SAG Releases Official List Of Candidates For Upcoming September 18th Election

COMMENTS (31)

• Vote for # 43 on Your Ballot

  Here is last year’s 100 word statement:

  Stop and check here if you are tired of givebacks. As an Independent candidate who feels we deserve better and is running to make it better. As a Labor and Community Activists and a FTAC board member fighting for our rights is nothing new to me. I have served on numerous committees: Low-Budget, Legislative, New Technology. And I say No to Givebacks and Yes to all actors being paid for their work regardless of what type of media or delivery system used. Vote No to slates and Yes for change. Vote here for stronger contracts.

  ~ Gary Watts ~

  Comment by Gary Watts — Tuesday August 5, 2008 @ 7:47pm PDT  Reply to this post

• VOTE FOR # 7 ON YOUR BALLOT

  I am running as an Independent because I am an independent thinker with a wealth of experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the AMPTP for the largest entertainment union workforce for a recent 10 1/2 year period. In my position as Business Agent for Local 871, Script Supervisors, Production Coordinators and Production Accountants Guild, I handled dispute resolution from grievance through mediation and arbitration as well as serving on the Industry-wide Safety Committee and subcommittees specifically for child actors and stunt performers. During that period, I also served as a Director on the Benefits Appeals and Administrative Committees of the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans for an 8 years stretch.

  My bottom line is UNITY. “Let’s get along” is not a platitude. It’s a perscription for survival. Don’t make the mistake of voting for individuals because they are on one slate or the other. Vote for candidates as individuals. Whether or not they are on a slate is immaterial. Vote for nominees who can bring you the skill and ability to better the actors’ condition. Vote for me. I have that skill and ability and would be honored to serve.

  Lainie Miller
  # 7 ON YOUR BALLOT.

  Comment by Lainie Miller — Wednesday August 6, 2008 @ 8:02am PDT  Reply to this post

• Clancy Brown. There can be only one. That is all.

  Comment by Hollywood Mike — Wednesday August 6, 2008 @ 9:23am PDT  Reply to this post

• Why is it that all of the people that get caught up in these elections are mostly has beens or never were’s? In the old days, it was the the stars who fought hard to create this Union and set the foundations for future generations. (I’m young before you start with the ‘listen Grandpa’ comments). Now, i understand that in theory, people might say that today’s big stars with their over inflated salaries are out of touch with the working actor. However, I don’t see any big strides being made by the no names or used to be names that have been elected in the past years. If being more in touch with the journeyman actor who isn’t a celebrity is supposed to be what they bring to the table…my question is…when are you going to bring it? All I’ve seen in the past years is posturing. Do some of these people just run to try to get attention for themselves as a way to say, “Hey, I’m still out here. Look how political I am. Maybe you can hire me for an episode of LAW & ORDER.”??? I’m embarrassed of the grandstanding and wing flapping. I think enough time has passed for SAG to admit they’ve lost. The moment for unity passed. We should’ve struck together with the WGA and the DGA and AFTRA…but it didn’t happen. Lick your wounds and live to fight another day. There will be a backlash like the Major League Baseball strike that happened in the not too distant past…and that will be that when everyone takes the field again…the fans will not give a rat’s…

  Comment by joe granville — Wednesday August 6, 2008 @ 10:16am PDT  Reply to this post

• joe granville,
  the people who run on either slate or as independents
  do so because they believe in something. and it’s not exactly news that there are wildly divergent positions on how to conduct our business.
  we did stick with the wga and supported them.
  the dga didn’t really stick with anyone, they just ran ahead and made their own deal.
  the aftra-sag fallout is still being debated.
  but if you believe that we should’ve ‘stuck together’ with them somehow,
  why don’t you run for office based on that?
  why don’t you run and try and make a difference that way?

  Comment by harry98 — Wednesday August 6, 2008 @ 6:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hear, hear, Hollywood Mike. Clancy Brown was PHENOMENAL in the HBO series “Carnivàle”. I have no idea what slate he’s on or what his union positions are, but by God, give that man a podium!

