Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Officer Job Descriptions

Who (and what) the heck are the “officers” of Council? We thought you might like to know.

One of the principal items on the agenda for the first meeting of the term is the election of a slate of Council officers: Council President (Chief Governance Officer), First Vice-President (Advisory Coordinator), Second Vice-President (Member Liaison) and Secretary-Treasurer. 


Officers, including the President, are not über-Councillors, nor do they form an Executive Committee with special decision-making powers. They are ordinary Councillors to whom Council has delegated some specific responsibilities to help Council do its work, and each position entails consistent time commitment beyond regular meetings.

Despite what one might assume from the title, the Council President is not the head of Equity, nor even the head of Council. The President is best understood as the “servant-leader” of Council – he or she “leads” Council by taking instruction from Council. In summary, the job is to organise, coordinate, enable and support Council's work, and that has bee done
 for the past while by Stage Management Councillor Allan Teichman (me). 

Probably the most basic responsibility of the President is chairing Council meetings. That’s fairly simple, and it's not much different from the same task in any other setting. However, the lion’s share of the work is done between meetings: managing the Council calendar and agendas, arranging for Council education on upcoming topics, communicating with staff and others as required, and acting on motions that were passed. In addition, all of the material that Council needs for each meeting must be written, compiled or arranged for in time for the monthly package mailing deadline.

At the moment, the 
President is also Council’s main communications link, requiring a column for each EQ, two or more Council Link reports to the members each year, as well as regular blog posts, various reports, and the like. All told, it’s roughly the equivalent of a part-time job.

The First Vice-president of Council acts as the Advisory Coordinator, whose purpose is to assist Council’s advisory committees to effectively carry out their responsibilities. The job generally involves helping to set up new a
dvisory committees, making sure that they are informed of resources at their disposal, have access to them, and that there is follow up to ensure timely completion and/or reporting on progress related to each committee mandate.

The Second Vice-president of Council is the Member Liaison, and provides a direct point of contact for members who would like to make Council aware of emerging issues, concerns, and trends. The primary focus for this position is in the area of Owner Linkage – ensuring Council stays connected to the members who own the Association, and enabling input on the many things that are important to them.

Council is looking at a review of this position. One of the main upcoming topics of discussion on the Council agenda is member communication – how we can best reach out to them (and they can connect in), on the topics members want to talk about, and through the most effective avenues. While this work is not yet complete, it is expected that the 2nd VP’s job description will change to reflect future directions in this area.

Lastly, but not leastly, the Council Secretary-Treasurer is in charge of ensuring the integrity of Council’s documents and various other governance materials. Because all of Council’s business is recorded in minutes, and all its decisions are written into policy and bylaws, this work is pretty much ongoing throughout the term. Staff handle most of the minute-taking and document updating, but the Sec-Treas is involved all along the line to ensure that these documents are kept current and are an accurate reflection of Council business. From time to time, the 
Sec-Treas is also called upon to sign documents as required by law or the expectation of outside agencies, such as our auditor.

Another of the key responsibilities of the Sec-Treas is to track the various monitoring reports received throughout the year, since these will form the basis of Council’s annual evaluation of the Executive Director. The Sec-Treas also helps Council track its own self-evaluation, so that we ensure we behave consistently with our own rules over time. And, of course, the Sec-Treas tracks agenda proposals we receive from the members.


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Advisory Committee Survey Summary

In prep for the inaugural meeting, Council got its first look at the detailed Council Advisory Committee survey results. We still have to work our way through them, but we wanted to share the overall picture with you right away.

331 submissions were received from a total of 216 members, which is great. Up to three suggestions were solicited per response – half of submissions included at least two, and one-quarter included three. Even better, almost half the respondents indicated that they would be willing to serve on at least one of the advisories.

Here are the results ranked by frequency.


