Uh Oh? (Yawn) White Revises Statement to The Wrap – UPDATED
The Wrap reports that NED David White has “retracted” his statement to the website issued in response to its article recycling Membership First claims that the National Board “wasn’t able†to have a full discussion of NED David White’s credentials and implying that because one of the investors in White’s former company was indicted, it somehow reflects upon White. The investor, Mark Dreier, is a New York attorney who allegedly was involved in some complex financial frauds.”
White, who was SAG’s General Counsel, left the union during Doug Allen’s tenure as NED. He formed a firm called Entertainment Strategies Group, in which Dreier was an investor.
The Wrap claimed that ESG “was shut down because of its ties to Marc Dreier” and that the National Board was unaware of the connection, which White had disclosed in a public statement in early December. White then issued a statement including these words:
“In addition to responding openly to questions asked about ESG and its investor, Marc Dreier, during the most recent Hollywood Board meeting, I shared this and other information about ESG with the National Board of Directors prior to its approval of my employment contract.”
Now the Wrap says that statement has been retracted, and replaced by ““I have had numerous discussions with board members and others on both coasts about my former business, ESG, including discussions specifically about ESG’s investor, Marc Dreier. However, during the extensive Q&A period at a recent Hollywood board meeting, I did not directly refer to Mr. Dreier…I fully appreciate that some may still have questions they want to ask about ESG and I intend to be open and proactive in addressing any questions, particularly those posed by SAG board members.â€
Net difference; it wasn’t discussed at the Hollywood board. Which to the real world doesn’t probably mean much, but to the suddenly hysterical Wrap it seems to be a big deal.
The blog quotes Membership First’s Anne-Marie Johnson as saying, “This is not a witch hunt. It’s important to make the record straight.â€
–
Update: There seems to be some embarrassment over in Wrap-land about their initial story using the word “retract” and implying intense evil by the change. Some time after we pointed out it was really not a retraction but a relatively minor correction, the Wrap corrected its story (without any indication that it had changed it). The headline now reads “David White Amends Statement” and uses the term “revised” rather than retracted.
Without a trace of
Without a trace irony the revised Wrap concludes “One has to wonder if White’s second statement would have been necessary if the meeting had been available for all members to watch on the Internet.”
More appropriately: one has to wonder if The Wrap’s revision would have been necessary if the site weren’t devolving into another shoot first, as questions later version of the Drudge Report, by way of Barking Dog heaven.
I can confirm that Dreier’s name was not mentioned at the Hollywood board meeting — at least not during the public portion. However, a number of Membership First people questioned White extensively about ESG itself, its clients, his alleged ties to Robert Pisano, and so on.
But in all events I’m confident that no one in Membership First would dream of conducting a witch hunt.
VG
so what does this mean/? why did white revise his statement? it’s an obvious smear campaign by MF which i think will fade away as all thier efforts…but i’m curious as to Mr. White’s reasoning for his revision/clarification.
Haven’t we put this to bed yet? Geeze, MF would find something bad about Mother Teresa if she got in their way. Let’s move on already. We just keep getting sutck in muck while our union and our members languish. The economy has tanked, the industry is in a major downfall, and we’re arguing semantics. Does anybody really care about the big issues….or is MF going to file another lawsuit against SAG?
CALLING ALL DRAMA QUEENS!
The last time SAG voted-in an Interim NED – Peter Frank – there was EXACTLY ZERO “VETTING” DONE.
Furthermore, the very idea of Anne-Marie Johnson trying to make anything “straight” boggles the mind.
Can I ask a question? How in hell does the choice of DAVID WHITE – (DELETED BY ADMIN) – because a a major investor in his firm is under indictment, a firm which “helps management finesse union contracts” HELP the Screen Actors Guild?
Does it occur to anyone that if UFS was truly interested in a new day, without flip-flopping NED’s every five minutes, that they would have chosen someone clean as a whistle? I’m not saying David White is guilty of anything – I DO know that he has questions to answer, and one ENORMOUSLY unsavory relation that he left, about five minutes ago.
THAT says to me – UFS is cherry-picking 2 people in McGuire and White who they think can BEST facilitate taking a horrible contract, further crippling SAG, so they can then ramrod merger – WITH the guidance of David White and John McGuire.
Look guys – these two dudes have GOT to GO.
You want to move forward? You want to get AWAY from divisive factionalism? You want to do what the membership wants, not what certain partisan individuals on both sides want?
Let’s stop shooting ourselves in the foot with this tit-for-tat politics. It’s the behavior of 8 YEAR OLDS
To my knowledge, DW left in spring ’06. I remember going to a “farewell” gathering for him in May of that year. DA was hired fall ’06 and began his “reign of….. (fill in the blank)” in January ’07. Not that it directly affects the conversation here, but wanted to set the record straight.
we need to ask Ann Marie why they hired an attorney with ties to Drier? What gives?
#6 -
“How in hell does the choice of DAVID WHITE……HELP the Screen Actors Guild?”
….Um….The fact that he has excellent qualifications to be NED of SAG?