  Comment by Fanboy13 — Wednesday August 6, 2008 @ 9:57pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Fanboy13-

  See this is the kind of thinking that gets a union into trouble. Are you voting for best actor or best union delegate? The two have completely different skill sets. He may be the best delegate or he may not, but your comments are diverting attention away from what is really important. Is the person qualified to do the job, not act as if he is doing the job. You may have voted the popular kid for class president in high school but this is a real job. So ask yourself, “What NON-ACTING qualifications make this person electable?” After all you don’t want them to ACT LIKE leaders, you want them to BE LEADERS. That is unless you want Dr House to perform your next surgery because he plays a really good DR on tv.

  Comment by playmaker — Thursday August 7, 2008 @ 7:01am PDT  Reply to this post

• Note to “joe granville”

  (I can’t find “Joe Granville” on the Internet Movie Database–IMDb.com. Are you using a pseudonym in Comments? Are you a member of SAG? Of another show business union? Has IMDb over-looked your credits?)

  joe, the founders of SAG were not A-list stars, unless you consider James Gleason and Ralph Morgan to be first-tier marquee names. (James Cagney and a few other stars lent their names in support.) You can learn more about the early days of the Guild by going to

  http://www.sag.org/history

  It’s a fascinating story.

  joe, no one in his/her right mind runs for any office in SAG in order to advance his/her CAREER!!! Not even management-friendly officers like Richard Masur have seen their careers flourish during, or after, their service. And very few actors who served the Guild have prospered in politics. Ronald Reagan boosted his political credibility. Charlton Heston didn’t really need to be Guild president to boost his.

  It’s worth reading carefully the comments of harry98 and playmaker regarding the issues you (joe gr) raise.

  You say, ” . . . enough time has passed for SAG to admit they’ve lost.” SAG has not lost. SAG started with grave disadvantages: (1) people in our industry had no stomach for another labor action (2) AFTRA leaders deserted SAG, and their own members; they made a rotten, sweetheart deal and gave the studio/network bosses a club to beat us with.

  Considering the disadvantages, SAG negotiators have played their hand well.

  You say, “We should’ve struck together with the WGA and the DGA and AFTRA…” Is that a joke? We couldn’t have struck with the WGA — our contract hadn’t expired! And the DGA would never have struck. And AFTRA preferred to sell out. So with whom were we supposed to strike “together”?
  Did I miss something.

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Thursday August 7, 2008 @ 10:07am PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Dave Clennon,

  My credits are irrelevant and side steps the issue. I don’t need a history lesson to be able to spot a complete debachle when I see one.

  Gleason and Morgan are definitely A-listers in my book. So is Boris Karloff.

  I and I agree with everything that ‘playmaker’ and ‘fanboy’ said. Not sure why you brought that up. It’s my point people shouldn’t vote for people just because they played the ice cream vendor that recurred for two seasons on DIFFERENT STROKES.

  Who said any of these people were in their “right mind”? As for Masur and Reagan…again…you make my point. Someone should tell these candidates that it’s not going to work for them like it didn’t work for Masur or Reagan. You go tell the gay guy from DYNASTY that it’s not going to work.

  you said:

  You say, ” . . . enough time has passed for SAG to admit they’ve lost.” SAG has not lost. SAG started with grave disadvantages: (1) people in our industry had no stomach for another labor action (2) AFTRA leaders deserted SAG, and their own members; they made a rotten, sweetheart deal and gave the studio/network bosses a club to beat us with.

  response: All you did was list the reasons WHY they have lost. You made my point for me.

  I agree that given the disadvantages they have done what they could…but it’s over now.

  As to what you are “missing” I was referring to the proposed unified strike that was mentioned early on i.e. the WGA was possibly going to wait until the actor’s contracts were up in June and strike together along with everyone else. For understandable reasons, they went ahead and struck when they did. However, ideally, the original idea was for them to wait and go in 3 strong SAG/WGA/DGA.

  I’ve gotta go. I’m late for a meeting. Thanks for making all my points for me. Your a gem.

  Comment by joe — Thursday August 7, 2008 @ 4:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Note about “joe granville”:

  He describes himself as a very busy fellow, so it’s understandable that he mis-reads other people’s comments — those of “harry98″ and “playmaker,” for example. Haste makes a waste — of other people’s time.