Topic Category
Submissions
Independent/Small Scale Theatre (action/monitoring/flexibility/help)
55
Communications (general/transparency/social media/simplify/inbound PR)
33
Stage Management issues
19
Director/Choreographer/Fight Director issues
16
Insurance
15
Member Education (general)
13
Audition conditions
13
Diversity issues
10
Agreement Ratification (eligibility to vote)
8
Merging with ACTRA
7
Engagement opportunities (increasing)
7
Working conditions
6
Rehearsal Models
6
Regional/local support committees (various)
6
New Members (welcome and education)
6
CTA/Level 2 Monitoring
6
Senior Artists
5
Guest Artist Policy
5
Concessions (to working terms)
5
Advocacy
5
Opera
4
Member Linkage
4
Cost reduction
4
Women's issues
3
TYA issues
3
Professional development
3
Producer's issues
3
New media
3
Dues
3
Discipline based (none specified)
3
Cultural community outreach
3
Western office
2
Fees
2
Child performer's issues
2
Miscellaneous
43

Each submission was assigned a short topic heading based on the main point being made. Then, related and compatible categories were combined – the top two suggestions are good examples of this. The "miscellaneous" item at the end includes all those for which only a single submission was made, and where none of them combined easily with a higher-ranking category.

Along with the committee proposals, general comments were also requested at the end of the survey, and we received 59 of these. In a few cases, they were used to reiterate or expand on the suggestions already made. Almost all of the remainder commented on the change in advisory structure, and responses were overwhelmingly favourable. Council is pleased to see the new system meet with such a positive response, both in the number of proposals received and the enthusiasm for the idea.

Council will be reviewing the overall patterns in these results as a priority item and making a determination on which committees will be struck as part of the initial slate. Committee mandates will be developed from the proposal material, and members can expect to see the first committees formed early in the new year. Finally, Council will set up an ongoing application procedure, so that advisory suggestions may be submitted at anytime going forward. You'll hear more about that once it's in place.

As always, we welcome your comment and feedback. You can contact me at president@caea.com, or Aaron Willis, Second Vice-president at councilcontact@caea.com,or either of us through the national office.


Monday, December 10, 2012

Start of new Council term and handover

With the start of a new term of Council, perhaps this is an opportune time to talk about how that whole thing happens…

The election process itself begins 18 months in advance of the end of the term. Council strikes a committee to handle this job, and their first task is to review the membership numbers to confirm the distribution of seats across the various regions.

Next, the election committee gets the mechanics of the election in hand, including choosing a voting provider and an independent auditor to ensure the integrity of the process. All major voting paperwork is reviewed and revised as well.

A couple of months in advance of nominations, the logistics aspect of the vote is handed off to staff, since it will need ever-increasing daily attention through to the end. The committee does, however, continue to monitor the process regularly through to the completion of the vote, and if there are any issues needing our immediate attention, we convene to decide them.

Most of the rest you know about. Nominations open, are solicited throughout the membership, and close. Candidate lists are generated and circulated, ballots are sent out, and the actual voting is conducted.

During this time, the committee's attention shifts to compiling the orientation package for the incoming Council. Aside from basic informational stuff, there will also be a number of agenda items that need to carry over, and Councillor training has to be arranged. Although the last bits of the package will not be finalised until the outgoing Council has met for the final time, most of the material is complete even before the results are in, so that it can be sent out as soon as possible.

In the same period, the committee starts drafting its final report, along with any recommendations for future process improvements, or rule changes. This report will be presented to the new Council at its first meeting. Following that, the committee is dissolved and the committee members breathe a sigh of relief!

It's not all about the committee, though…

At the end of each term, Council prioritises completion of any major initiatives that are in the works. Rather than hand over something 95% complete that would require significant recap and review time in order to bring the new Council up to speed, and to facilitate staff planning for any upcoming changes, Council tries to hand over as clean a slate as possible. Consequently, the last few meetings are jam-packed with major decisions to be made.

Of course, there are always future issues to which Council has committed for the upcoming year, but it's best if a new Council can take them on from square one instead of half-way through – we rarely start anything new at that late point in the term.

The outgoing Council has its final meeting in late October, and continues to serve up until the day the incoming Council first meets. I'll talk more about that in a future post.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

New Independent Theatre Agreements

At the end Monday's meeting, Executive Director Arden R. Ryshpan announced the imminent publication of the two new agreements. One last round of proofreading to go before launch!