This is so boring already. the man is brilliant (Rhodes friggin Scholar) and because he had a Bernie Madoff affiliated with his company people have ?questions? about him???
really just another MF distraction.
And it is not a horrible contract but a very good contract we are going to ratify…if we get the exp. date
Just a little reality check…MOST UNIONS ARE GLADDLY TAKING PAY CUTS TO KEEP THEIR JOBS…CHECK IT OUT.
Kathy. it’s the double standard of MF. Use a lawyer who was a PARTNER with Dreier, that’s okay. But David White gets slashed because Dreier was a passive investor in his company….
Matt -as for McGuire – there isn’t a man on earth more qualified than him. He’s bean a loyal SAG staff member for 40 years, and our chief negotiator for 26….When David left SAG Alan Rosenberg wrote extremely high praise about him.
If you think he has questions to answer, then ask him. His door is open. You might actually talk to the man and find out he’s not what MF makes him to be.
Matt, you said “You want to move forward? You want to get AWAY from divisive factionalism? You want to do what the membership wants, not what certain partisan individuals on both sides want? Let’s stop shooting ourselves in the foot with this tit-for-tat politics. It’s the behavior of 8 YEAR OLDS” Well,this attack on David White is exactly that – childish devisive partisan facitonalism
Isn’t it telling that Matt did NOT show up at the SAG forum (MOVE) where he could have spoken to David White in person, face to face, ask any question he wished…got information from the source. Mulhern was a no show. Very telling indeed.
You had the opportunity to have a one on one conversation with David White NOT in a huge auditorium…face to face….and Matt, as ususal, doesn’t show up to actually get involved. He prefers to bark from the sidelines instead of serving on a committee and experience how organizations work.
#12 Marisa,
If Matt had been seen voluntarily in the same room with David White, then Matt would have been in the same room with someone who had actually spoken to Mark Dreier. Such a stain on Matt’s reputation would have ruined his future chances of election in SAG (probably not as much as him having to explain that he is not actually the black woman he once claimed he was, but risky nonetheless). Matt wasn’t there for the good of SAG’s future.
Forgive me my ignorance, but is there a definition of “interim” in the SAG lexicon that I do not understand? I understand that for many members, an empty NED chair represents less of a danger than one inhabited by Doug Allen, but are the people who are complaining about the lack of vetting of a temporary NED actually in favor of leaving the office vacant until a permanent replacement can be found? is that really the problem?
Of course, the idea of a “permanent SAG NED” is something of an oxymoron, isn’t it?
Dif Fred – when considering the past 10 years, I think the postion should be officially called “Interim NED”….but in this case, the written assent named David White as Interim, and – if MF ever allows the business of the union to move forward – the Natl Board could start vetting candidates for the “permanent” NED position. One candidate could very well be David White, or not.
Matt is sounding more “MF” all the time. Here he had a chance to meet David White and ask questions. Even though he dared other posters to meet with Matt at that meeting, Matt didn’t show….and now he’s upset he hasn’t had a chance to question Mr. White.
What’s next, Matt – a lawsuit against SAG?
#13 Fred….You are trying to use logic delusional, egocentric, illogical terrorists….shame on you (lol)
Matt is a coward. He can’t face David White. He doesn’t have the cajones to call David White, write to David White. Nada. He attacks those he can’t debate with. That’s what cowards do. They bark from the sidelines but never show up to the plate. Has he ever served on any committee for anything (SAG or not)? Any community board committees? any tenant associations, block association offices? Nope. And not serving in the past is fine. But here’s where it gets “transparent” (LOL):
As a community leader/organizer I these folks rear their bloated heads ALL THE TIME. They want to feel important but they don’t want to actually do the work. It’s the big red flag when you run into these blowhards..
They shout.”you should do it this way…”
Response: “OK, sir, would you like to start that project?”
Blowhard: “Me? Oh no, that’s YOUR JOB. I don’t have the time. I need to be PAID for something like that…”
MF would rather have a damaged, broken, SAG than a SAG in which they don’t have control. I don’t say this lightly…SAG has been damaged and MF keeps bashing the entire union (lawsuits? filibusters? witch hunts? ATTEMPTED character assassination?)
No one has answered this question: Name one thing that MF has done for SAG that has been good for the members? Name one strategy that has been successful?
On to another topic…How about this…Matt is all about members having an “unfettered access to information”
I as a member DEMAND to know how many lawyers fees SAG paid for members who were suing SAG? Why was a member who was suing SAG given our dues money to pay his lawyers?
How much did it cost SAG to pay Scott Wilson’s lawyers and the person (forget his name) who was being sued because he STOLE the SAG member email list after the Commercial Strike? Why was that case settled? Was it settled out of court? Who paid the guys lawyers?
How much are Rosenberg and company racking up in legal fees? Since MF is in the habit of settling lawsuits in the name of SAG and paying out the wazoo for it…we should be prepared for the HIGHLY unlikely possibility that MF remains on the board at all.
How’s that for “transparency”? How do i find out that info? Maybe i should write Rosenberg and see what he says about THAT one.
