Clancy Brown — member of SAG Hollywood Division Board of Directors, 4th National Board alternate, five national contract negotiation teams, and multiple committees – sends me this open letter:
Dear Friends and Fellow SAG Members,
First, I respect the decision of anyone to run for this office. Occupying the office of president effectively is strenuous, time-consuming, complex, and hyperactive. It’s a couple of orders of magnitude of personal commitment beyond that asked of National Board Members and even further beyond that of a divisional board member or an actively involved member. It’s no picnic.
That being said, the choice this election is as clear as it can be.
Anne-Marie Johnson would be without question the most qualified, skilled, and well-prepared SAG President of our lifetime, if not in the history of the union. She has the presence, knowledge, and experience that cannot be acquired quickly or cheaply; nor be diminished by the derogatory stridency of blog posts.
Her connections within the industry, in Sacramento, and Washington DC are real, well developed, and powerful. Her command of SAG governance, internal processes, and contracts is prodigious. She is an actress of dignity, talent, and beauty; a labor leader of principle, character, courage, and determination; and will be an historic SAG President of eloquence, inspiration, backbone, and fairness.
Anne-Marie gets things done. She has since she began her service to the union 12 years ago. Nothing intimidates her. No one controls her. No one speaks for her. Her commitment to the welfare of EVERY member is the laser that focuses her unflagging energy and commitment.
Some people, some even within her own circle, have a problem with her clarity, command, and certainty but I don’t. When women find themselves in authority with responsibility for maintaining order and driving groups to take action in any circumstance, they are never afforded the same respectful deference that men are. Men are strong that won’t suffer fools. Women are bitchy that won’t suffer fools. Every woman knows this to be true. In spite of that general bias and perhaps even because of it, there is no one in the SAG, not one single person, that can run a meeting more fairly, efficiently, or civilly.
I harbor no ill will toward Ken Howard. He seems like a nice guy but I know nothing about him. After serving with him for a year, I still have no real impression of him one way or another. I can’t recall a single thing he might have said or a single motion he may have made to reach consensus or challenge it. I can’t recall a debate or exchange in which he may have participated. He’s not alone in that anonymity. Many M1st and UFS board members keep their own counsel. It’s no big deal. Like attendance. Ken, like many National Board Members, has not always managed to be available for board meetings. That’s not a problem because the system is designed to tolerate just that circumstance. There have been 9 national meetings this past year. 9 national meetings to discuss matters that fundamentally impact the lives of actors. Ken managed to attend 3. Three times out of nine he was able to participate. Is that good enough? To be fair, Anne-Marie only made it to all 9. That’s nine times out of nine she managed to fulfill the responsibility entrusted to her – but we expect nothing less from her. Is it really fair to expect Ken or anyone to be a competent president after only a year of service to SAG and missing the majority of SAG national meetings? He’s a good actor with a long resume over many decades. Ken seems like a nice, avuncular sort of guy, but president of a union? President of SAG? Anne-Marie shows up every single time. Is it too much to expect Ken to show up? Maybe, if he becomes president, he’ll start. Maybe then he will be inclined to participate fully. Maybe. Maybe not.
Ken can’t even approach Anne-Marie Johnson in experience, dedication, knowledge, or really any of the qualities that are necessary to lead SAG. He may someday, but not after only a single year of service and 3 meetings. Even Barack Obama had decades of public activism and service before he ran for congress – and lost. Before he ran for the Senate, he served as a state representative in the Illinois legislature. Then had 4 or 5 active and productive years as a US Senator before becoming President.
Some folks will not vote for a candidate but vote against one or against a slate. That’s a mistake. It’s the same mistake that’s been made over and over and has resulted in the remedial partisan politics that continues to cripple solidarity. If that’s how you choose your leadership, you are part of the problem; not the solution. If you are concerned that Anne-Marie has been too partisan, I urge you to read her statement to the Hollywood Board after the latest TV/Theatrical contract was ratified. Remember she fought tooth and nail against it, but it was ratified. The single most important and basic principle of her personal, labor, and leadership philosophy is reflected in her first sentence.
