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!
It’s very important that we don’t forget what happened over the past year, with regards to MF and U4S. Normally, history is “water under the bridge” but with the enormity of what’s ahead of us, we mustn’t forget where we’ve been, where we are and who has led us to this place.
Talk and banter all you want but the bottom line is this: MF fought the AMPTP for the betterment of SAG. Unite(d) for Strength fought Membership First for control of SAG for their own agenda (which is the betterment of AFTRA), not for the betterment of SAG membership. Ken Howard is of the U4S coalition.
While I’m sure there will be a MAJOR smear campaign against AMJ by the U4S-controlled Ken Howard campaign, we all need to remember how U4S runs things. To that point, I’ll repost something I added to an earlier DHD subject:
I want to mention a rather important point, which was brought up by Larry Gelbart in his letter to the WGA membership. (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/september-elections-larry-gelbart-writes-open-letter-to-wga-membership/) That is that whomever we elect as SAG National President this time around will be the person leading us into negotiations on our next, and frankly vital, contract in 2011.
You may remember Ken Howard as a supporter of and by Unite For Strength – the group of people who brought you this latest contract and told you to vote ‘yes’ for it. “Vote YES, and go back to work immediately!” Remember that cry?
Uh, did anybody you know go “back to work immediately”?
A couple of features popped up, but that was it. Features which, in all likelihood would have popped up anyway. So what do we call that quoted statement, kids? That’s right – we call it a lie. So much for “back-channel” negotiations and inside information from the moguls.
History will show that the concessions SAG agreed to in this current contract were ill-advised and perhaps irreversible. U4S brought you this contract. Want more of the same? Then Ken Howard is your guy.
I also hope that Mr. Cassel will realize that any/most votes in his favor will be votes needed by AMJ, and that he would, in effect, be a spoiler for her likely victory.
@ Ace
“Uh, did anybody you know go “back to work immediately”?
Great question. I ask the same question to my actor friends who voted for the last contract, who are still unemployed and have the same prospects they had before the contract vote. They were under some bizarre delusion that the studios were holding back until the contract was ratified and afterward the floodgates would open. The AMPTP happily perpetuated that fantasy and the majority of SAG bought into it when they voted for their contract. Now, they’re starting to regret it. Too late.
As for Clancy Brown; I’ve worked with him on two projects and I know him to be smart, articulate and passionate about his craft. I honestly don’t know anyone who has a bad word to say about him, professionally or personally.
Thank you Clancy…
As Clancy said we need to participate and get informed, and by doing so, achieve the solidarity necessary to accomplish our goals. It doesn’t happen any other way.
I agree.
Ladies and gentleman, were you aware that Ken Howard wanted to debate AMJ with written questions and answers to be posted at a selected time and date to be posted on a non partisan website?
If you don’t believe me ask UFS.
Ken Howard is afraid to verbally debate AMJ live.
I suggest the the Presidential candidates debate live and stream it on the SAG website of course with a moderator. Let’s use the “New Media” for our advantage and hear the Presidential candidates in there own words, live. Like a real Presidential debate should be!
Lets see if Clancy is right. Lets prove that AMJ is better-prepared, more qualified, or appropriately skilled candidate for president of SAG.
This is an open invitation for AMJ and Ken Howard to debate live with a moderator, and have it streamed online, in there own words.
SAG 4Ever -
If I were Dan Aykroyd, I would begin my response with, “Jane you ignorant slut”.
Well, I don’t know about the slut part, but you sure got the ignorant part down. Granted, negotiations weren’t going quickly, but we have a rather obstinate AMPTP to blame for that. If U4S and the NNM hadn’t summarily fired Doug Allen, muzzled Alan Rosenberg, and consistently undercut their own elected union leadership, we damn well could have gotten a better deal.
It was U4S that changed horses in the middle of the stream and you’re blaming Alan for your wet socks.
Do your homework. Then go for the snark.
Todd Waring -
First off, her name is Anne-Marie Johnson, not Johnston. And I’ll be kind enough to not mistakenly misspell your last name as “Whoring”.
Secondly, AMJ is on AFTRA’s national board now. Our two actors’ unions have been frenemies lately. AMJ ran, won, and placed herself in a position to foster better communications between the leadership of the two unions.
And let’s face it. Ken Howard’s a nice guy from all accounts, a good actor according to many, but when it comes to SAG, he’s a lot like our Sarah Palin. Miniscule experience, lousy attendance record, plucked from relative obscurity in union politics by a coalition more interested in fame than substance. The only reason Ned Vaughn – the Karl Rove over at U4S – didn’t run is he doesn’t have a name.
As for the 78% you bandy about, as we have no reliable polling data as to exactly WHY that percentage voted to ratify the contract, we are free to speculate. I spoke to one young actress just yesterday who said she voted for the contract because Tom Hanks was for it. We talked for a couple of minutes before getting back to rehearsing. She was lamentably uninformed of the real ins and outs and implications. She was, however, not very happy that her second residual check for a new media commercial was in the low two figures.
I’m guessing, Todd, that she isn’t an isolated case. Had she been more aware that the contract she voted for sanctions such miniscule residual payments, her pen might not have moved so quickly to the YES box.
I’m guessing that the more accurate information actors have, the better their decisions will be. We just need to get accurate information broadly disseminated.
Meanwhile, just keep telling yourself that that 78% is going to flock straight to the U4S ticket that slashed residuals and gave producers a space to produce NON-UNION.
