Questionairre 3 of 3 from AEA Presidential Candidates - Current President Nick Wyman Responds

I've yet to read the comments myself, but we all appreciate Nick taking the time to respond. Many thanks!

Dear Allie, Colin et alia,

      Both Larry and Kate have beaten me to the punch on these questions, and they have carried off most of the prizes and tipped hats for their articulate answers, but I am happy to add a few points of my own.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While Equity has done a promotional campaign “Ask if it’s Equity/Ask if it’s really Broadway,” (As if Broadway equals brilliance!) regarding the non-union tours, it’s equal to trying to plug the hole in the boat after Equity allowed it to start sinking. On the same note, many union actors/SMs claim the lowest tier Union tours are now beneath the non-union standards. What are your comments?

It's a misrepresentation to say SET-Agreement tours are beneath non-union standards and here's why: the Short Engagement Touring Agreement provides for work rules, travel rules, pension credits, health payments, and other worker protections that are nowhere to be found in a non-Equity job.  Also, the SET Agreement and the Tiers of the Production Contract provide for a back-end profit participation that in some cases (Newsies, Les Miserables) brings the minimum salaries above Production Contract minimum.  That said, one of the difficult decisions in creating these contracts, particularly the SET Agreement, was where to draw the line on compensation .  As Kate pointed out in one of her comments, $550 per week plus per diem may seem like an insult to a NYC member used to making Production contract money but it may seem like a fabulous opportunity to a member in Seattle or Chicago or Minneapolis.

And Equity deserves a great deal of credit for seeing the handwriting on the Touring wall and creating the Tiers, which have brought the vast majority of the one-week touring market back into the Equity fold. And given that it is the local presenters (with whom we have no bargaining relationship and therefor no leverage) who determine the guarantee our bargaining partner the producer will receive -- which determines what level tier or SET agreement the contract is and therefore how much the minimum will be,  Equity deserves even more credit for coming up with a strategy (telling subscribers and patrons to "ask if it's Equity") to put some pressure on the presenters to choose the Equity tours marketed by our bargaining partners rather than the cheaper non-Equity tours.

And nobody is saying that Broadway equals brilliance (though I have seen some fantastic work on Broadway this season.)  The campaign is about the quality of the contract -- union protections, benefits, work rules -- not the quality of the work.

Though the Union was formed to protect its members, what, if any, responsibility does the Union have in serving, nurturing, promoting the theatre? Without IT, we’d all be jobless.

I refer you to the Preamble to the AEA Constitution.  "We hereby constitute ourselves a voluntary Association to advance, promote, foster, and benefit all those connected with the art of the theatre and particularly the profession of acting and the conditions of persons engaged therein; to protect and secure the rights of actors; to inform them as to their legal rights and remedies; to advise and assist them in obtaining employment and proper compensation therefor."  That is our mission.  I take it seriously. 

Today at the meet and greet for the play I am doing at the Long Wharf, I buttonholed the theater's chairman of the board and talked to him about board development and the need to find new board members and new sources of funding as local banks and utilities are subsumed into megabanks and conglomerates. I make it my personal mission to attempt to improve the financial health of every theater organization I encounter.  Why?  Not just because I love Theatre, but because a healthier theatre can hire more actors and pay them more.

That's why I wish those who cajoled the head of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and the Chair of the California Assembly's "Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism & Internet Media" committee and the Entertinment committee of the Valley Industry & Commerce Association to issue statements opposing Equity's efforts to change 99 Seat Theatre had instead used those lobbying efforts to convince those worthies to create some laws and regulations that would actually support Theater:  rent subsidies, allocation of sales tax dollars, etc. etc.

HOW do you think the change to the 99-seat plan, as it currently exists, will help/hurt the LA Theatre and the theatre community as a whole?

Okay. This question, if I understand it correctly, needs a six-month answer.  I will try to be succinct.  The current Equity proposals have frequently been described as "one size fits all," but there are three separate categories:  the Self-Produced option, the Membership Company rule, and the 99 Seat Theatre Agreement, which is basically the current Plan with wages for rehearsal and performance instead of just a stipend for performance. In fact, the current 99 Seat Theatre Plan is actually "one size fits all:"  whether you are a hole-in-the-wall artist collective or a well-established theatrical producing entity, you all get to take advantage of the same sweetheart deal of no rehearsal pay, modest performance stipends and up to 80 performances.  That sweetheart deal is very supportive of the member who has a hankering to put on a show with some pals but serves as a powerful disincentive for an established producer to use a theater of more than 99 seats or to put actors on contract.  The current Equity proposals are, in my opinion, an improvement over the current 99 Seat Theatre Plan as they stand.  But I have heard lots and lots of suggestions for changing/improving the Equity proposals, and I firmly believe that some of those will be adopted next week in Council. Should significant changes be made to the 99 Seat Theatre Plan such that the Plan is no longer available to the members, the union will be free to meet with producers, theatre companies, producer-members, etc. directly rather than going through the Review Committee.  The union will then have the power to tweak, revise, expand, improve the 99 Seat Theatre Agreement and the internal membership rules.