“The Membership has finally spoken and now it is time to prepare for October 2010.”
The Membership is the ultimate authority of this union and there is no greater champion of that principle than Anne-Marie Johnson. Even when she doesn’t agree, once the collective will is expressed, she considers it her (and leadership’s) marching orders. In fact, she consistently urged, at every practical opportunity, that the membership be allowed to express its opinion. Whether a poll or Strike Authorization or a Contract Ratification, Anne-Marie Johnson ALWAYS voted for the membership be heard. Always. I don’t know how or whether Ken voted. Once the membership is heard, whether she agrees or not, it’s time to get to work – to accomplish the expressed will. No gloating. No whining. No vacation. She shows up, rolls up her sleeves, focuses, and executes.
I didn’t know Anne-Marie at all a year ago. I was, in truth, suspicious of most of the characters that had dedicated so much of their time for so long to SAG. What was missing in their lives that they had to fill it up with playing “labor leader?” It soon became apparent that no one was “playing at” anything and least of all Anne-Marie; that it was the rest of us who had been “playing” by having grand opinions without the benefit of proper information or experience. It also became obvious that it was “we” – me and members like me – who were missing something. We needed to participate, get informed, and by doing so, achieve the solidarity necessary to accomplish our goals. It doesn’t happen any other way.
I read Anne-Marie’s testimony to Congress about the consolidation of media ownership and of film and television production. I heard her explain with Pam Fair the long (15+ years) journey Sacramento took to arrive at the film and TV production incentives initiative finally adopted this year. I saw her chair committee meetings, participate in negotiations, and chair the Hollywood Division Board Meetings. She is a powerhouse and has earned every ounce of my respect and admiration. I have disagreed with her from time to time but I have never doubted her sincerity, intelligence, ability, and respect. To be sure, she is a force to be reckoned with but she also listens better and harder than anyone except perhaps Connie Stevens. Both women are solution-driven and the potential of their team is extraordinary.
The challenges facing SAG – the REAL challenges – demand the proper tools and the demonstrated ability to use them that Anne-Marie Johnson brings to the table. I’ll say it again, not just for emphasis, but because I believe it without qualification:
There has never been a better-prepared, more qualified, or appropriately skilled candidate for president of SAG than Anne-Marie Johnson in our lifetime and perhaps, in the history of the union.
In Solidarity,
Clancy Brown
Dear Friends and Fellow SAG Members,





Try two years of Obama as an active Senator, Clancy…
Clancy Brown, “Some folks will not vote for a candidate but vote against one or against a slate. That’s a mistake. It’s the same mistake that’s been made over and over and has resulted in the remedial partisan politics that continues to cripple solidarity. If that’s how you choose your leadership, you are part of the problem; not the solution.”
************
True that.
I usually think of most actors as vapid as gasoline fumes when they are asked to opine on something but Clancy Brown seems to have a lot going on upstairs. I always wondered why I liked him as an actor,,,,,
There can be only one!
“Even when she doesn’t agree, once the collective will is expressed, she considers it her (and leadership’s) marching orders.”
So it was “the collective will” that forced AMJ to run that 28 hour filibuster to thwart the wishes of the majority of the National Board?
So it was “the collective will” that forced AMJ to put her name to litigation against the Guild to try to reverse action by the Board majority?
So it was “the collective will” that forced AMJ to continue that lawsuit after it was rejected three times and the actions complained about were ratified at a Board meeting after the filibuster?
So it was “the collective will” that forced AMJ to campaign for defeat of a contract endorsed by the National Board?
When 58% of her union supported merger with AFTRA, that should have been a pretty fair indication of “collective will,” but AMJ didn’t become a merger proponent then, did she?
I don’t know which is more embarrassing; AMJ’s record of leadership or Clancy Brown’s suggestion that she follows “the collective will.”
I agree with everything said. well stated
Puzzled you are devisive. You represent the interests of global conglomerates and work against blue-collar actors. I hate you.
Very cool, Clancy. Very cool.
I’m just sorry someone beat me to “There can be only one!”.