Anne Marie is OBVIOUSLY the right choice… but another politically devious director/member of Membership First is heavily supporting Mr. Seymour Cassell (who received HUGE numbers in the last election) and is, thereby, splitting the vote, which means Ken Howard — Thanks to the block-voting of United For Strength and their supporters — will sneak/sqeak Mr. Ken Howard into the presidency.
Historically this has been what is wrong with MF.
It’s unfortunate.
I would like to address those of Membership First that continue to shamefully use the issue of the MPTF home’s closing as a political football.
A few years ago, Membership First rose as one and yowled when it was discovered that SAG had waived payment to actors for use of clips in a video game in order to send that money directly to the MPTF.
Membership First killed it. Rose as one. Yowled. Killed it.
Ken Howard, as Chair of the National Seniors Performers Committee was involved with and brought Membership First’s attention to the present dilemma of the MPTF home.
Questions for Truthteller, whoever you are:
Do you know the specifics of Dr. Tillman’s Hasbro “Scene It” deal? If so, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us as to, exactly, what the deal was and who negotiated it on behalf of Actors?
It is true that there was a $1 mil. upfront donation to SAG from Hasbro, as a deal sweetner?
Also, do you know if the SAG National Board was made aware of the Hasbro/MPTF deal prior to the targeted Actors receipt of the MPTF letter?
It is my understanding that the letter gave SAG Actors a choice to opt in, or to opt out, to waiving of protected rights as to the use of movie and TV clips for the benefit of Hasbro and the MPTF, for (1)one year, true?
Most importantly, do you know if the ‘affected’ Actors and/or the SAG NB ever voted on it?
First of all, it was NOT Ken Howard that “brought Membership First’s attention to the present dilemma of the MPTF home.” That’s simply wrong. And secondly–I would really like to know why Mr. Howard refuses to debate First Vice President Anne-Marie Johnson live. How are we supposed to know if he’s qualified for this position or not, in this critical period? A live debate would end any ambiguity whatsoever as to who should lead this Union. I do personally remember a large number of postings on various internet websites and youtube videos before the Theatrical Contract vote where a person using the pseudonym “WhiteShadow44″ made a substantial amount of erroneous and downright ignorant statements about the stipulations within the Contract. I’m pretty sure that’s him. He’s never there when you sit in on an open Board meeting as a member, so we really don’t know what the heck his views on things are. As voting members of the Union he wants to be the next president of, I find it extremely disconcerting and suspect, quite frankly, that Mr. Howard won’t stand up and tell us his views on vitally important issues that directly affect OUR LIVES as members of this Guild alongside Ms. Johnson (or Mrs. Johnson, sorry not sure?). I’ve learned now after so many years in this Union how what goes on in that Boardroom directly affects my life and bank account by the next week. I want to hear words out of their mouths live, answering questions that we want answered. That’s the best idea I’ve heard yet regarding this entire mess.
Also, I want to thank Nikki for allowing our comments to appear on here, regardless of our views. It’s MUCH more than I can say about that SAGWATCH website, where they pick and choose what you’ve tried to post, then don’t publish anything else from you after they try to shoot your comments down with everything they can think of, whether true or not… DEPLORABLE.
One more thing–in reference to this comment–
“A few years ago, Membership First rose as one and yowled when it was discovered that SAG had waived payment to actors for use of clips in a video game in order to send that money directly to the MPTF”
If that is indeed true, do you realize what exactly you are saying? Membership First was protecting the rights of the MEMBERS TO THEIR OWN COMPENSATION! If the Members wanted to send their money to the MPTF, there was certainly nothing STOPPING them.
Membership First was saying that–DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTING THE CAUSE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE MPTF, they STILL HONOR THE RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.
If you have a problem with THAT, then I must say there is something wrong with YOU. Would you want the Obama Administration to tell YOU where your next check was going? I donate to a number of charities, but if I were about to lose my home, perhaps I would CHOOSE to not donate my next check out of extreme necessity.
I, personally, would never want MY INTERESTS OR CHOICES as a Member of this Union to be completely disregarded. But maybe we’ve reached the core of the issue here…
What has Anne-Marie Johnson accomplished?
Well, in 2001, as chair of the EEOC, she was successful in strengthening
the language of the Affirmative Action and Non Discrimination clause
in our TV/Theatrical contract.
How about that?
She was instrumental in opening up the Hollywood Board meetings
to observers.
She was also involved in turning the LGBT Caucus into a full fledged
national SAG committee?
These are a few among many.
What have you accomplished “PUZZLED” ?
Guess we’ll never know because you’ve chosen to hide.
As much as I may disagree with Todd Waring and William Charlton, they have my respect because they put their names on their posts.
I encourage anyone who posts here and elsewhere regarding our union business to do it under your real name.
M1st, UFS, USAN, Solidarity and Gains, independents … everybody.
I feel this will lead to healthier discussion and those who refuse
to walk into the open
will eventually be dismissed as management trolls
or people who have something to hide.
Anne Marie Johnson took up the cause of the Motion Picture Home and brought it to a vote. If not for her energy and the commitment of a bi-partisan group of actors that spanned both sides of the SAG division line, the future of motion picture healthcare would be far more bleak than it is today. That being said, her vitality is the fuel that will launch our union into the stratosphere. Clancy is right on – the perception of women who ‘do not suffer fools gladly’ is not one of strength, but one of bitchiness. It’s a sad commentary, but one that is being shaken to the core with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and other women whose strength of character and drive are often mistaken for post-menstrual angst. I put AMJ in that same august group of effective people who can git ‘er done!
Give me AMJ. She’s my president!