BTW Matt wants SAG to start paying elected reps…so if he runs for the board he can be paid. HYPOTHETICALLY I guess that means, once you are an employee, that you give up the ability to take acting jobs. I for one as an employer, would not accept say a national commercial or a network series as an excuse for not being on the job all the time. Hey, I’m paying you…i expect you to turn down auditions if there is something at SAG that must be taken care of….
response oh toothless one?
As I said, I am no longer particularly interested in arguing with the entrenched partisans on this site. You have nothing positive to offer and what you advocate is OLD thinking based in OLD wars, with OLD solutions.
I no longer consider myself affiliated with ANY faction. The things I am talking about now are forward looking: get rid of the same old same old arguers and arguments, institute live streaming of meetings. Cut down on use of executive session to ONLY the absolute necessities – what we pay David White is the business of the MEMBERSHIP, not just those in executive session. WE pay HIM. We get to hear what HE is going to be paid, and WE get to weigh in on it.
Electronic voting is a no-brainer. Do it now. It takes the partisans to a less influential place by avoiding manipulation of voting information. Members can SEE the meetings, make up the OWN minds, and vote with complete ease and access.
Also – PAY the officers. Incentivize service. Institute term limits. Get rid of the lifers, whose only “job” is carping about union politics 24/7/365.
MOVE THE UNION FORWARD.
Still can’t answer a question right Matt? by the way now that you’re new and improved will you take another name?
Who paid for Scott Wilson’s lawyer fees? If we pay board members then they should take a vow to turn down any work other than union business during negotiations or any other critical time.
You are such a joke…such a typical partisian hack. Not once have you said you have been wrong all along…and you jump ship as quick as the wind turns…or as soon as you THINK you can get a paying job as a board member…fat chance of anyone voting for you in NY….
maybe you should think about moving to LA where the brains are obviously melting along with scott wilson’s clothes…
Another thing…doesn’t the CONSTITUTION layout the duties of the Board? You know the CONTSTITUTION…THAT MEMBERS VOTE ON….
In that insignificant little document, maybe the duties of hiring and firing staff are in fact left up to the BOARD AS SIGNED ONTO BY THE….you got it….MEMBERSHIP
The ignorance of MF is absolutely unmatched.
#16
“Cut down on use of executive session to ONLY the absolute necessities – what we pay David White is the business of the MEMBERSHIP, not just those in executive session. WE pay HIM. We get to hear what HE is going to be paid, and WE get to weigh in on it.”
Executive compensation is a matter strictly for executive session in almost every organization and business entity. This is because consideration of executive compensation often involves matters of extreme sensitivity and confidentiality which themselves would not be matters of public record. That’s a pretty good reason.
Furthermore, executive compensation for a position at the level of NED is usually a matter of negotiation between the candidate/incumbent and a committee made up of members of the Board of Directors. The reason for keeping those negotiations confidential are the very same reasons CBA negotiations are kept confidential and subject to agreed upon press blackouts: premature public disclosure of the terms being considered is not conducive to reaching a productive settlement. Participants will spend more time playing to the gallery than dealing with the people across the table. Now, Mr. Mulhern might in fact be in favor of also turning CBA negotiations into a bread and circuses show for the masses (even though he’s been less than effective at whipping them into a frenzy in his efforts here and elsewhere on the Internet), but the likelihood of this approach reaching positive ends in either situation is dubious.
If the membership doesn’t like the deal the negotiating committee reaches with a job candidate or a CBA, the membership can vote to replace the committee members when they come up for re-election. That’s how a lot of organizations deal with this issue. The obvious alternative would be to amend the constitution to require a straight popular membership vote on everything that Mr. Mulhern doesn’t deem an “absolute necessity.” If that was to happen, I suspect SAG would look back fondly at the 28 hour filibuster as a model of parliamentary efficiency.
OHMYGOD FRED…have you ever in your life heard of such naive and arrogant stupidity in your life? Doesn’t it dawn on him that his thoughts are not practiced in any business? it’s a sure fire way to get absolutely nothing accomplished. That’s why members elect a board…to run the organization. That’s is why there is a constitution.
And these people have the nerve to claim to be unionists? more like terrorists.
Fred
If I work at a company, I’m not paying the NED or whatever post is similar. If I’m a SAG member, I am. Big difference.
Again, arguing against transparency is a political loser.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed down there in Nashville Fred, but the union isn’t functioning right now. And you are arguing from an entrenched partisan position, which, as bizarre as it is, since you have nothing to do with SAG, is part of the problem, not the solution.
–
Ed. Comment – No one is “arguing against transparency.” OTOH, virtually everyone has dismissed your definition of it.
I am 100% for 100% transparency.
Let’s start, Mulhern, with the name and cell phone numbers of your daily/weekly talks with Hollywood Membership First “leadership” who tell you what to write here and elsewhere.
Let’s then move on to total transparency of the backroom meetings Membership First hold every week
in order to give the lockstep marching orders to their minions – including dupes like you.
Then perhaps you’ll someday visit the board room in New York – which you have had ample opportunity to visit but have chickened out because your bag of wind would be punctured in two seconds – and tell staff where to place the cameras and the visitors in order to “open” the meetings like they pretend to do in Hollywood.