  Why did I wonder about “joe’s” true identity? “joe granville” looked like it could have been a real name. But when I went to IMDb, I didn’t find anything close to Joe Granville, in any job category.

  Why should I care? I’m weary of the fake names on these sites. Even people I agree with seem to lack the . . . what? the courage? the integrity? to stand by what they write.

  Is it fear of retribution?

  I’m pretty well convinced that “joe” is not an actor. He writes:

  “I think enough time has passed for SAG to admit they’ve lost.”

  His use of the third person plural pronoun strongly suggests that he stands somewhere outside the Guild, not in it.

  So who is “joe granville”?

  I had hoped he would turn out to be a descendent of Harley Granville-Barker. Doesn’t look like it.

  I guess we’ll never know for sure. Will we?

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Thursday August 7, 2008 @ 11:58pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Dave,

  Fitting that you would spend the first half of your mail on my “true identity”. Is that because you lost the debate about the points I made or the original statement? Or is that evidence of your admittance of defeat since I proved that you made all my points for me?

  Again, I restate I think playmaker shot down Fanboy correctly for voting for certain people for dumb reasons.(i.e. they were great on CARNIVALE)

  I appreciate your attempt to “Profile” me and come up with a clue as to who I am. I would’ve said that maybe they’ll hire you on CRIMINAL MINDS as a grouchy old profiler, but for one small detail. You profiled wrong. I am an actor and I am in SAG. That is why I am so ashamed of the current state of the situation. I was proud of the work SAG did when they were left out twisting in the wind by everyone else. I’m just saying at this point it’s worse to posture and wing flap when the fight is over. It’s called reality Archie Bunker, try stepping into it.
  The reason I don’t feel the need to list “who” I am is because I like to focus on the issues not (like you) get attention for myself by hoping people will look me up on IMDB and say, “Oh, wow that guy was on MURDER SHE WROTE.” I don’t need the attention. I like to keep it on the issues.
  Thanks again for side stepping the issues and having nothing more than personal attacks to dish out. You are a great debater. Perhaps a shot of Jack Daniels in your METAMUCIL and a XANAX will mellow you out today. Keep checking that Star Meter on IMDB, buddy.

  Shit. I’m late for another meeting. Damn you Clennon I just can’t resist an easily won debate, but now you’ve gone and made me late again. Cheers, buddy.

  Comment by joe granville — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:05am PDT  Reply to this post

• hey joe granville

  you’re not even worth replying to.

  go dave clennon

  Comment by Ave.C — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 11:47am PDT  Reply to this post

• Ave.C -

  You make a great argument.

  Comment by joe granville — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 4:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Joe,
  His pancakes aren’t too bad either.

  Comment by #44 — Friday August 8, 2008 @ 5:09pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The subject was . . . elections. The DHDaily headline:

  “SAG Releases Official List Of Candidates For Upcoming September 18th Election” (Aug. 5)

  The challengers call themselves “Unite for Strength.”

  They are the same faction which has gone by other names in the past — “Restore Respect,” “Working Actors’ Voice” etc. Given their ideology, their party name could be the Accommodationists, or the Gradualists or the Incrementalists. Their own choice would probably be the Moderates, but that doesn’t have the ring of “Unite for Strength”.

  The entire substance of their platform is MERGER WITH AFTRA. They used their press release to take gratuitous swipes at their rival faction, Membership First (July 23). They blame Membership First for the failures of two past merger attempts. Apparently, we, SAG members, are not to blame for casting our votes to defeat Unite for Strength’s AFTRA/SAG marriage. (I actually voted FOR merger, twice, on the advice of friends whom I trusted — because I was too disengaged to study the issue myself.)

  In my biased opinion –

  Merger would be a good idea, but not the kind of merger “Unite for Strength” has in mind.

  The only way actors will ever achieve the clout they deserve and need is for the actors of AFTRA to extricate themselves from that sinking ship and to make S.A.G. their sole collective bargaining unit.