I second that emotion, Clancy!
@ Puzzled – you really are puzzled – AMJ goes with the collective will of the MEMBERSHIP, not a bunch of power grabbing under the table dealing INFANTS – I am of course referring to UFS and the regional boards. Their actions this past year have been disturbing, embarrassing, and seemed like they should be illegal. Maybe that’s why legal action was put against them. It seemed like they were out to destroy the union as it is set up and force their will on everyone.
Well said Clancy! Thank You!
Never in a million years!!!
I had the good fortune once to work with Clancy a few years before the past contract negotiations and heard him speak with passion and clarity on two subjects that he loved: his family and strengthening the union against the ever-strengthening media conglomerates.
AMJ has my vote – thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts Clancy. As eloquent and effective as always.
Clancy, as always, well thought and well spoken,
By your word and actions, you are an intelligent and honest man.
You have my vote as well.
I absolutely agree and having gotten to know and observe first hand Anne Marie Johnson in consistent, effective, selfless, honest, service to all, I enthusiastically support her as my choice to lead our union into the future formed by these “interesting times.”
RE: Puzzled’s comments. This kind of substance free, fact avoiding, mud slinging is exactly why the immature, emotional, high school antics and hysterical ninnyism seem only to be successful at wasting money, putting the membership into division and harnessing us with historically bad contracts.
(Note: The successful commercials negotiations and contract guidelines work was in essence done by President Rosenberg/Doug Allen and their team by the time of the coup. Thus, the attempt at claiming complete credit by the current NED and replacement team is disingenuous.)
The facts are, that a group conspired to stage by definition, a coup d’etat, to depose a legal leadership which was in the middle of difficult negotiations. We, the “Collective will” were never consulted and when we were apprised of the situation, most thinking members of which I was aware, were shocked, appalled, incredulous and very angry.
AMJ was acting in a conscious and responsible manner and following proper procedure and union guidelines.
Puzzled,
To attack a standing officer for defending the union against a certainly unethical, union damaging coup d’etat, in such a vague and inflammatory manner is the mark of an emotional, fact devoid reaction as opposed to an intelligent, considered opinion based upon the facts.
That said, interesting that such a nonspecific attempt at reframing an elected official standing up for what is right is the worst thing you could manage.
The nature of such thinking is at the heart of the problem, and actually reinforces the overall knowledge that not only is Ane Marie Johnson the most experienced and qualified person for the SAG Presidency, she has the moral compass, conviction and backbone to carry it through.
While I am mostly in agreement with the ideas of Membership First, I vote with my conscience after consideration of the facts, issues and candidates, regardless of faction affiliation.
No matter how you vote, SAG Members, learn the facts for yourself, consider them, from your opinions and then act according to your conscience.
Get informed, get involved. Vote.
BTW, as a matter of fact, that very expensive exercise of firing our NED Doug Allen and harnessing our President, Alan Rosenberg and forming a new negotiating team did nothing! We wasted a huge amount of money, were handed a historically bad contract and they managed to OK NON-UNION production in a covered area as well!
All the while, balking at every turn at allowing membership a voice in their own futures. UFS, was that all the “collective will”? For the good of the membership?
Really? OK, specifically…How?
Let us leave the past in the past and let us all, UFS, MF and all remember, we are The Screen Actors Guild and it is to the good of all that you are sworn to serve.
In Solidarity,
David Anthony Pizzuto
Learn the facts, form your own opinion and vote your conscience.
Here’s an shorter slogan:
Like the disastrously handled negotiations under Rosenberg? Vote for AMJ and do it again!
Ahh, so AMJ not only follows “the collective will” like Clancy Brown claims, she IS the collective will, even if the majority of the people she is supposed to represent don’t realize it. The “collective will” is what she says it is. How convenient for her and Mr. Brown. She can never, ever be wrong under those circumstances. It’s all so clear to me now.
Doing somethint that “seemed like they should be illegal” is hardly a justification for suing your own union, is it? Especially when courts tell you three times that what the majority did was NOT illegal.