I absolutely believe that the future of Theatre in LA will be better and brighter.

What is your take on the methods Equity is using, including the Anti-99 phone bank, to confuse its membership during the 99 Seat voting process? (Matter of fact, this includes the lies in the phone bank towards Blank Theatre, the tone of many of the councilors, McColl's use of double speak and obfuscation, the incredibly insidious change in mid-stream saying yes means you want change and after you vote yes THEN they'll change the proposals, it goes on and on, and the behavior has seriously eroded the legitimacy of Equity in this town. Examples here: http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/?s=actors+equity+99+seat&x=30&y=7#sthash.Nxu70Os7.dpbs

Phone banks are a get-out-the-vote tool. Your elected leaders voted overwhelmingly in favor of the current proposals, so those folks manning the phone banks represented the union's position. (And let's drop "anti-99" as well as "anti-union.")

As to the Blank Theatre, I have no idea what their rent situation is, so I will accept their disclaimer.  Regarding their statement that the reason they have not fulfilled their avowed (since 1990) intent to become a LORT theatre is solely the 2008 recession and not the financial advantage of the 99 Seat Theatre Plan, that seems disingenuous. Dozens and dozens of theatres across the country have fought through the financial setbacks of 2008-2009 to come onto Equity contract.

As to the tone of my fellow councillors, maybe the truly surprising part is how civil they generally have been.  There has been a lot of invective, outrage and unbridled passion flowing into our e-mail inboxes. (We have also received a number of calm, rational, and genteel notes asking me to vote "No" and thanking me for my service.)  Actors, perhaps by definition, have easy access to their emotions; there have been lots of rude things said on both sides.

For myself, I have always seen though the language to the passion and commitment to LA Theatre and to a cherished method of exercising one's craft.  I have seen the fear and the anxiety that those cherished opportunities would be destroyed. That is what I have always responded to.

As to Mary McColl, I have spent four years working by her side, and I tell you she is simply the best.  You want her in your foxhole. You want her on your negotiating team. You want her as your Executive Director. Rather than being obfuscatory, she is a remarkable straight-shooter.  I back her all the way.

I am not fond of the idea of promoting a Yes vote as a vote for "change in general" because both the Vote Yes for Any Sort of Change and the Vote No if you want Change But Not This Change have muddied the waters.

The LA 99 seat code ‘VOTE FOR A CHANGE” says it’s for any change, whatever the change is will be decided later.  While both coasts want change to the 99 Seat, we don’t want to write a blank check that allows for someone to fill in the blanks later. IF the proposed 99 change passes, WILL members get to vote on those specific changes later?

The check is far from blank.  The shy, bashful LA County members have managed to be surprisingly articulate and forthcoming in what they want and don't want in a theatrical agreement and in their theatrical opportunities.  "Both coasts want change to the 99 Seat," you say.  Good, because I believe change is coming.  It will reflect the survey of the LA members, it will reflect the focus groups, it will reflect the Town Hall Meeting and the Special Membership Meeting, it will reflect the dozens and dozens of e-mails we have received.  And no, members will not get to vote on those specific changes -- just as members do not currently get to vote on the HAT contract or the SPT contract.

Why has it taken Equity 25 years to suddenly realize that they are "breaking federal labor laws" in regard to the 99-seat code? Why didn't they bring this minimum wage ‘issue’ up back in the 80's? (Respectfully, please don’t say, “We’re not lawyers.” ANY Union has plenty of lawyers, and plenty of its members are lawyers who say this is absolutely untrue.)

Equity is not breaking federal Labor laws because we are not the Employer. Although I agree with the Federal government that employers should pay employees at least minimum wage, the impetus for this change came from members who approached us last year about their wish to be compensated for their work.

Why is Equity trying to quickly pass the 99 seat change instead of sitting down with the members who have been making theatre to get actual factual evidence on the business of theatre in L.A? Why not use the resources and firsthand knowledge of the AEA actor-producers who have been making great work for the last twenty five years?"

Equity has solicited input from members and producer-members for months now. The current 99 Seat Plan stipulation that Equity must deal only with the Review Committee has limited Equity's ability to deal with and be responsive to individual producer-members.

Where do you stand on the statement, AEA needs to “protect” actors from themselves? To the adult actors, that seems condescending. Pacino has publicly says he does ‘shit’ movies so he can return to the poor paying work that really matters.  IF there are sleazy small time producers, making big bucks – why don’t you stop then, instead of everyone??

I think the union does indeed have an interest in protecting actors from undervaluing their work. Al Pacino doesn't need to make money from his stage work; not all actors are so fortunate.  A young actor offered a Broadway show might well be happy to do that show for $50 a week in order to get the exposure; that would not be good for other actors.