2012 Honours Ceremony

This year's awards ceremony was held Monday, December 3 at the brand new Daniels Spectrum in downtown Toronto. Councillors, past honorees and members from the area all came together to celebrate the 2012 slate of honours recipients.

Members Evelyne "Evie" Anderson (Manitoba) and Marti Maraden (Ontario) were accorded Life Membership in Equity, in recognition of their lengthy careers and manifold contributions to theatre. We also welcomed arts supporter Martha Lou Henley (British Columbia) as an Honorary Member, acknowledging decades of promotion and support of a wide range of vocal and operatic organisations in Vancouver and across the country.

Former Councillor and Council Vice President Dawn Obokata (Ontario) received the Larry McCance Award in appreciation for her many years of dedicated service to the Association and its members. And finally, the 2012 Stage West-Equity Emerging Theatre Artist Award was presented to dance and theatre artist Mayahuel Tecozautla (Ontario) in peer recognition of an impressive start to her career as an Equity member.

I have always regarded this event as one of the great pleasures of being a Councillor. This opportunity to join with members across the country in a celebration of talent, energy, dedication and support for the performing arts is without parallel.


Media release here.

Photo gallery here.

First Meeting of Council

As of this past Sunday, the 2012-2015 Council formally took office. The team for the term (in case you missed the announcement) is:

Hume Baugh (Ontario)
Scott Bellis (BC/Yukon)
Nigel Bennett (Ontario)
Mark Brownell (Ontario)
Angela Christie (Saskatchewan)
Kerry Davidson (BC/Yukon)
Jane Heyman (BC/Yukon)
Evan R. Klassen (Eastern Opera)
Kristina Nicoll (Ontario)
Wade Nott (Western Opera)
Simon Mallett (Alberta South)
Geoff McBride (Eastern Ontario/Outaouais)
Yanna McIntosh (Ontario)
Robert Pel (Eastern Opera)
Kimberly Rampersad (Manitoba/Nunavut)
Bill Robertson (Dance)
Howard Rosenstein (Quebec)
Robert Seale (Atlantic)
Garett Spelliscy (Alberta North/NWT)
Vinetta Strombergs (Ontario)
Allan Teichman (Stage Management)
Aaron Willis (Ontario)

If any of these people arrive back home looking a little bleary-eyed, and perhaps a bit stunned, that will give you some idea of the jam-packed nature of the meeting. It was three full days of board training and business.

On Monday afternoon, Council proceeded to elect it's officers for the term, and they are:

Allan Teichman - President
Kerry Davidson - 1st Vice President (Advisory Coordinator)
Aaron Willis - 2nd Vice President (Member Liaison)
Evan R. Klassen - Secretary Treasurer

A few years back I casually remarked that I anticipated the first year of the term would see Council working flat out, but that things would ease up a bit after that. I could not have been more wrong, and this term looks like it will also be packed wall to wall.

Welcome and congratulations to the 2012-2015 Council. Let's get to work!

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Insurance plan update

It has been almost exactly a year since we reported completion of our insurance survey and the resulting policy changes, and staff is very close to rolling out the new program.

It will be significantly different from the one we currently have and will offer 365-day coverage for members who work a minimum number of weeks per year. Premiums will be scaled to category size, and there will be some new coverage in areas the survey identified as important. Members desiring additional coverage beyond that will also have the ability to purchase further insurance at discounted rates (provided through ACTRA Fraternal).

Staff is also looking at creating a preferred provider network of dentists across the country, which would offer members a 25% discount on dental services. For a $20 flat fee per year, this coverage would be available to all members in good standing, including their families. This part of the plan is still under construction, and introduction may lag behind the main plan while the provider list is assembled.

Final planning and development of informational material is under way, and we expect to be able to release full details by Christmas.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Independent theatre update

A draft of the new "Indie" (it still doesn't have a name that isn't so long it needs to be printed on legal sized paper...suggestions welcome!) has been circulated to the two former ITRC co-chairs to make sure that staff has dealt with as many of the concerns expressed by the members as possible, both in the content and in the administration of the policy.