It’s telling that (so far) Ken Howard will not publicly debate AMJ. Anyone (everyone, I’m sure) remember how Ned Vaughn refused to debate U4S’ position before the elections last year?
Debate is not what U4S does, because they don’t have the facts on their side, nor do they understand them. What they do is huddle as a group and take orders from hidden persons (in NY, no doubt), then use a mouthpiece/figurehead to tell people what they think has to happen. Ken Howard is positioned to be their mouthpiece. (Sounds kinda “Bush Administration” to me.) If he doesn’t have the stones for a debate within his own union how the hell is he gonna have the stones to lead us against the AMPTP?
Public Debate or recuse yourself, Mr. Howard! If you claim to have what it takes to lead this union, you’d better step it up a notch or two…
SAG Members,
Whatever your polictical views are, we have to hear the Presidental canidates debate live. We NEED a great President to save our Union.
Live debate for AMJ and Ken Howard to be streamed on the SAG website.
Let’s make it happen!
ABSOLUTELY, OneUnion! The most important thing that we need to happen is a live debate between Anne-Marie and Ken streamed, so that the MEMBERS of this union can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES who they feel they should vote for.
This will also help everyone understand EXACTLY what the politics and views of the other Candidates for Board seats on their “slates” are as well–the two major group affiliations being–
1st Vice Pres. Anne-Marie Johnson/”Membership First”, and Ken Howard/”Unite for Strength”.
I would encourage folks to flex their “Right to Vote” muscles by voting for all 33 of the Candidates running on the same slate as the person you feel has your interests most in mind.
Please make sure that you vote, because who knows how long you as the average member will even RETAIN that right. It very well could be taken away from you tomorrow by one of these groups.
So here again we have the multiple disguises of Matt Mulhern having discourse with himself in order to generate misinformation and hollow controversy.
Truth: Ken Howard & Bill Smitrovich – and the Senior Performers Committee that Howard chairs – brought the issue of the MPTF home’s closing to the attention of Johnson & Rosenberg. That’s a fact.
Debates. SAG does not need a skilled debater to be the President of SAG. In that position SAG needs an individual with the strength of personal integrity and unimpeachable character, who will command the respect and attention that a representative of professional actors should attract – and Ken Howard is the only presidential candidate in this election with those attributes.
Truthteller, whoever you are:
Hmm, “…we have multiple disguises…” No WE don’t. But, obviously, YOU do, Truthteller, whoever you are.
Contrary to what you seem to believe is the reason d’etre for the Screen Actors Guild, it is NOT to involve itself the MPTF controversy. In fact the MFTF matter is still only one of many other matter of great concern to SAG. SAG’s primary reason d’etre is Contract Negotiations.
However, clearly, Anne Marie Johnson’s leadership placed the MPTF controvery on the Hollywood Board’s Agenda. The motion once properly made, brought it, before the appropriate authority, the Hollywood Board. After near unanimous approval, the motion was, then, properly referred to the National Board for a vote where the motion also passed, by a SLIM margin, to support those who were opposing the MPTF’s closure.
Both the Srs. Committee, Ken Howard, Chair; and the Hollywood Healthcare Safetynet Committee, Renee Aubry, Chair were made aware of the MPTF situation.
The Hollywood Healthcare Safetynet Committee also voted, unanimously, to recommend support for opposition to closure of the Long Term Care Facility and presented this recommendation to the Hollywood Board.
FYI, Committee Chairs do not have ANY authority whatsoever to act, without proper Board(s) approval. Committees and Committee Chairs only serve at the pleasure of the Hollywood and/or National Boards.
@ “truthteller”: you’re either ignorant or a shill – which is it?
EVERY election benefits from a debate. It doesn’t have to be by “skilled debaters”; a debate shows what the candidates know, what they don’t, and what their respective plan is.
However, any leader must have great public speaking skills and be fearless with regards to opposition. You say Ken Howard has these skills? So far he hasn’t shown it. I’m truly NOT putting him down, but what do any of us know about his “unimpeachable character”? Or his “strength of personal integrity”? He’s only been to, what, three board meetings? If he, in fact, has these qualities then a public debate is where he shows them.
You sound like Kenny’s mom: “Please elect my son because he’ll be a really, really, really good junior class president, and he’s dating the head cheerleader. (Just don’t ask him too many questions.) P.S. He’s really popular in field hockey too!”
Get a grip. If you’re gonna call yourself “truthteller” you should really get a second opinion before you post comments.
@”Ace” -
What makes me a “shill” in your estimation? That I have facts, opinions, and a nom de post? So what does that make YOU, “Ace?”
What makes me “ignorant” in your estimation? That I do not share the same opinions as you, “Ace?” That probably means you think 78% of SAG members are “ignorant,” yes?
Get a grip, as you like to say.
No union has ever benefited from a debate during an election. Can YOU give us an instance? Waiting, waiting. None of you who have held the majority in SAG Hollywood for the past six years ever ran on having a “plan” nor have you ever participated in a debate during elections.
Ronald Reagan had “great public speaking skills” and was “fearless with regards to opposition.” YOUR kind of SAG President, “Ace?” Why aren’t YOU running?
No, you’re not “putting Ken down” – you’re just trying to get him to dance to your tune. Forget it. You have been out of tune for a long time. I’d say it’s time for YOU to retire, “Ace.”
*laughing at ^* You have a… “nom de post”? Bwaaaaaahahahahah…
See, sparky, here’s your problem(s): first, you’re WAAAAY too defensive to be taken seriously. Secondly, you’ve been feeding from the U4S trough for too long without thinking for yourself, so all you can write are U4S talking points. Which, yes, makes you sound like a shill.