(cross-posted from an earlier thread)
You know who understood transparency? James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. They understood that if they wrote essays under their own names advocating for ratification of the United States’ new Constitution, their opponents would be free to ignore their ideas and focus instead on them as individuals. There wasn’t an iMDB at the time, but there were other means for their opponents to characterize the source of the ideas, rather than the ideas themselves, as unworthy of consideration. (The Anti-Federalists understood transparency, too, because they used the pen names Cato and Brutus.)
The notion that the transparency of SAG as an organization depends on outing the people who run an unaffiliated discussion blog, for example, reveals more about the transparency advocate’s obsession with people who he feels have wronged or slighted him than it does about sound management of the Guild and its communication with its members.
But maybe someday the proprietors of this blog will be revealed, and then their stalkers will be free to move on to more important questions — like who made the duplicate key to the food locker, enabling the theft of the strawberries so vital to a fair and equitable contract.
thank you Editor…that’s exactly correct. a made up definition of transparency is no transparency at all
Who paid for Scott Wilson’s lawyer when he sued SAG? Were the members informed?
Let’s start there.
Matt – any member can read the minutes of ameeting. I’ve posted here – and on DHD (which did not let my posting go up since I was of an opposing voice) about the legal issues of “Streaming” meetings….and the complications.
Matt – unitl you have had real experience in a meeting – on a board or committee – you really haven’t had the chance to understand why Roberts Rules is used, and why other procedures have been adopted. Why not start by getinng on a committee….?
#21 Matt,
That’s a bad analogy that demonstrates a terrible gap in your knowledge. Union members are not like employees of the union. In terms of governance, they are more like shareholders.
Employees of a company don’t pay the executive salaries, but the shareholders do, and I know of no publicly traded company where the shareholders vote directly on executive compensation. That’s left up to the Board of Directors, and, I can assure you because I’ve been there, those negotiations take place in executive session.
I can assure you that putting executive compensation to a full membership vote at SAG will guarantee only one thing; SAG will be operated by second and third rate executives, because that is all you will be able to afford. I estimate that David White is being paid an amount equivalent to 25 times what the average working SAG member made last year. There was an old rule of thumb when I worked for unions that employees of the union should never make more than FIVE times what a man on the line could earn by steady employment, and I know of more than a few cases where breaking that rule resulted in membership revolts.
Compounding the problem for SAG is the sad fact that you want to let the membership vote, and 90% of your potential constituency made no money AT ALL as SAG members last year. The chances of these voters approving a decent compensation package for a legitimate NED candidate are nil.
You are misusing the term transparency, as well. The issue of setting executive compensation has nothing to do with real transparency. Transparency relates to the ability of an individual member to know HOW decisions are made, and to hold responsible those making the decisions on their behalf. It doesn’t mean that the individual member has the power to directly make those decisions. What you are proposing isn’t transparency, it is dismantling the constitutional representative democracy established in the SAG constitution and replacing it with direct democracy. That might work in a single bargaining unit, but would be impossible to run on a national level.
Stuart…that strawberry thing…i didn’t see it coming and it still has me in stitches…brilliant humor my man!!!
All the usual suspects
OCD.
Move on. At least try to. “You disagree with my version of transparency” Well, of course you do – you run an anonymous blog that posts things you may eventually be sued for. I’m not expecting your support.
Ligon. You’re an old coot. I’m done arguing with you. You’re not worth it. Same with you Redanty. You need to grow up.
There are people who LOVE to “go to meetings.” It gives them something to do. I’m not interested in the discussion or the framing of the discussion or the direction of the union, or the government of the union, right now. I have as much interest in coming to a NY meeting, standing on a long line, so I can get up to the mike and have Tom Ligon boo me, as I do in cleaning my basement..
I planned on coming to the meeting the other night. then, I emailed a board member who was in town for the commercials contract. We were going to get together, and talk, before or after. I said “I’ll see you at the meeting.” He said “what meeting?” I said ( my heart sinking) “the meeting-meeting, you know about new media and the contracts effect on actors, and… the other stuff… meeting?”
He said “I didn’t even know about it. We will be at a different meeting about Spanish language something or other,” and I realized, this is not the meeting I thought it would be. This is David White trying to tell the NY partisans what they want to hear, without I would imagine, much back talk, if my experience at the other NY meeting I did attend was any indication.
I’m interested in change. I’m interested in making sure the “meeting attenders” have their meetings to go to, while the union undergoes transformational change that prevents the “meeting attenders” from setting the agenda because 98% of the membership would rather poke their eyes out with darning needles than drive 45 minutes, pay for gas, parking and tolls, to listen to Richard Masur or Paul Christie or Sam Freed blather on about marching the union right off a cliff.
As I said – I’m not interested in “minutes arriving by horseback.” It’s 2009.
Stream meetings live. You think the membership will vote AGAINST that kind of access? Sorry folks. Your little world of political fiefdoms fighting the exact same battles from 3 decades ago is quickly coming to an end.
–
Admin. Snarky Comment – Is that because of your tanks or troops or what? We’re still surrounded? Is that your invisible army? Mega-yawn.