Staff are also finishing work on a second policy, which will be called the "Artists Collective Activity Project" or ArtCAP. This will replace the Co-op, and be similar in some regards, but offer a more open take on collaboratively-produced projects.

Together, staff anticipate that these two new engagement policies will make it easier for members to initiate the work they want to do, work with whom they want to, and do so on a schedule that is appropriate for the work and the participants. The new policies remove the impediments that were identified in the survey, while still ensuring a level of protection for the artists involved. 

Staff has already started building the contract forms and other material to support these. Once Council elections have concluded, staff will be able to fully turn their attention to getting these out for use.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Joining Process Update


We've been talking about this for a while now, but work on a new joining structure for Equity is now complete. At the final in-person meeting of the 2009-12 Council, the necessary bylaw changes were implemented and the amendment details will be circulated to the membership within the next two months. The changes are consistent with the interim material reported earlier and currently confined to the theatre jurisdiction. 

In a nutshell, we will be moving from a system that prioritises immediate joining, to one that prioritises informed joining.

Going forward, the default approach for non-members working in theatre in their first contracts will be to do initial contracts on a permit basis. This will offer the chance to build work experience, career momentum, and familiarity with Equity agreements, while preserving the opportunity to work flexibly in the earliest stages of a career. Non-members will still be able to join if they wish, but only upon application, and will not automatically gain membership simply by virtue of having signed a contract. Where apprenticeships exist, how apprentice credits are accumulated for work will not change.  

These changes replace the existing provisional, probationary, and child probationary memberships. Although borrowing many of the same terms as these legacy options, and building on the same impetus that drove their creation in the first place (informed joining, flexibility), the permit approach is different in that no membership status (including benefits and protections) is conferred until a joining decision is made.

Of course, this opportunity to work on a permit basis is not open-ended, and will be limited to prevent repeated engagements as a non-member. In order to ensure no financial advantage for permit engagement, the usual source deductions will be made, and will serve as contributions against the eventual joining fee. This has the corollary benefit of progressively lowering the barrier to joining over the span of several permit engagements. Permittees, as non-members, will not have access to the same suite of benefits that members do. Protections will be limited to those specifically germane to an individual engagement contract, and will terminate with the end of the contract.

Equity will retain the right to compel joining in some circumstances: where an "early stages" exemption would not be applicable (even if the non-member is new to CAEA); where reciprocal agreements require it; and for long running productions, where working without a full suite of protections would not be something that Equity is willing to contemplate.

Access to membership for young performers will also change. Previously, regardless of work experience and work history, performers under the age of 16 years could not join. Equity now understands that this age barrier, while well-intentioned, is no longer defensible from several perspectives, including non-discrimination. Again, application must be made to Equity in order to join. Obviously, we are still not interested in encouraging premature joining; it benefits no one. We plan to ensure particularly well-informed and carefully-made decisions for young performers

Joining requirements for stage managers working in theatre remain similar to those previously in effect, with a minimum number of experience credits required before an application to join may be submitted. However, some structural changes have been made to bring the mechanics of the two joining streams into sync, to simplify administration, and to avoid having to explain two very similar, but confusingly different processes. Apprenticeship for both performers and stage managers will be retained to support those currently working toward membership in that way, and any apprenticeships credits that have been accumulated will be counted towards membership under the new requirements.

It has taken a long time to work out all the details on this, and Council will be monitoring the situation to ensure the intended results. 

Staff will be revising joining information documents over the next few months, to bring them up to date. In the interim, if you or others have questions about the new arrangements, the best resource is the staff at either Equity office. We are confident that this new approach will lead to a stronger membership, and a stronger Equity for the future.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Questions about Policy Governance

A series of questions about Policy Governance was posted on Facebook a few years back. They were good questions, and things I think the membership would want to know, so I've copied them and the answers here.