Your comment, “That probably means that you think 78% of SAG members are ‘ignorant’, yes?”, is wrong on two counts. No, I don’t think that SAG members are ignorant (as if you are representative of the SAG membership); and two, that supposed 78% is a percentage of MEMBERS WHO VOTED ‘YES’ ON THIS SHIT CONTRACT, NOT THE ENTIRE SAG MEMBERSHIP. Statements like that make you sound IGNORANT (you don’t know any better, or… you’re uninformed,or… you’re too lazy to read or check your statements for accuracy, or… whatever you want to call it). Get it? Sheesh!
What makes you ignorant (in my estimation) is your claim about debate. And I only used the word ‘ignorant’ with regards to that point, not your entire world. Virtually every election benefits (the voters) from debate from all candidates – union elections included. Just because debates don’t always happen doesn’t mean they’re inconsequential or unnecessary. But the simple fact that your candidate (among other U4S candidates in the past) is shying away from debate speaks volumes.
How ’bout a little more “truth” and a little less “teller”, hmm?
It may be that the National membership will feel cheated if they do not have an equal opportunity to view and/or to experience an organized SAG presidential debate, between presidential candidates hosted by an impartial moderator.
In my opinion, SAG members have a right to see their presidential candidates in action to see how each candidate behaves under pressure. Does a candidate, for instance, have the necessary qualities, temperment, expertise, and qualifications to fill the top spot? Practically speaking, which of the candidates has the best ‘chops’ to be SAG president?
At this time, Ken Howard seems rather a man of mystery to most Hollywood board members as well as to the National membership.
For the above-stated reasons, I believe a SAG presidential debate is needed and necessary. Such a debate between candidates can be a ‘get to know you’ opportunity, especially, for Ken Howard. It would also be of mutual benefit to the voting national membership.
To Ace, Zackery and others,
You guys are so bright and articulate and informed.
I implore you to start posting under your real names.
To engage in badinage with people like Truthteller and Puzzled
quickly degenerates into a game of verbal volleyball
played with balls covered in toxic ooze.
Anonymity won’t do us any good now.
Our time is growing short.
If everyone starts posting out in the open,
passionately yet respectfully,
we have a chance at some real progress.
My hunch is that many on the M1st side will take up this challenge
while many with opposing views will not.
This smacks of a hidden agenda.
I would love for them to prove me wrong.
As we proceed into whatever discussions and resolutions
await us as a union,
people who continue to make snarky and biiter remarks
while hiding behind silly pen names
will be seen as insubstatial, puerile
and detrimental to our democratic processes.
They are empty suits.
I’m a very REAL person, “truthseller”, not an alias for other REAL people on here. I suppose Alan Ruck was a figment of your imagination as well. And Renee Aubry? Get the facts before you shoot off your mouth.
This VERY REAL person took a VERY REAL tour of the MPTF campus, about five weeks ago, with KEN HOWARD and his wife, where he was asking very basic questions about the place, since it was the first time he’d ever been there. THAT IS A FACT. Why was he asking if he was the person who had “brought the MPTF to everyone’s attention”? He knew nothing about it.
He was very nice, honestly. Apart from that, I DON’T KNOW A SINGLE THING ABOUT HOW HE WOULD LEAD MY UNION. This isn’t a game. These are peoples’ lives. Who in their right mind would elect a guy who is afraid to debate someone in public? I’m guessing that he doesn’t want to debate Vice Pres AM Johnson because he’ll lose. It will be clear to the MEMBERS of this Union that he doesn’t seem to have their best interests or protection in mind. Who are you kidding?
And since you brought it up–the “78%” crap IS BLOWING UP IN YOUR FACES RIGHT NOW. Go to any big group audition around town, or to a large class, or a workshop of alot of actors and you know what you hear? THEY ARE ANGRY. They are angry because they were told that if they voted that contract in they would get more work–AND THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE ANGRY that now that everyone is starting to talk about that contract, they are understanding WHAT THEY GAVE UP–FOR NO REWARD. You ask fifty actors in a row what “force majeure” means when they are walking out of the building, and I GUARANTEE you the vast majority can’t answer. I’d bet my left leg. I’m not saying that THEY are stupid or ignorant, I’m saying that THEY WERE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF and they are starting to realize it now, after the fact. You can bandy about your 78 percent til you’re blue in the face–you’re only exposing yourself as one of the people RESPONSIBLE for what happened to the MEMBERS OF SAG. Please do, though. PLEASE DO take responsibility, because this whole thing is backfiring on you right now. Give it a few more months, and I’d be afraid to ever admit to your comments in public. Better yet, go over to Central Casting where alot of actors are trying eek out some much needed work for their families and start screaming about the stuff you’re saying. I can’t be responsible for your personal safety in a situation like that. You threaten peoples’ livelihoods like this and they don’t stay calm and sit pretty like a dog. They get angry.
Legendary actors MARTIN SHEEN and ED HARRIS are supporting ANNE-MARIE JOHNSON, CONNIE STEVENS and the whole MEMBERSHIP FIRST SLATE OF PEOPLE. Oh, yeah–THEY ARE ALSO RUNNING ON THAT SLATE. These guys could go lay on the beach in Tahiti for the rest of their lives if they wanted to–they don’t have to spend their time doing anything like this. But you know what? They are running for the Board and supporting AM Johnson because they want to try to protect the VOICELESS and less prominent members of this Union. They are lending their celebrity, their valuable time and valuable energy to try to help people like me be able to make a living and have a future.