The uproar to the 25 year old 99-seat plan has been tremendous, and rightfully so. The NY version, The Showcase Code, is 33 years old. When established in 1982, the Showcase code clearly made no exceptions for social media, the internet, diminishing rental space, etc. – It also established the top ticket price at $15. JUST adjusted for inflation, that is the equivalent of $36.49 in 2015 USD. The current top ticket price is $18 – less than some Manhattan movie tickets.  What changes do you propose for the Showcase code?

I am not currently proposing any changes to the Showcase Code, but I think the time has come to remove the top ticket price limitation.

Several members of the AEA council have repeatedly referred to Equity members who oppose the proposal as "anti-union" and suggested if they don't support it, they should quit. Do you support a union member's right to express disagreement about matters of policy? What are Councilors' responsibilities regarding how they treat fellow union members?

I totally support members' rights (and councilors' rights) to express disagreement, both as a free speech issue and because I find dialectic to be an effective way to develop strong policy.  I think "anti-union" is a mistaken and unfortunate characterization.  (I also disagree with the locution "Pro-99" -- a distressing echo of "pro-life" -- as if Equity leadership were "anti-99.")  We are indeed all on the same side:  the side of Theater, the side of improving and increasind opportunities for actors and stage managers.  We just disagree about our methods.

Why, if at all, is the 99 seat/Showcase codes important to you?

As I have consistently written (I refer you to my Equity News column "Work, Art, and 'Work'"), I acknowledge the value of Theater as a source of Creativity and Community and Career Opportunities, and in my own life, those have frequently trumped Cash as a reason to do a particular job. 

As all theatres need to report final statistics, why can you tell us what percentage of 99 seat/Showcase code theatres made a profit in 2014? This has to be an easy number to get – yet no one seems to know it.

Sadly, I am sure that number is zero. I assume that most 99 Seat Theatres are not-for-profits, and by their very definition they do not (and legally cannot) make a profit. Even more sadly, Theater in general does not make a profit.  Box office receipts usually cover only about 50% of a theater's expenses.  Theaters, even the big-name theaters, have to scrounge for donors and patrons and grants and corporate support to make ends meet.

The theatre should never be just an employer. It’s not Starbucks.  Where do you think the theatre fits in to today’s culture?

I love Theater.  I love seeing Theater, and I am a cheerleader and a champion for the shows I see.  I love doing Theater because it gives me the chance to work on more interesting roles than the stuff I do on TV and film and because when you do a play or a musical you become a family and I love my theatrical families.  (I refer you to my Equity News column "Why I Do Theatre" and the piece on my Facebook candidacy page "The Case for Analog Entertainment in a Digital World.")

Several members of council have repeatedly referred to Equity members who oppose the proposal as "anti-union" and suggested if they don't support it, they should quit. (Very Boss Fatt of them!)  Do you support a union member's right to express disagreement about matters of policy? What are Councilors' responsibilities regarding how they treat fellow union members? IF NO ONE is running against them, what are our rights as members to remove them from office?

If the non-star members do make a mass exodus from Equity after the 99 seat vote – and it is a reality on both coasts, what are your thoughts. NO ONE wants to leave, but it may be the only choice that it left? 

It is the "non-star members" for whom the union exists.  In 1913, stars like Mary Madden Fiske and Francis Wilson didn't need a union to achieve fair treatment from employers.  If members disagree with Council's decision on 99 Seat Theatre -- whatever that decision may turn out to be (and I truly have no more idea of what Council will decide than I do of who will win the 2015 World Series) -- then I strongly suggest that members continue to make their case to their elected officers and councilors about how to improve Theatre in LA.  Work from within to effect change.

Harold Clurman, one of the greats of the American Theatre – talked about artists versus the ‘employees’ sitting in sludge and just wanting a job, or as he stated were  “more frequently known as an Actor Equity Member. How, if at all, has that changed in 60 years?

We actors and stage managers exist simultaneously as artists and as small-businesspeople.  We all want to do good work -- Art when possible -- and we all want to make some money doing it.  I have never sat in sludge (whatever that metaphor might mean) but sometimes I just want a job and I'm not too fussy about the Art part.  The union exists to ensure that actors and stage managers get fair treatment and make some money; the union doesn't enter into the subjective world of Art -- good art vs. bad art vs. non-art.

There are 150 times the companies that agree with us, cheer us, and tell us, we are going to get blackballed as we asked for a better Union! If we were anti-union, we would have left and saved ourselves the hassle. What do you feel about this huge majority of people who are AFRAID of their union????

No one at Equity -- staff or councillors -- is going to blackball anyone.  (What would I blackball you from?  The LORT committee?)  I agree that some people are afraid, but I certainly hope they aren't afraid of the elected representatives and the staff that are here to serve them.  I think the fear is members' concern about the possibility of losing valued opportunities to practice their craft.  I share that concern and as I work to create theatre that values actors, i am also working to maintain if not increase opportunities for our members.