I have to laugh at your reasons for not attending a meeting where David White stood up and opened the discussion to ANY questions from the floor….
OMYGOD…do you really think we believe this stuff, Matt??? “Parking, gas??? really what a unionist warrior you are…NOT
well, i should restate….yes i do believe that you would sink so low as to try to SELL us WITH A STRAIGHT FACE this piece of garbage…
yeah…and you go ahead and run for the board…as WE RUN AWAY….!!!!
what a joke
MATT..SAYS
” drive 45 minutes, pay for gas, parking and tolls” TO ATTEND A MEETING
That shows REAL dedication..the kind of dedication that a NY board member needs to have…and you want to run for the board???? HA HA HA HA…
(BTW neither Masur nor Christie were there…just DAVID WHITE a few board members and Sam Freed who turned the meeting over to DAVID WHITE at the beginning of the forum)
so your excuse is/??? Yeah I thought so…such a dedicated member who is SOOO concerned with the union and just weren’t that into sitting in a meeting…just a great service minded moral unionist you are mattie…
i can hardly stand the laughter…
The meeting last week was for NY Division members – so someone in town from LA would not have known nor be invited.
I love how Matt has an idea – no matter how valid, or invlaid, or crazy or illegal – that he refuses to let go of. No matter how reasonable anybody can discuss his idea, he puts his fingers in his ears while yelling “la la la la la la”…..and feels that becuase he is brilliant in thing legal, in things union, that only his opinion counts and no one else. No point in trying to discuss or debate, becuase he doesn’t want to hear anything other than his own voice (which is really a parrot imitation of the voice of MF)……
Dr. Sir Giggles… as always has it right.
I will keep asking this question (revamped for clarity) just to see if mattie boy will get an answer from his gods
DID SAG PAY FOR SCOTT WILSON’S LEGAL FEES WHEN SCOTT WILSON SUED SAG?
WE can find out. As members we can ask outright.
DID SAG PAY FOR SCOTT WILSON’S LEGAL FEES WHEN SCOTT WILSON SUED SAG?
in the interest of “transparency” MATT MULHERN…ANSWER THE QUESTION
“Well, of course you do – you run an anonymous blog that posts things you may eventually be sued for.”
Usually I Evelyn Woods through mm’s posts, but this one caught my attention. I think this time he means business. Should I retain council? I do not want to be dragged into a lawsuit. If I am, will S.A.G. defend me, or should I go through AFRA. By the way, there is a very funny interview that hate monger Nikki Finke posted on her gossip column/propaganda blog where she refers to herself as a “journalist.” What a kidder.
Marisa
I have no idea.
Also, I’m not a single woman living in a rent controlled apartment in NYC. I have a wife, two teenage sons and some other stuff in my life besides being on the board of my building and going to SAG meetings
Giggs
You’re getting the smackdown over on DHD, so I won’t bother here. Just go read the reception you’re getting over there.
There aren’t many people reacting with “crazy, illegal or invalid” – outside of Sagwatch. surprise…
Mulhern #28 -
I have never in my life “booed” a member/speaker at the mic at any union meeting – ever.
And YOU have never “argued” with me. All you’ve ever done is vomit your bile and lies on these on-line forums and boards with a consistent lack of accuracy and effectiveness.
You are an risible bully and a craven coward, Mulhern, and I fart in your general direction.
The only “smackdown” the directly address my [much delayed] post is Harry98 – you’re comrade in arms (or alter ego)….and his answers are equally ridiculous. Suggesting that members without PC’s can go to the Library to watch the Meetings…..for 28+ hours? for 14+ hours in a typical meeting….
It’s very easy to make comments about what can/cannot be done when you have know idea of what you’re doing. As for the Hollywood dog-andpony sohws, there isa lmitied number of attendees, who are pre-apporved (by what means?)….and that’s far different from putting things on the internet.
Electroinc voting? Already been abused by MF members in session…. Paid SAG directors? Gee, that should motive the right people to serve…..
The more The [attempted] Hacker claims to be reformed, the deeper into his mouth his foot goes. What he thinks is a hemeroid is actually his big toe coming out the other end.
It’s not even fun getting snarky with him anymore, his level of ludicrousness has risen well beyond self-parody, and his defense and “justifications” of his own points and actions are unintentionally funnier than Shecky Rosenberg’s foray into Folk.
Membership First is claiming, falsely, that they were not given the opportunity to question our new NED about his former business.
The facts do not support that claim.
There was a two-hour Hollywood Board meeting during which David White was grilled incessantly and bombarded with questions about his former business.
There were also two separate National Board meetings where there was ample opportunity for questions.
Membership First cut short the first meeting by calling for adjournment in the middle of the discussion of David White’s contract.
And in the second meeting, Membership First created delays during the allotted time for the discussion
and fought the very motion that would have brought White into the room to answer questions pertaining to his former business.
Membership First was given these opportunities to question David White, and they did not take advantage of them,
preferring instead to try and make political hay by creating the very circumstances which they now protest.