So get in your car, Truthseller, and head down to Central Casting, or 200 South LaBrea Monday morning, and start talking your trash to those large groups of actors their trying to get jobs for themselves. I’d bring a couple of body-guards with you if I were you…
I want a debate!!! It should include all four presidential candidates! That is fair!
AMJ has my vote already, but I am very familiar with her views about our union, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
You wonder why I would want a debate.
Easy answer…so all those who do not know the issues and where the candidates stand will get a chance to hear for themselves…from the candidate’s mouth …of what they see for the future of SAG!
Not what anonymous posters say they stand for!!!!!!
Alan,
I agree with you on most points. However, my real name is inconsequential with regards to these posts and comments. I have made clear statements on what I believe and what I stand for, and that should be enough for any true SAG member.
On the other hand, unlike you, I do not have any power behind my (unrecognizable) name. I do not have any job protection whatsoever and releasing my name could only hurt me financially, if anything. In my case, at least, anonymity is crucial to my staying employed. I work at the pleasure of people who see me as non-confrontational (and I am, that) but who could also easily choose someone else if I don’t agree with their politics. And we all know how politics rules this town.
You and I have met, whether you remember or not, and I respect your opinion and contributions to these SAG issues. With respect to your point, I’ll try to keep it civil.
In solidarity,
The MPTF scandal is a political football that seems to be gaining much yardage, thanks to our friends at SAG. I can speak for the families that we are extremely grateful to the likes of both Ken Howard and Anne-Marie Johnson. Who did what and where to us is inconsequential – the fact is that both sides got together to offer bi-partisan support that created a ‘win’ for the families and the future of motion picture healthcare. Rodney King allusions and allegories aside, you guys got it done for us.
Daniel Quinn and I originally presented to Ken Howard’s group at the invitation of Bill Smitrovich. Smitrovich recognized this as something that had to be addressed by SAG. Anne-Marie took the cause under her wing and with her incredible energy and commitment helped to bring it to the attention of all of you. Ken Howard and the SAG Senior Committee worked with Saving the Lives of Our Own to stage the Man In The Chair screening that was well attended by both sides of SAG’s fence. Elliott Gould brought his stature to the street and shined a light on what was happening at the Motion Picture Home first hand. Jamie Farr’s outrage at being herded away from facilities that he paid for fueled the fire. Bill Smitrovich’s decency and humanity – Marcia Wallace’s steadfast commitment, Clancy Brown’s very visible placement on the protest line – hell, who else’s ass needs kissing? So many of you did what needed to be done. It was like both sides of Congress attending some kid’s bar mitzvah and sitting together, singing the Haftorah in unison.
I know you guys have your shiz to deal with – but know that guys like me, who now stays to read the credits after movies, are extremely appreciative of everyone’s participation.
Yo Clancy,
AMJ is suing the friggin union. I wouldn’t vote for any creep that does that in my union or any other. A board member suing the union. How does that square with you?
Debate is a stupid idea. It’s nothing more than a show. It proves nothing. I want to see actions and commitments. Words on a stage which is nothing more than an opportunity for a bunch of yahoos to get together and shout down one side or the other is one thing: a waste of time.
We got Ann Marie Johnson who is SUING SAG
Seymour Cassell who is up on charges by SAG
One candidate that is clean: Ken Howard
No brainer
Pauly
Ace,
I hear you.
Sorry to have put you on the spot.
Keep up the good work.
In some dark room, Unite For Strength wrote their divisive “letter of assent” undermining the membership’s right to vote on the SAV.
Later, in that same dark room, UFS secretly wrote a letter on SAG stationary accusing educated thinking fellow SAG members who did not share UFS’s enthusiasm for the lousy contract offer of being liars and trying to undermine the union.
(That act, by the way should lead to impeachment of everyone involved.)
It would seem UFS prefers secret meetings outside the view of democracy and public debate. With his alignment with UFS, there is no reason to think Ken Howard would break this clandestine, anti-democratic, divisive agenda and his refusal to debate in public and that confirms that in my opinion.
He has no desire to debate in public because the UFS secret agenda is better served if hidden by a team of high-priced PR spin doctors answering questions about how Mr. Howard will serve as president of SAG.
If you don’t think that’s true, if you think he is honest, ask him who in his Party wrote the letter to the membership on SAG stationary condemning some members and leaders of being liars simply because they had a difference of opinion.
Which one of your cronies wrote the letter, Ken? What will the consequences be of this unethical, immoral, and possibly illegal action taken by the Board members you have teamed up with? Fraud is a crime even in Hollywood, Ken.
And while here I accuse UFS as hiding, please bear in mind I have not included my legal name, but I am sharing an opinion in an open public forum. I am not an elected official secretly creating policy outside the view of the membership. They are very different.
Like Ace, I feel my anonymity is necessary as the nature of being a working actor is consistently being hired for new jobs. (I appreciate Alan Ruck’s insight and I don’t disagree with the spirit of including names. In a closed Union meeting I will use my name and share my opinion. But publicly it is a little complicated.)
I’m not sure if comment boards have any larger readership than those of us who post. It is up to us as members to get the word out to our fellow members, which likely has a more efficient roadway than this comment board.
Let’s find that road. FWIW, I think it leads to people like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s house who might be convinced the memberships children need health care, education, and housing as much as any children do. And the children’s parents need to be able to make a fair wage to survive. Stop by George Clooney’s house on the way. An undeniable truth about our society is that the opinion of stars matters.
Without a debate we know absolutely nothing about Ken Howard’s opinions, values as SAG Member, or thought process with regards to all of our collective futures.