  We AFTRA actors are hamstrung by the fact that our “Federation” represents news anchors, sportscasters, recording artists, weather report readers, station announcers, and on and on. Over the years, AFTRA has done a poor job of representing on-camera actors — because AFTRA is too weak, too poor and too understaffed to do a good job of negotiating for all these differing constituencies and their widely varying contractual needs.

  Let AFTRA represent those other constituencies. I wish them well.

  Once upon a time, before the age of television, AFRA (“T” added later for “Television”) may have done a good job representing radio actors, as well as all the other categories of voice performers in the medium of radio. But, since I joined AFTRA around 1975, my on-camera deals under their contracts have been consistently inferior to my SAG deals.

  I plan not to vote for any of the “Unite for Strength” candidates. I reject them and their platform for two reasons, both compelling, in my prejudiced view:

  (1) If “Unite for Strength” wins more than 4 or 5 seats in this election, it could be seen as a validation of the opportunistic, sell-out behavior of AFTRA’s leadership in the current round of negotiations. After all, these AFTRA leaders are the very people SAG’s “Unite for Strength” wants to bond with. “Unite for Strength” sees Reardon, Hedgpeth-Roberts, Kimbrough and the rest of that faction as their allies. If you vote for “Unite for Strength,” you will be voting for the same AFTRA/SAG faction that gave us the defective, disastrous AMPTP/AFTRA sweetheart contract “model,” which SAG is now trying diligently to repair.

  (By the bye, if you don’t work as often as “Unite for Strength” actors do, they may take away your vote. These are the same people who tried to splinter SAG, at the worst possible time, by aggressively and publicly pushing their “Affected [Elite, Lucky] Member Voting” scheme.)

  #2 Compelling reason: If “Unite for Strength” achieves its ultimate goal, actors will not be represented by one strong union with greatly increased “leverage.” We will continue to be represented by two unions — now WEAK and WEAKER — under one leaky umbrella, the AFTRA/SAG merged “ENTITY.”

  I sincerely believe I’ll be choosing a better future — for myself and the next generation — by voting Membership First.

  Comment by Dave Clennon — Saturday August 9, 2008 @ 2:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dave,
  Let me ask you 2 questions:
  How long has MF been in power?
  and
  How are they doing?

  Dave,
  Our union is broke. Badly. It needs to be fixed. Quickly.

  MF has proven one thing, they just CANNOT DO THE JOB.

  PERIOD

  AFTRA is not the problem. Never has been. Never will be.

  The problem is MF.

  The problem is Rosenberg, Allen, McCord, Jolliffe, etc…

  I would vote for the Two Coreys before I voted for MF.
  I would vote for George W. Bush for president again before I voted for MF.

  Dave, you are a smart guy, start acting that way.

  Comment by LP — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 8:24am PDT  Reply to this post

• regarding LP’s post:

  SAG is not broke.

  SAGWATCHDOG has posted filings from the Department of Labor that show SAG is financially sound.

  remember everybody, this is an election and some people will say and do
  anything to attain/regain power.

  stick to the FACTS and then make up your mind.

  LP is pro AFTRA and so will defend anything aftra has done or will do
  never mind AFTRA has made a deal that undermines SAG and screws not only SAG actors but dual card holders and
  AFTRA only actors as well.

  never mind that AFTRA and SAG made a pledge in 1999 never to write contracts that undermine each other.

  never mind that AFTRA refused an invitation from sallie weaver to negotiate together on the last basic cable deal, the OPPOSITE of the rumor being circulated by aftra defenders.

  never mind that soon thereafter aftra began undermining SAG with cable contracts that take money OUT OF ACTOR’S POCKETS.

  never mind that roberta reardon promised she was going to negotiate with SAG on this TV/Theatrical deal in front of mr. sweeney of the AFL-CIO after SAG had withdrawn it’s bloc voting proposal and had gone back to the 50/50 plan with the contingency that neither union make changes to their specific deal without the other union’s consent.

  never mind that susan flannery of “The Bold and the Beautiful’ said that
  SAG had NOT approached her with the aim to poach that show, but rather SHE APPROACHED SAG for help she felt she wasn’t getting from
  AFTRA, and that she was quickly told by doug allen that SAG could not help her,soaps are AFTRA’s jurisdiction and she would have to work this out with them.