Just tell me how this fits in with Mr. Brown’s insistence that “Even when she doesn’t agree, once the collective will is expressed, she considers it her (and leadership’s) marching orders.”
And Simon, just for laughs, why don’t you tell me what Ms. Johnson has achieved for “blue collar actors” during her term as Vice President.
She tried to defeat the TV/Theatrical contract. She failed at that. How did that failure help the “blue collar actor?”
She tried to defeat the AFTRA Exhibit A contract. She failed. How did that failure help the “blue collar actor?”
Six other contracts that ended during her term. None ratified while she and her faction controlled negotiations. How did that failure help the “blue collar actor?”
During her term, did SAG resolve its difference with the Agents and come up with a replacement for that lapsed agreement?
Nope. How did that failure help the “blue collar actor?”
She’s put her name on a lawsuit against her own union, complaining about an action of the majority of the national Board that she tried to prevent by parliamentary tactics, and which was later ratified at a meeting of the full Board. Three different courts have found her objections groundless. Some people have estimated that the union defense against her lawsuit has cost in excess of $170,000 of your dues money, and it is still going on. How did that lawsuit, and insisting it keep going, help the “blue collar actor?”
During Ms. Johnson’s term as VP, SAG organizing of new work has come to a virtual standstill. How does that help the “blue collar actor.”
It’s rather telling that Mr. Brown spends 1,300 words extolling Ms. Johnson, and even he can’t identify a single thing she accomplished during her term as VP.
Feel free to fill in the blanks Mr. Brown left, Simon.
I will readily agree with Mr. Brown that Ms. Johnson has a great deal of knowledge about SAG. However, the ability to lead is about wisdom, not about knowledge. Wisdom is the ability to apply knowledge; to appreciate the presence of options and to discriminate between good and bad choices based on that appreciation.
I believe Ms. Johnson’s record as an elected SAG official is rather bare of anything demonstrating wisdom. Prove me wrong. Tell me what she achieved, and try not to get hung up on what she WOULD HAVE achieved if only the union had gotten behind her. It’s time to drop the “if frogs had wings” arguments and focus on reality.
And if you acknowledge, as you should, that her term as VP has been completely void of any positive contribution for the “blue collar actor,” do me one more favor. Explain why things will be different if she’s elected President.
1300 words from Clancy Brown and he can’t spare one telling us what Ms. Johnson has actually accomplished during her term as SAG officer.
Simon?
SAG Member?
Care to fill in the blanks?
Try to avoid the “woulda shoulda coulda” stuff that blames others for her lack of achievement. Just tell everyone what’s she’s actually done. Mr. Brown couldn’t do it, maybe you’re up to the job.
Brown – “Remember she fought tooth and nail against [the TV/Theatrical contract], but it was ratified.”
How out-of-step with your union do you have to be, to have missed what 78% of them understood?
She was fighting ‘tooth and nail’ against the overwhelming will of SAG until they shut her up.
I don’t care how tough she is, but more importantly neither do the internationals. They left her in the dust and moved on to AFTRA, because she was too shortsighted too realize the longterm benefits of keeping them around.
Complain all you want, but it’s results that matter, and she was a leader in the group can’t couldn’t close 7 contracts. It’s results that matter.
Far from being ‘more qualified, or appropriately skilled candidate’, she has unwittingly been instrumental in de-fanging SAG and contributing to the lowering of it’s status in the labor community.
The future of SAG depends on those who can foster strategic alliances. Johnston has proved herself not only incapable of that, but directly opposed to it.
Dump her like a stone.
I hope that the SAG membership that loyally reads your column understands that a vote for anyone on the Membership First slate is a vote for the further destruction of SAG. As someone who has watched the guild be constantly undermined by these deplorable people, it sort of reminds me of the right wing Republicans who are against healthcare reform. They listen to the lies by the talking heads without doing their own research to learn the facts and truth. Having been an actor long before i represented them, I have a love and understanding of the facts and not the distorted lies that are constantly spread by Membership First and their cronies.