They have attempted, for political reasons alone, to create an issue where none exists.
That is true not only of the Membership First Gang of Four lawsuit against SAG, but it is equally true of their accusations against David White.
Membership First has once again created a self-fulfilling prophecy by acting in their own political self-interest.
They believe they are attacking their political opponents, but the real victims here are the members of the Guild.
When will the members in Hollywood take back their union from the Membership First miscreants who hold it hostage with political war games?
Matt Says
“I have no idea. (re who paid scott wilson’s legal fees when he sued sag…this put in by marisa for clarification): Also, I’m not a single woman living in a rent controlled apartment in NYC. I have a wife, two teenage sons and some other stuff in my life besides being on the board of my building and going to SAG meetings”
Scott Wilson’s legal fees: Ask Alan Rosenberg. Ask AmJ. We should demand that SAG open it’s books and assure us that they did not. Comeon Matt…you know the answer.
Single Woman: Correct
Living in a Rent Controled Apt: No. Manhattan Plaza is not and has never been rent controled.
Being on the board of my building: I am the PRESIDENT of the Man. Plaza Tenants Association. I also serve on several community advisory committees created by the City of New York. One of the projects I was asked to serve on is the Hudson Yards development project which is the largest development project since Robert Moses.
Regarding “all i do is attend SAG meetings…blah blah” I was going to attend this particular SAG meeting to get clarity from David White and to see Matt squirm. But Mattie boy who is sooo interested in bettering the union sounds like SAG meetings are a waste of time and he has SOOOO much going on with his two teenage sons (can you imagine what they put up with) and “stuff” like blogging obviously that he just can’t fit it in. No suprise since he has no clue how SAG governs itself through a constitution voted on by the membership. If you weren’t so mean i’d be embarrassed for you, mattie boy.
I spent the last 4 years ensuring the wellbeing of my 86 year old father until he passed and then my 88 year old mother (with beginning stages of alzheimers) she passed this summer was happy healthy and safe. They live upstate. I was out of NYC frequently. I wouldn’t trade that time for anything in the world.
Now I am back to being an actress lucky enough to be able to get by on resids so i can serve as a volunteer where it matters.
Matt, you were saying…oh sorry…you were spewing?
Oh jeez i forgot to tell you that Alan Rosenberg lived in Manhattan Plaza. we have 3500 residents. He said so at the NY Town Hall meeting at the DGA during the WGA strike and just after they printed the beginning of the Destroy AFTRA campaign…
you were spewing?
Scott Wilson (who was not re-elected) and his lawsuit cost the Guild $45k. That’s the cost, not money put into his pocket….
Yes he did. And I used to live in Hell’s Kitchen for $200 a month with 5 other actors. Then I, you know, grew up, as did Alan.
Marisa.
I’m sorry about your parents. We all have parents. My mother died via complications from Multiple Sclerosis, and the caregiving from our family was 24/7/365.
Stop with the badge of honor “caregiving” story. It’s not unique to you. I bow down to your Presidency. As to rent control – not in the strict NYC code sense, but floating rent based on income. That’s pretty special, and shared by virtually no other struggling anything, let alone actor in NYC. There’s how long a waiting list?
And the fact that you print you’re getting by on residuals and yet you’re against fighting for residuals, and continue to make the bizarre statement that this contract won’t hurt them, tells me you’re just interested in fighting. That’s a hallmark of the kind of people who need to go – on both sides.
Ligon
David White HIMSELF has retracted his answer to “The Wrap” about his former employer, and admitted he did not ONCE mention the name Drier, in the Hollywood “vetting.” He was in the middle of a discussion of his contract – not his former employer, when time ran out and there was a call to end the meeting that was seconded at the first meeting. MF and others had no intention in trying for a 2/3rds (which they wouldn’t have gotten) vote to extend the meeting, to ramrod through UFS’s hand-picked walking disaster of an NED. At the second meeting, MF was objecting to a “15 minute” discussion of White’s former ties, “allowed” by Masur in NY, and then the discussion was cut off my Masur, hence the 15 minutes to discuss White’s past.
Ligon – this is not going to end well for you, or for this site, or, probably for David White. You wrote “he was a fine general council” yesterday, and that was his qualification, but you didn’t answer my question. WHY would UFS hire a controversial partisan as NED, without him being REMOTELY properly vetted by the board, as he was LITERALLY running out the door from a collapsing company with very serious allegations of improper connections to a currently indicted financier under house arrest, who is probably going to jail?
I’ll tell you why – because UFS/NY/RBD/USAN wanted the PERFECT one-two combo: John “I never met a deal from the suits I wouldn’t sign” McGuire, and David “I just skipped out on a company that advised management how to finesse unions, and I will help AFTRA merger” White.
You’re joking, right? You think those are good choices? Not only are they horrendous choices, they are choices that are already blowing up in UFS’s face. McGuire couldn’t deliver even the crap deal, and White, is, shall we say, under a cloud of suspicion gaining more and more attention from the press.
Good move UFS.