Anne-Marie Johnson has been very public about her values regarding Union protections and the Members of SAG.
Who would vote for a guy who won’t show up for a debate out of fear? He never even shows up for board meetings–how are we supposed to believe he’ll “be present” as our President?
We know nothing about him–and we’re supposed to believe a bunch of people claiming to know his ideals who won’t even use their real names?
I think we’re all a bit smarter than that.
I’m with Ed Harris and Martin Sheen in supporting the candidate who will fight for the future of the Members of this Union–Anne-Marie Johnson.
There is only one candidate in this whole thing as far as I’m concerned. She’s already the serving Vice President. That’s a short step up.
I wanna speak to all you actors out there who are like me–the ones who need to fight for their next job, the ones who aren’t as financially stable as a big celebrity who easily glides from job to job. Look me up on the IMDB–I’m a very real person, and I bet I’m just like you. I’ve been in this Union my entire adult life, and the one thing that I know for sure that is a cold, hard reality of this business, is that NOTHING is guaranteed. You can work your butt off day in and day out, and you still might not have very much in the bank. You might find yourself struggling to keep your head above water after an illness that happen to strike you at a time when you didn’t have your health insurance because you couldn’t qualify that period. Maybe it’s been difficult for you to figure out how you’re gonna pay for your eldest kid to go to the college they want to, on an actor’s salary. Maybe you’re having trouble even getting auditions for jobs. I’ll bet you and I are very, very alike. Look me up, I’m real. And I’m just like you.
Here’e what I know–I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Anne-Marie Johnson over the past year, because I’ve been very concerned and afraid, quite honestly, as to what’s going to happen to me, and all of you, in the future of this profession. I’ve seen this woman listen to Members’ concerns in our Union REGARDLESS of their level of accomplishment, and begin immediately after a conversation to try to implement something that would help and protect that Member contractually. I don’t think I’ve ever been as impressed with a woman that I’ve met–she is ferociously intelligent, has a firm and forthright sense of honor, and has more energy than five people combined–that she is willing to use to work tirelessly for US, the MEMBERS of this union. She TRULY serves the Members of our Union. If she doesn’t agree with you, she will explain to you exactly WHY, and I haven’t been able to find a single person in my years in this union that I would endorse more wholeheartedly than Anne-Marie. Understand–she is not my “friend”–I met her and have gotten to know her because I’ve been on the forefront of our current struggles with the AMPTP as actors. This is not some personal endorsement for someone I’ve know since I was a kid–this is an endorsement from me personally wanting to share with you Members out ther like myself, who this person truly is. I honestly believe this woman is an extraordinary role model for myself and others as a woman and as an intellect, and I am proud to say these things about her. I’m getting a little choked up as I write this, because I KNOW what she is trying to do to fight for the Members of this Union, and I know that slanderous, defamatory things some are trying to say about her. I don’t know what we would do as actors without people like this woman fighting for our interests. I honestly feel like we as members don’t have anything else to lose right now–it’s all been taken from us, and I know that Anne-Marie is trying to fight to get it back. That’s all we have as hope for this profession. We’ve all seen now firsthand that the Theatrical contract has not meant “more jobs” like we were led to believe, and we’re now at such a critical point that virtually all of our hard-fought-for protections from generations before have been signed away and we are left with nothing–not even “more work” like they told us.
This is a state of emergency. If we don’t get people in office like Anne-Marie, Connie Stevens, and the other people running on the “Membership First” slate like Martin Sheen and Ed Harris, it’s pretty much the end of this thing that we love as a profession. It is that serious, I assure you.
Here’s something that you might not know–Anne-Marie and her Membership First friends fought tirelessly to open up their Board meeting to average members like you and me–so that we can go see and watch what goes on in there, that directly affects our lives and futures. The other side–the Ken Howard/Unite for Strength side, was against this. Why? Because they didn’t want us to be able to see what they say and do in there. We Members might just see that these “Unite for Strength” people are trying to destroy our careers. That is–all the people below star-level that I dont think they believe are “worthy” of being in the union and having it’s protections.
I watched one of the “Unite for Strength” figureheads who are cohorts with Ken Howard, distort a motion that my friend Mobin Khan began at the last Membership meeting. I was there when Mobin started the motion that Background numbers and salaries be brought up to the same scale as New York’s–something that has been a bit strange considering most of the work is done out here and the BG quotas are lower and the payscale as well. Unfair. Mobin started a motion. He was angry. At the very next Board Meeting I watched the Ken Howard/Unite for Strength camp go up and say that Mobin “didn’t mean that he wanted quotas and salaries made equal, he ACTUALLY meant that he wanted an “amendment to the 3 voucher system to join the union.” The Ken Howard/UforSTrength people THEN stated that “what this member ACTUALLY meant was that he wanted the qualifications for membership to be changed to fifty or sixty vouchers to join the union”. This was a deliberate distortion of a Members’ concern, total lies, and I believe an effort by these Unite for Strenght/Ken Howard camp people to eliminate Background actors from the Union entirely. Why? Because the Background actors always seem to understand what the better contract is, and which candidate has their needs in mind–Anne-Marie Johnson. And there are alot of them, so the Ken Howard/Ufs camp is afraid of them.
I watched them firsthand, this Ken Howard/ufstrenght group, fight tooth and nail against letting the Members of this Union have a vote on their last contract. They did everything they possibly could to stop YOU GUYS out there from having a vote and a say in you future.
So here we are–we know now that the contract Ken Howard and his friends forced down our throats did NOT mean more work for us like they promised, and now we have pretty much signed away every vital protection we have as actors and Union members.
