If we were to win every seat available, it’s not like Unite for Strength will own the room. But it will certainly tip the balance on the board.”

UFS could end up as part of a new majority, if national board members from SAG’s New York board and regional boards join with the Vaughn faction. These groups share similar views on the contract talks and the leadership of Allen and Rosenberg.

Posted in SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 31 Comments »

September 14, 2008 by Editor.

The answer seems to be yes, if a post on the Showfax BBS system actually was made by Membership First’s Terrence Beasor, who frequently posts there under his own name. 

This is the post we’re talking about (the formatting may not work perfectly):

Terrence Beasor
Board Regular

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 547
Location: Los Angeles CA 

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Most of the votes are in.
Tom Ligon wrote:
I agree with Ken, that we would have a stronger viable deal on the table today if AFTRA and SAG had bargained together.

No, Tom. If AFTRA and SAG had bargained together, AFTRA would have taken the deal they did and a few timid New York and RBD members would have sided with AFTRA giving them the majority and we would be stuck with the AFTRA contract that does not contain residuals.

I KNOW! I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT.

Ask Sam Freed, who voted twice to turn down the AMPTP, and then waffled on the third vote. Ultimately he was shamed into voting with the majority making our response to the AMPTP unanimous.

I KNOW! I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT. 

—

Contrary to his claim, Beasor wasn’t at or anywhere near the AFTRA Exhibit A negotiations. But that’s not the part of the post that has us stunned.In the post, Beasor openly discusses the way a negotiating committee member voted.

“Ask Sam Freed, who voted twice to turn down the AMPTP, and then waffled on the third vote. Ultimately he was shamed into voting with the majority making our response to the AMPTP unanimous.

I KNOW! I WAS THERE, YOU WERE NOT.“   

Publicly discussing how another committee member voted and why?  As another member posted in response: “one who publicly discusses personalities - particularly votes - that took place in negotiations - true or false - breaches the sworn confidentiality paper they signed and they are a traitor to the guild. You signed one.”

 –

Update: Some time after our post, the Showfax post by Beasor was edited to delete the paragraph about Sam Freed. The Showfax page says the edit was made by Beasor himself. But- we have the original before the edit, courtesy of someone who thought to make a screen capture.

Posted in Commercials Contract, SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 27 Comments »

September 14, 2008 by WW.

It was a story that appeared, then disappeared from the Variety website. Now it’s back again!

According to the story SAG is entering into settlement discussions on the Ken Osmond lawsuit. That’s the one accusing SAG of hanging onto foreign tax refunds that belong to members, money the lawsuit says SAG shouldn’t be collecting in the first place.

It also brought out the embarrassing story of SAG holding tens of millions in residuals that it collected on behalf of some very prominent members, then never paid to the members, claiming that they can’t be found. All told the union may be holding more than $33 million that doesn’t belong to it.

What’s worse, some claim that SAG has no right to even collect the money. Here’s a link to the hard to manuever site screenrights.net - its operator Eric Hughes says SAG signed a secret agreement with the AMPTP under which the Guild collects the money, but is supposed to pay it out.

The story quotes SAG chief lawyer Duncan Crabtree-Ireland as defending the union for being unable to find more than 66,000 people it owes the money, including, among others Mick Jagger, Nancy Reagan, Michael Dukakis and the heirs of former President John F. Kennedy. About the lawsuit he’s quoted as saying “While we believe this litigation is unnecessary and regrettable, and we intend to vigorously defend it, we are also engaged in good-faith discussions with plaintiff’s counsel to attempt to resolve their concerns without the need for further litigation.”

Here’s the strange thing. The story went up on the Variety website at about 3:43 PM LA time. It was gone again 15 minutes later, and reappeared a number of hours after that. We don’t know why.

But given, SAG’s thinly disguised operating deficit, with the union, under Membership First, spending tens of millions more per year than it collects in dues, the question of where the extra money is coming from seems more pertinent than ever.

Posted in SAG Politics, Union Politics, Media Business | Print | 16 Comments »

September 14, 2008 by Editor.

With the hours dwindling before the deadline to mail ballots in the SAG elections, there’s a last minute charge from Membership First stalwart Anthony DeSantis against Unite for Strength’s Ned Vaughn. Since it’s so late in the game, it’s drawn less attention that it might otherwise, but here’s the back and forth, and what we’ve been able to discover about it.

At a mini-debate between representatives of the competing slates, hosted by acting coach Lesley Kahn, DeSantis claims Vaughn told a small group of students that some actors on the AFTRA represented show “Damages” were happy with their contract. If that were true, it would be a slap at Membership First, which has criticized the “Damages” contract, claiming it undercuts SAG Basic Cable terms.

We’re going to skip over the back and forth between SAG and AFTRA on Damages, but, bottom line AFTRA says the contract kept the show from shooting in Canada. Membership First says it “gives away” exhibition days.

What led to this particular flap was the statement DeSantis says Vaughn made (which Vaughn denies) that two of the stars on the show, Glen Close and William Hurt, ”love their (AFTRA) contract.”  This develops into a huge game of telephone, but DeSantis has circulated an e-mail claiming another Membership First director contacted Hurt, who told her he was “very angry” about the contract’s residuals provisions.

Vaughn promptly fired back that he had said nothing of the kind about Hurt. All this is playing out in the predictable places.

Membership First launched its charges with an e-mail to their mouthpiece Nikki, claiming they had “caught Ned Vaughn in a little lie/embellishment/creative relationship exaggeration.” Nikki bannered it, and, some time later, posted the denial, even as Membership First’s secondary line of bloggers circulated the claim via e-mail and BBS postings, and added the statement of another Membership First director that he, too, had heard Vaughn make the “Hurt” statment.  

In the meantime, the deadline to mail SAG election ballots looms.

It’s rather like national politics - a last minute charge in an election campaign. But in this case we’d imagine almost all the ballots that are going to be cast have been cast, so it’s not clear just how much effect this particular flap will have.

Posted in SAG Politics | Print | 49 Comments »