–
Admin. Comment: Being wildly wrong doesn’t seem to bother you much. It’s all spin, spin, spin…facts be damned. Blame is all you have to offer – and the people you attack? Long time Guild employees with excellent records. Long time volunteer leaders who win elections. You? You’re too busy to do anything but snipe from afar and threaten. Your self-reform lasted what? A couple of days? Quickly you’re right back where you left off.
And by the way, a council is a group that governs something. A counsel is a lawyer.
No, that wasn’t Ligon’s mistake.
Stuff leaves in it, #42 -
No one on this blog is “against fighting for residuals.”
There happens to be a smart way to do that – and then there happens to be Doug Allen’s & MF’s way.
All you MF are interested in is fighting and holding onto power.
You certainly do not put the membership first.
Matt says
“Stop with the badge of honor “caregiving†story. It’s not unique to you.”
The statement was in response to your judgment (nasty as usual) of me and how i spend my time…. of having no life….being single and living in a rent controled apartment…
“As to rent control – not in the strict NYC code sense, but floating rent based on income.” Wrong AGAIN MATT…it is not rent controled. please try to get the terms straight. Rent Control, Rent Stabilized, Mitchell Lama…etc. They are all different. Manhattan Plaza is the ONLY building of its kind integrating upper middle, middle and low income. Social, ethnic and economically diverse by mandate. Never was rent controled. Never was rent stabilized. Hundreds of highly successful actors still live here and pay very high rents. Many grow old and die here. Assuming is a big trap mattie boy. Once again you do not know what you are talking about.
“I bow down to your Presidency. That’s pretty special, and shared by virtually no other struggling anything, let alone actor in NYC.”
Penn South, Stuytown Peter Cooper village, West Village Apts many other developments target all income levels (firemen, teachers, garment workers) from struggling to middle class.
Again you don’t know what you are talking about.
Regarding my presidency…just setting the record straight as you said i was “on the board” I am in fact the president since 2001. Never opposed. Unanimously elected each time.
“There’s how long a waiting list? ” Matt asks. Which one? There are three.
And the fact that you print you’re getting by on residuals and yet you’re against fighting for residuals, and continue to make the bizarre statement that this contract won’t hurt them, tells me you’re just interested in fighting. That’s a hallmark of the kind of people who need to go – on both sides.
Residuals. That is in fact why i think the deal is very good. Since you don’t listen Matt, I have said it over and over. I would NEVER have been able to survive or get my health care were it not for resids. That is why i would NEVER do anything to risk it. I listened each side, looked a the deals and made a decision. This contract is a GOOD contract. It INCREASES TV residuals as it increases our pay. I do not buy into the fear tactic that the New Media portion of the deal ends residuals. I see no evidence that that is the case. This contract in fact ESTABLISHES New Media jurisdiction, it has residual schedule (which will sunset) and allows us to actually see the books QUARTERLY (NEVER DONE BEFORE) while being able to go to the table in coordination with our other unions.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE POSTERS ON THIS THREAD FOR GOING OFF TOPIC…I PROMISE I WILL NOT POST ANYTHING ON THIS THREAD THAT IS OFF TOPIC AGAIN.
ON TOPIC
David White talked about Drier (sp?) at the meeting at SAG last week. Spoke his name. Told us anything we asked about the issue. Matt didn’t have the time, money for parking or desire to get the facts…par usual
#46
Facts…..? Matt……?
Tsk tsk tsk, Marisa. You know better than to put those two words in the same sentence. Weren’t you kicked off SAGHector for that? Or was it Trikkki Stinkkke?
Won’t you EVER learn?
You New York coop-living parent-loving guild-working hippie-pinko-commies are all alike…..
Redanty
Doesn’t Manhattan Plaza set rent at floating rates, depending on the income of the occupant? Isn’t that what I said? (answer: yes)
Editor
Cite ONE thing in that information about David White that is wrong?
Ligon and Redanty
Obviously you are referring to a bump in traditional media residual rates. But to bury your head in the sand about new media – to try and make the case, as David Lawrence does, that because there is a process, a struggle, to monetize new media NOW, it won’t happen anytime soon, so we should cave?
And “engage in a multi-union strike if the data shows monetization in the years ahead.”
Again, one question: When has the AMPTP EVER given back a huge concession via a tech advance? EVER?
And WHERE exactly are you getting this “EVERYBODY WILL STRIKE” argument from? Based on what? any precedent? Any… anything?
I didn’t think so.
You seem to be so frightened and deluded about what they are trying to do – and even when YOUR guys go in there and get their asses kicked – you won’t cop to ANYTHING flawed in your thinking!
The “residuals” in new media in this offer, are a joke! New Media IS the future! What about this don’t you understand? We get it now, or we don’t get it!
There is SO MUCH activity going on via the AMPTP in regards to new media, and your argument is basically – well – ridiculous.
“This whole ‘car’ thing? They only sold 10 SO FAR! And they’re REALLY expensive!”
You HAVE read the rates WHEN residuals ARE applicable, yes? They ARE MICROSCOPIC OR NON-EXISTANT!
The argument that we can’t “burden them now” (Lawrence) is DELUSIONAL.