If we don’t all vote for Anne-Marie Johnson for President, Connie Stevens for Secretary-Treasurer, and Martin Sheen, Ed Harris and the ENTIRE Membership First group ACROSS THE BOARD–all 33 candidates, I believe it is truly the end of this profession.
It’s not supposed to be THIS hard for you guys out there–trust me. And if you take some initiative and vote for this group and learn about the impact this vote will have on you future, you might just have a career, and not a “hobby”.
Thanks.
“Collective will” sounds strangely like socialism and/or communism and that scares the daylights out of me.
Each actor and actress who is an individual member of SAG and AFTRA are real people – most of us don’t work and AMJ has done nothing to help each of us.
Additionally, AMJ came to the “Saving The Lives Of Our Own” MPTF debacle too late. I wonder if she jumped on the bandwagon in order to use it in her run for office? Sorry to be jaded about her, but I was there early on and no one from SAG helped until it was too late.
Obama served as a community activist and a Senator NOT. He was absent for most of his senatorial tenure so that he could get his Presidential campaign going, voting absent for most of the important issues. Then when he ran for Pres. he used his community activist card as a way to get votes…disingenuous, fake…actions speak bigger than words. Look at what he has done to this country in just 9 months of serving as President of the United States.
As for your claims that AMJ is thought to be a bitch “Men are strong that won’t suffer fools. Women are bitchy that won’t suffer fools. Every woman knows this to be true.”
I am a woman and I do not know this to be true. Not that it makes any difference in the decision – who cares? For you — a man to make this reference is kind of silly in my opinion and condescending.
And Clancy – you’ve known AMJ a year? Not long enough.
I will vote for Ken Howard.
Tracy -
You said, “And Clancy – you’ve known AMJ a year? Not long enough.”
If knowing AMJ for a year isn’t long enough, how is Ken Howard’s short board service long enough???
BTW, a family is a COLLECTIVE of individuals related by blood and marriage. Which means that not only am I socialist, but when I get married and add to that collective, I’m even more of a socialist.
Another definition of “collective will”? Democracy. You know, as opposed to the will of a dictator or a small cabal imposed upon the people as a whole.
mheister
In the context of Mr. Clancy’s letter a collective is equivalent to socialism and communism. In your context it’s still socialism, so you proved my point.
You ask “how is Ken Howard’s short board service long enough???” You’re mixing AMJ’s years of politics with SAG and no accomplishments to Ken Howard’s years of work in SAG and AFTRA and his ability to listen. I would suggest you do some research on both candidates. Then you’d understand my perspective. It is like reading the healthcare bill FIRST before bullying the “collective” into it–ultimately that just angers individuals because the common sense is gone and the condescension is at the forefront.
AMJ is an elitist politician who cares nothing more than to get into power and rant and rave and spend our dues money on lawsuits and lose, lose, lose because I believe she can’t realize that it’s time to go away.
Ken Howard has the experience, wisdom and will to listen to individuals in order to fix SAG/AFTRA. Just read the bill. Read her background, read his background, give him a chance.
As for your Dictionary.com (you went there didn’t you) definition of “collective” related to family- you are sadly incorrect. I am a married and when I took my vows I took them as an individual giving of my life to another individual to have and to hold from this day forward, for better and for worse till this day forward…. That is what Mr. Ken Howard has communicated to each and every one of us in SAG and AFTRA. AMJ sees the “collective” as just that – a hard hearted collective in the dictionary on her way to more power, more spending, more problems.
BTW we are a Republic. Remember that from this day forward to have and to hold.
Ken Howard has attended 5 of the 19 Board meetings since he was elected to the Board. AM Johnson attended ALL OF THEM. “Give him a chance”? Why? So he can wittle our contracts down to absolutely nothing, since he has no concern for the protections of ANYONE in this Union below star level?
I don’t gamble with my future. I get the facts, and make an educated decision. I don’t think “being a fine actor” exactly qualifies you for the position we’re talking about, and that is veritably the ONLY THING WE KNOW ABOUT KEN HOWARD.
Anne-Marie Johnson has tirelessly and thanklessly devoted one hundred percent of herself to this Union and our futures. Who are you, “Tracy”? What’s your story? Because until we even know WHO YOU ARE why should anyone listen to your empty retoric, name-calling and mudslinging? It just makes you look bad.
Here’s a question for you–ARE WE BACK TO WORK???? Are YOU back to work, “Tracy”? I’d like to know. Because NOBODY that I know is, and Ken Howard and his crew are the ones responsible for the ABYSMAL contract that we ratified THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET WORK!!!!
I’m TIRED of the bull$%it quite honestly. There are no facts to back up the crap being spouted on here. I didn’t know that Ken Howard had taken vows “to have and to hold us”. This is pretty creepy. He has no experience. We have no work. Ken and his Unite 4 Strength friends want to take away even the right to vote from the working-class members of this union.
Anne-Marie and her Membership First friends opened up their Boardroom so that each and every member of this union–REGARDLESS OF THEIR LEVEL OF ACCOMPLISHMENT THUS FAR–could go in there and SEE what goes on with their own eyes that DIRECTLY affects their lives and futures, and Ken Howard and clan were againgst this completely. The facts speak for themselves. People aren’t stupid. And now they’ll have the chance to make their own decision and exercise their valuable RIGHT TO VOTE in this election, which could very well be taken away from them immediately if these Elitist Unite 4 Strength people like Ken Howard are elected. Well I think THAT’S FLAT OUT WRONG. I think that YOUR money was just as green as Ken Howard’s when you plopped it down to join this union–all you little guys out there trying to eek out a living–and guess what? YOUR VOTE COUNTS JUST AS MUCH AS THESE PEOPLE TOO.