  never mind that ms. flannery’s statement shows that AFTRA’s
  ‘last straw’ excuse of the bold and the beautful incident for walking out of joint negotiations IS BULLSHIT.

  never mind that all of these FACTS ARE VERIFIABLE through documents
  and/or third party witnesses.

  never mind all that. “LP” says “AFTRA is not the problem. never has been. never will be.”

  this is like the mother of a juvenile delinquent who, when presented with facts about her son’s crimes, continually denies the evidence, protesting that her little boy would never do things like that.

  so reader, who do you believe? “LP” or the facts?

  Comment by salamander — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 10:54am PDT  Reply to this post

• LP

  you call dave clennon a smart guy, then tell him to start acting that way. I wouldn’t go so far as to say you’re a smart guy, but if you want to start acting that way, read on:

  you cite sag as being financially mishandled by the current leadership, membership first.

  I find the aftra/u4s – huggers united in one thing: ignorance of the facts.

  if you go to sagwatchdog.com, you will see the department of labor filings showing, conclusively, that sag has a healthy surplus, and that aftra has an unhealthy deficit.

  that would lead one interested in facts (was it mark twain who called them “pesky things?”) to understand once and for all, that the perpetrators of the “sag is broke and it’s membership first’s fault” lie, either don’t know what they’re talking about, or, they’re just, you know, liars.

  second – going to any mf candidate and asking to see the letter that doug allen wrote to kim hedgepath (aftra queen) in march. it would, again, help with the facts see, because, in the letter, allen confirms aftra’s pledge made in front of afl-cio president john sweeney, to negotiate collectively with sag. this is AFTER the lie that sag tried to organize “the bold and the beautiful, an aftra show (go to http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/bold-beautiful-actress-susan-flannery-wants-to-set-the-aftra-sag-record-straight/) to see susan flannery’s own letter confirming THAT never happened) and AFTER the bloc voting issue was resolved to aftra’s satisfaction with a 50/50 split of seats at the negotiating board. (sag had the temerity, since they represent 100% of film and 95% of primetime television, to ask for a more reflective, proportional balancing of the seats, which sent aftra into a froth at the mouth frenzy) SO, you see, the allen letter, just released to all mf candidates, proves that roberta reardon LIED in making a public pledge to bargain together, and then went directly to the amptp and made a terrible deal. why? well, simple: to compete with sag at the expense of actors, and to fill up aftra empty coffers, increase it’s power, in short, make it a player, at the expense, again, of the actor, and at the expense of sag.

  this debate will resolve and fade, but the facts will remain. how unfortunate for 44 and lp and joe granville and all the others who consistently don’t answer specifics or cite proof, but engage in repeated, aggresive falsehoods to further their case.

  whatever happens, it aint gonna work guys. try checking the sources I cited and then replying SPECIFICALLY to those facts and tell us SPECIFICALLY what exactly mf has done to make you buy the fairy tale that aftra is the innocent party, and that mf needs to be replaced by u4s.

  it’s hard, I know, but, don’t forget: specifics. facts. I’ve cited several knocking down your arguments, now, you have to cite contrary facts – not opinions, not rumor – to prop up your case. that’s actually how this whole debate thing is supposed to work.

  Comment by T-rex — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 2:18pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Let’s just get the record straight.

  LP is NOT pro AFTRA. LP is pro ACTOR

  LP makes 90% of his money from SAG

  I said SAG is broke (like in broken) not broke like in no money.

  Salamander, spew away my friend! I know it makes you feel good to blame AFTRA for all of our problems. It’s like me yesterday on the golf course. Blaming the wind, blaming the slow greens, blaming my playing partners…everything wrong with my game was because of someone or something else. But the bottom line was I still shot a miserable 86 and it was ME who signed the scorecard.

  Sal,
  Perhaps if you tried being a little more positive, your career might be going a little better than it is and you wouldn’t be so angry at AFTRA.
  Call me, we’ll discuss.

  Comment by LP — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 2:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• T-Rex,
  I have some questions for you…but you have to be honest, ok?