Will it matter who wins? Honestly? One side says that MSF couldn’t close any deals and ruined everything and the other side claims that UFS staged a coup and came to power illegally. Once there they handed us our first contract that actually says non-union work is okay. So you tell me. Who’s better? I actually think they all suck. I think this Guild is belly up and we need a new one. Who’s with me!!?
“We needed to participate, get informed, and by doing so, achieve the solidarity necessary to accomplish our goals. It doesn’t happen any other way.”
Absolutely right, Clancy.
However, your candidate of choice doesn’t agree with you. She wants to force her now minority way of thinking down the throats of the rest of the membership. A leader needs to listen, not stay staked out on turf that is no longer relevant. Your comment about her being dismissed because she’s a women is pathetic, even more so in that you’re usually a little more astute and articulate that that. She allows way too much verbal abuse in the boardroom when she’s running the meeting. She suffers way too many fools of her own political thought and cuts short those she doesn’t agree with. She is divisive, and though she may be an asset to certain aspects of the Guild, like legislation, she had been part of the block that has kept us from moving forward this past year.
Many of us that get involved, DON’T agree with the tactics played out over the last couple of years by AMJ, AR, most of MF and now yourself, re the contract et al. So now what? We disagree. Now What? If you can’t convince me, are you going to start calling me names? Hit me over the head with a stick? I’ve been insulted by several of the MF camp, both directly and indirectly. I have good sound, investigated reasoning behind my thinking, as do many of the working actors I know — including the members of the UFS group who want to return a certain amount of civility to the workings of the boardroom, do away with the infighting, stop the SENSELESS attacks on AFTRA and fellow actors and performers of whatever ilk, and start building consensus by discourse, not by mandating an opinion, or twisting intelligence to achieve a desired result.
The challenges our union faces need a leader who will listen, foster an environment of discussion, cut personal animosity out of the boardroom and out of our lives(okay, wishful thinking), cause the egos to be checked at the door. Ken Howard has a much greater understanding of the workings of the Guild and the boardroom than you seem to think. Why? He listens. Intently. He has a very good grasp on the personalities in the boardroom and what needs to be done. He also works, consistently. Are you saying that you would like the president of the Guild to not have a career? Even Anne Marie still works.
Working for the common good is a grand exercise, but doomed to failure if personal agendas are allowed to run amok in the boardroom.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be a tendency for those slinging mud, arrows and distorted fact fragments at AMJ and Membership First to do so from glass houses hidden behind nom de plume?
The legacy of bile, ignorance and distortion limps along…is it not also odd and interesting that the “UFS” group is comprised of largely the same group that changes their name every few years after they lay waste to contracts and unity…One can only imagine motive…
I am guessing either an agenda geared toward a merger of SAG & AFTRA whilst being completely ignorant of the actual facts surrounding actually doing it…Oh, wait and aren’t a number of them producers?
if one is actually prepared to make a stand, make it. Don’t hide behind those that have sold you on the idea that they are the big kids and lob dirt clods at those who are trying to do something constructive.
Ignorance, Mean Spiritedness and Cowardice…Yeah, I guess I would hide as well.
It really is sad that we, the professional performers and members of the Screen Actors Guild attack each other…and for what?
here’s a mantra…
This is show business…facts, numbers results.
Leave the drama in the performance…
Hey, Let’s try Solidarity!
msfusion
again, let’s follow your twisted logic. “a vote for amj is a vote for further destruction of sag.”
members: if you remember ANYTHING, remember this is a bald-faced LIE.
the people clancy and amj represent, want a strong, solidified sag, back at the bargaining table to begin the recovery of the farm that was given away by the ufs,ny, rbd, usan “moderates” in 2009.
msfusion favors electing people who advocate the destruction of sag, the practical result of merger with aftra, resulting in a third, entirely different and entirely separate than sag, which will, for all intents and purposes, be, officially, dead.
the illogic, the jaw-dropping arrogance of suggesting amj and clancy brown, people bent and determined to save the union, “want to destroy the union (!?)” – in the face of people, like msfusion, who DO actually want to destroy the union, is beyond the beyond.
