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
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Dear Friends and Fellow SAG Members,






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,