A percentage of distributors gross BURDENS NO ONE. What it does is tie SAG permanently to the AMPTP’s profit AS IT MONITIZES. And, guys? IT’S GOING TO MONETIZE.
Why do you think they are spending all this money and doing all this work to set up their net infrastructures? For their HEALTH? (Well, actually, yes – their financial health)
Why do you think they are FORCING us to take a stand? You think they LIKE this delay, that is slowing down production?
They are doing it for one reason and one reason only – they understand THEIR FUTURE AS A VIABLE BUSINESS DEPENDS ON IT.
What about that don’t you get?
And finally – editor: name ONE thing in the post concerning David White that is “wildly wrong” let alone wrong. ONE THING.
Hollywood meeting? NO MENTION OF DRIER BY WHITE. NONE . He HIMSELF has now admitted this. “OOPS – I forgot to mention a former financier of my company who is now under house arrest and will probably go to jail! It slipped my mind! I mean – I AM running out of the burning building that WAS my former company, which has just collapsed, and gee – 400K for half the work would be AWESOME, so, let’s try to keep this ‘vetting’ within certain parameters – sound good?”
Well, no, actually.
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING #1: discussion of White’s contract begins. Time on meeting runs out. Motion to end meeting. Seconded. End of meeting. You need 2/3rds majority to extend meeting. Never going to happen. To call that “cutting off discussion of White’s contract is pretty ridiculous.
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING #2: Masur cuts down vetting of White to “15 minutes” Argument ensues over THAT ridiculous demand. 15 minutes runs out. Vote taken. White hired.
Marisa says “White spoke Driers name at SAG meeting last week. Yeah – NY SAG meeting. NOT board meeting, where there actually ARE a LOT of people who hav e serious as a heart-attack questions about the guy we just threw 400k at to do Masurs (UFS’s puppet-mater) bidding.
Well, gee – THAT was thorough!
————————
“Voiceguy says:
February 27, 2009 at 20:51
I can confirm that Dreier’s name was not mentioned at the Hollywood board meeting — at least not during the public portion.”
—————————
Perhaps you’d care to argue with the voluminous Mr. Voiceguy?
———————–
Or Mr. Handel?
UPDATE–SAG Statement: The arguments over jurisdiction, residuals, and other issues are not about rich, millionaire actors; they’re about middle-class actors.
Analysis: Absolutely true. Powerful actors have the leverage to have their agents and lawyers negotiate their deals, which are significantly better than the terms of the Guild’s collective bargaining agreement. Some people, especially some members of the public, believe the debate is about greedy actors, especially millionaires, trying to grab more than what they deserve. That’s not true, or fair.
UPDATE: Here’s the detail:
• Derivative and Original–zero minimum compensation: Asner is correct. However, state and federal law set a minimum wage. In California, this is $8/hr. For a 12-hour day, this works out to about $100/day. This is low, but note that the SAG Ultra-Low Budget Agreement (summary here), which covers theatrical projects up to a $200,000 budget, also allows low day rates ($100/day for an 8-hr day, $175/day for 12-hr. day), so there is some precedent for very low day rates.
• Derivative and Original–zero overtime: Asner is correct. However, state law provides for overtime.
• Derivative–zero residuals structure: Not true. There are residuals for reuse of derivative content (a) in new media and (b) in traditional media. See offer pp. 9-12. Asner is wrong on this point.
• Original–zero residuals structure: Not true. There is a residual structure. It’s true, and not good, that for reruns of new media on new media, the residuals are mostly zero (see AMPTP offer pp. 17-18), as I’ve previously blogged (see item 2 here). Also, for reruns of new media on traditional media there are in fact residuals (see AMPTP offer pp. 18-19). So it’s not accurate to say that there is “zero residuals structure.”
• Derivative and Original–zero forced call consideration: Asner is correct.
I regret the errors in the original post.
Handel’s latest
Meanwhile, SAG’s main objection to the AMPTP offer is not new media per se, but the rather more prosaic issue of contract expiration date. SAG wants the contract to expire June 30, 2011, which would put in synch with AFTRA and just a couple months later than the Writers Guild. That synchronicity, with its threat of a possible joint strike, would give the unions negotiating leverage in 2011. They’ll need that leverage to effectively bargain over new media, which will have grown in economic importance by then, perhaps dramatically.
Perhaps DRAMATICALLY – this is from YOUR boy, Handel.
Neil….re: #47….guilty as charged!
Matt:
Manhattan Plaza: It doesn’t work that way…the only thing “floating” is your head. I’ve never heard of “floating rents”. If you want to discuss manhattan plaza this is not the forum.
Your insistence that i am wrong in my BELEIF that this is a good contract. You don’t get enough resids to buy a ham sandwich and you are telling me?
I told you that i heard it AAAAALLLLLL . This is a good contract. I will vote to ratify. All my actor friends who KNOW THAT I LIVED ON RESIDS have asked me what i think. They hear that i think it’s a good contract and know how passionate i am about the union…they then take the time to check it out and agree….this contract should have been ratified in July or August.
So stop with the “what don’t you get about new media” I already told you.. what don’t you “get” about
I DON’T AGREE….