It’s your right to vote. You EARNED it, regardless of your level of accomplishment so far–USE IT!!! xxox Michele
And before you start coming at me like a rabid dog, let me stop you with your choke-chain long enough to hear the most important fact of all–
ON THE IDEA OF ‘MERGER’:
UNITE 4 STRENGTH HAS NO PLAN.
I’ll say it again for my people in the back row–
UNITE 4 STRENGTH HAS NO PLAN.
MEMBERSHIP FIRST HAS A PLAN. A VERY DETAILED PLAN. IT’S CALLED ‘SHARED SERVICES’ AND YOU CAN GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT AT http://www.membershipfirst.com
At such a critical time for actors, we can’t rely on people who haven’t even thought this thing through long enough to have a plan.
The FACT remains that up to this point, THE MEMBERS OF THIS UNION HAVE NOT SUPPORTED MERGER. They voted against it. Membership First listened to them. They’ll listen to them again if they decide to vote for merger. BUT THEY’LL ALSO BE READY WITH A PLAN IF THAT TIME COMES THAT WILL OFFER THE MEMBERS OF THIS UNION THE STRONGEST CONTRACTS WITH THE BEST PROTECTIONS AND STRIVE TO PRESERVE A SUPERIOR PENSION AND HEALTH PLAN.
Ken Howard and his friends will just stride off to their next series regular job and never look back, thankful that nothing ever “held up” their next career advancement, like our pesky contracts and protections and benefits. What do they care, as long as nothing interrupts the next job they have lined up…
So keep the empty rhetoric and blathering at the mouth for some place else. Facts are facts. And I personally am sick of the crap.
Michele,
Man you are angry BTW “retoric” is spelled “rhetoric.” Mudslinging – where? Name calling -where? I was respectful and honest in all of my posts. Again, you’re reacting without researching.
I was responding to “mheister”, not you — with regard to my original post about AMJ comment about supporting “Collectives.” So it might have seemed “Creepy” to you, but not if you had read all my posts and the mheisters post. Get a backbone.
Your post is just typical of knee jerk reaction of actors who are uninformed….pure emotion all about YOU. Do your research. If it helps, AMJ does hers and you like her so do as she has done.
Who am I? Tracy. Duh. Am I working? Not that I have to prove a darn thing to YOU but to be respectful of your question – YES I have been been working a lot.
Give all the candidates a chance and don’t act so emotionally.
Yes, “Tracy” I caught my typo omission in my second post, but I guess you didn’t notice because you were busy foaming at the mouth.
Who knows who you are. I don’t. Neither does anyone else reading this stuff. You have no facts. I have done my research in the 17 years I’ve been in this Union. You have been lying and slinging mud, and hiding being a fake name, trying to get people to listen to you. I have a backbone. At least I have the courage to use my real name. You don’t. You’re most likely not even a Union member.
And when I said that your comments seemed “creepy” I meant that too. Saying that the Presidential Candidate you should vote for is likened to your “to have and to hold” wedding vows is pretty creepy. But then, you have to say SOMETHING about him, right? Since we don’t know a damn thing about his views or what he’ll do politically if elected. He’s too afraid to even debate Anne-Marie Johnson. Looks like you two have alot in common.
Again, I’ll say–you have no facts. You really have no information whatsoever.
I, along with other 110,000 working-class members of this union are pretty tired of this crap.
http://www.membershipfirst.com for some detailed, logical information regarding your futures you guys.
xxox
michele
“Tracy”, your imdb page says you haven’t worked for five years, so I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say you’re “working alot”. No one is back to work.
Your imdb page says that you haven’t worked in five years “Tracy”, so I don’t know what you mean when you say you’ve been “working alot”. Nobody is back to work. You don’t have to be hit with a “Canon”ball to realize that.
Yes, “Tracy” I caught the omission/typo in my second post, but you didn’t notice because you were too busy foaming at the mouth.
I have done my “research” in the 17 years I’ve been in this Union. It IS pretty creepy, quite frankly, that you liken your “to have and to hold” vows in your marriage to reasons we should vote for a Presidential Candidate. But then again, you have to say SOMETHING about him, right? We know veritably nothing whatsoever about his views or politics with regards to our futures as Union Members. He’s too afraid to even debate Anne-Marie Johnson in public. I guess you two have alot in common.
You hide behind a fake name to spout lies on the internet to try to get people to listen to you. We don’t know who you are. You probably aren’t even in our Union. I HAVE a backbone my friend, and you’re bumping up against it right now.
You have no facts. You have no information whatsoever.
I, along with the other 110,000 working-class members of my Union are really sick of the crap.
Here guys–for some logical, intelligent information regarding our futures go to http://www.membershipfirst.com
xxox
Michele
And you haven’t worked in five years “Tracy” ie. Katherine, so stop lying about how you’re “working alot”. You’re not. No one is “Back to Work” including you.
Detailed information for you–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=859JZxTsS10
CLANCY BROWN AND ANNE MARIE JOHNSON YOU ARE AMAZING LEADERS.
Our union is blessed to have members like Clancy and Anne Marie.
They shows all of us solidiarity and fortitude in our Screen Actors Guild. They have fought for fair wages of actors. The have accomplished so much for all members.
Producers would be allowed to have poor working conditions for youths, dancers, actors, and stuntmen. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Brown rise to the occasion each and every time and protect all of us. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE!! FORGE A AHEAD— YOU HAVE COURAGE!!!!