  Are you an actor?
  Do you make your living from acting?
  Have you made your insurance this year?
  Have you ever made your insurance?
  Would you like to?

  Call me, I can help. Send me an email, I’ll give you my personal cell phone number. We can make things better. Much better.

  Comment by LP — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 2:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hey people,

  Isn’t August 15th, the day that AMPTP said would be the last day for the “last best offer”, this Friday? Does this mean that for the next 3 years, SAG will not have a new contract in place? Doesn’t this open the door for more AFTRA deals to be made?

  Comment by sam — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 3:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to LP

  “call me, then we’ll discuss?”
  WE’RE BOTH USING PSEUDONYMS!
  HOW IS EITHER ONE OF US GONNA CALL THE OTHER?
  what? you didn’t have any way to refute the facts i laid out, so you end with, “Let’s have lunch?”

  if you’re pro actor, then you’ll agree that the contract that the amptp is offering is weak and damaging. the same contract that aftra threw themselves on top of and said, ‘we’ll take it!’

  unite for strength says that this contract isn’t good enough, that they want everything membership first wants, “And more!”
  great, what’s their plan to go about getting everything we actors want and more?
  unite for strength blames MF for aftra walking out on the negotiations, but ironically, if aftra had been in the room we, SAG, might very well be stuck with this shitty contract aftra approved.
  if it was a 50/50 negotiation it would have only taken one vote from any one of the aftra sympathetic ‘go along to get along’ types to have given the aftra gang a simple majority and then we’d have this crummy deal that U4S themselves say IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

  be more positive?
  you run down rosenberg and the gang as being the cause of all of SAG’s problems, but this is just your opinion.
  how about some facts, LP?

  you want people to believe that all we need to do is elect this U4S crowd and somehow all of our problems will go away.
  what will they do? take this deal that gives away force majeure and clips, never mind the new media formula that is a blueprint for the end of residuals and then say, “Well, we’ll revisit all this in three years and try do do better. We’ll get ‘em next time.”
  is that their plan for dealing with the intractable amptp?

  everything we enjoy as SAG members was won by the people who came before us. they had to fight for all of these things.
  management never gave us anything out of the kindness of their hearts.

  you think merger is a good idea?
  the Mercer Report in 2003 unequivocally stated that merger was a bad idea as SAG would be subsidizing AFTRA and SAG’s pension benefits would be diminished.
  instead of spending time on the links, maybe you could figure out a merger plan where SAG doesn’t get screwed, and then tell us all about.
  we’re all ears.

  do you think that U4S’s qualified voting initiative is a good idea?
  “We’re Unite for Strength. Vote for us so we can take away your vote.”

  am i angry at aftra?
  you bet i am. if there was a cut-rate writers union or
  a “DIRECTORS FOR LESS” union the WGA and the DGA would be pissed off and rightfully so.

  you say, “LP makes 90% of his money from SAG.”
  (do you always refer to yourself in the third person?)
  well, if we get stuck with this bum deal in a few years that 90% you make could be 50-75% of what it is now.
  that might put a dent in your greens fees.

  Comment by salamander — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 4:26pm PDT  Reply to this post

• LP
  weak brother. no specifics. and broke as in “broken” oh, o.k. (now that you learned the facts) thanks for clearing that up… how convenient. sag is broke, but I don’t mean financially, I mean, like “broken,” like, say, a lamp that fell off a table, or a person of low intelligence who walks into traffic.

  just wanted to clear that up, now that I’ve been corrected that sag is not, in fact, “broke.”

  respond with substance. answer the questions or don’t take up space. you understand NOT answering the questions makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about, right?

  Comment by T-rex — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 5:36pm PDT  Reply to this post

• T-rex,

  you’re an extra aren’t you?

  I thought so.

  Comment by LP — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 7:07pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Sal,

  You wrote “do you think that U4S’s qualified voting initiative is a good idea?”

  I think it’s a great idea. I think it will save our union.

  If you work the contract you can vote, if you don’t you can’t. It’s that simple.

  Comment by Anonymous — Sunday August 10, 2008 @ 7:24pm PDT  Reply to this post