it’s very reminiscent of the “we make our own reality” attitude of the bush years.
the “moderates” are “pro-sag?” would you please explain to the membership, how the hell you reach the conclusion that this weak-kneed faction that is tearing this union apart, and wants to permanently kill it by merging with aftra, is “pro-sag?”
merging with aftra = the death of sag.
am I missing something?
no – the delays and disappointments of the past year and a half were ENTIRELY the result of the “moderates” voting in unanimous or near-unanimous numbers to SUPPORT rosenberg and allen in their tough stance against an amptp, that had OPENLY declared in the ny times in july ’07, they “want to end residuals,” then turning on the leadership and, despite their politically ass-covering previous votes to support the leadership – they IMMEDIATELY began a carefully orchestrated effort to undercut the leadership, eventually ending in an electoral end-run around rosenberg and allen, using “written assent” in an UNPRECEDENTED WAY to make this cowardly move, firing allen and muzzling rosenberg from communicating with his own constituents – members who had elected him TWICE!
and why? so they – ufs, ny, rbd, usan, could go get a better contract? hell no – they ended up getting an exhausted membership to ratify a TERRIBLE contract, that will require a restored sag government of realists, in the face of an amptp bent and determined to wipe out the middle-class actor, as we’re already seeing in the testimonials of actors saying their incomes are dropping like a stone, due to move-over, minimums becoming maximums, and the other new media, residual killing terms of the new media portions of the 2009 tv/theatrical contract.
this of course, was, and still will, take purging the moderates from the upper echelons of power and giving a strong majority to the people in sag who want to bring all tv and film actors under one roof – sag – and kill dead, after 60 YEARS of debate and votes – EVERY SINGLE ONE VOTED DOWN, the merger effort.
it needs to have a stake driven through its heart, never to rise again, then, the sag membership needs to be polled as to who they would prefer as the sole representative of film and tv actors.
when those results come in – I figure 80% conservatively – CONSERVATIVELY – would choose sag – THEN sag gets serious about creating ONE actors union – FINALLY – and ending the conflicts with aftra once and for all.
no more undercutting, poaching, lies, betrayals, crap contracts – NO MORE conflict with aftra.
ONE UNION – SAG.
yes Matt Mulhern you are missing something, but you’re going to have to figure that out on your own and hopefully your common sense will prevail, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen.
With MF around, there will NEVER BE SOLIDARITY and the only fix will be to sadly let this once great union die. There is no other way unfortunately. Just look at the statistics of how many members there are, the percentage that have agents and the percentage of that number that makes a living at their craft. The results are pretty pathetic. If you don’t stop with your destructiveness, AFTRA will be the only game in town and then who wins? certainly not the actors. Where do you get your facts that every single one voted down the merger? Do your research before you speak. You sound like Sarah Palin or Glen Beck or Limbaugh etc.. Just because you repeat a lie over and over doesn’t make it the truth.
I truly feel sorry for the actors who are thrust into battle to fight the likes of you and your group, but in the end hopefully the good guys will win. And no Matt, you are not part of the good guys. Sorry Pal.
@msfusion …”a vote for anyone on the Membership First slate is a vote for the further destruction of SAG. As someone who has watched the guild be constantly undermined by these deplorable people, it sort of reminds me of the right wing Republicans who are against healthcare reform.”…It’s interesting you bring up health care, The Abstentions and No votes of the UFS team are the very ones that almost shot down SAG’s motion opposing the closure of the Motion Picture and Television Fund Hospital and Long Term Care facilities. And for those Industrialytes who don’t know what’s going on out at our home please take the time to get informed and involved. You can start by visiting http://savingthelivesofourown.org/
“the sag membership needs to be polled as to who they would prefer as the sole representative of film and tv actors.
when those results come in – I figure 80% conservatively – CONSERVATIVELY – would choose sag – THEN sag gets serious about creating ONE actors union – FINALLY – and ending the conflicts with aftra once and for all.”
By what, scaring them out of town? You do realize that your poll would have absolutely no legal effect or force, don’t you?
This is the heart of your platform?
Yeesh!