Q: How much of the membership knows how PG works?
A: Not many, but then why whould they? PG is how Council operates, not how Equity operates. Saying that Council works under PG is similar to saying that we operate under Bourinot's Rules of Order, which we also do. It is simply a way of structuring Council's approach to governance.

Q: Is it a perfect model?
A: Nothing is perfect, but it is by far the most coherent and comprehensive that I am aware of.

When Council was considering a switch to PG in 2004-5, I was its fiercest critic. I spent a solid 18 months reading books on governance, researching online, examining critiques of PG and other approaches. I really dove into that. PG turned out to be the only model that was built from the ground up for the specific purpose of encouraging excellence in governance in non-profit organisations, and was not merely a set of generic labels slapped on existing practice in order to sell books or consultancy services. In the end, I was impressed enough by what I learned, and what Council was taught, that I made the motion myself. Council was similarly impressed - the motion passed handily.

At the beginning of each term, we have two days of training. One of the Councillors present for those sessions had a lot of experience working with a board. In the middle of the second day, he turned to me and said, "I wish I could get my board to work this way." I think that comment pretty much says it all.

Q: Is it the most efficient model?
A: As a general statement, the biggest inefficiency in any not for profit board are the board members themselves. Volunteer boards have a tendency to go round and round the block on the thorniest issues; they tend to favour discussion over decision; they are only "in the office" for a few hours per month; for any given meeting, about 1/4 to 1/3 of a volunteer board are absent due to work and other commitments; and, in our case, most of us get replaced every three years. Despite the intelligence and dedication on Council, or perhaps because of it, we experience all of these. Adopting a model like PG provides a backbone that helps keeps the whole thing together and moving forward. That's where efficiency and effectiveness comes from - bringing a professional approach to a volunteer board.

Q: Does our ED like it?
A: Arden has said that she does. Under PG, Council takes care of its own business, and she is able to take care of hers. The monitoring reports Arden needs to write take a lot of time and effort, but she recognises that because Council has delegated a lot of work to staff, it is only reasonable (and necessary) that we we regularly confirm that the work is being done. Delegation is not about giving something away and losing control over it.

THE DARK SIDE…

Q: When does PG not work?
A: That's a bit like asking when filing things in alphabetical order doesn't work. It "doesn't work" when you want it to do something that it was not meant to do.

PG imposes some constraints on how Council operates: it requires all Council decisions to be voted upon to be official; written down in one place, so that they don't get lost, misremembered or forgotten; assigned to either Council or the ED for action; and monitored regularly to make certain they happen as stipulated. If what a board is looking for is an organised board and staff, it works. If what a board wants is continuity, track-ability of decisions, comprehensive monitoring of an organisation's operation, and effective direction of staff, it works.

If what a board wants is a governance model that lets them do whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want, PG does not "work." That approach may be satisfying in the moment, but it is a mess in the long run and it was the biggest reason for switching governance models in the first place.

Q: Do things take more time under PG?
A: First see my notes about Council efficiency. That accounts for most of the time taken on most topics. The remainder is taken up by careful writing of the policy language required to make things happen consistently, on a national basis, over long periods of time. It's not easy to boil hours of discussion down into succinct direction to staff, and it usually goes through several drafts, worked on at monthly intervals.

There are also monitoring responsibilities and policy review that take up a modest amount of time. Most not for profit boards only monitor things sporadically, and generally just after something has gone wrong, rather than cyclically. Similarly, few boards regularly review the decisions they have made, and (seemingly) expect them to be valid forever. This work is a part of every Council meeting, although put at the end of the agenda in order to ensure that it doesn't take over.

Q: When does Council get frustrated with PG?
A: PG divides the work of an organisation between the board and the staff, and requires that both sides rigorously adhere to that delegation. Council gets frustrated when it really, really, really wants to take over the work of the ED. Here's the thing, though: when a board does that, accountability goes out the window. It's always better to have one set of hands on the steering wheel, than several. Council charts the course, and the ED does the driving.

Q: What about the human sacrifices?
A: No comment.

Friday, September 14, 2012

The Negotiation Process

One of the things that became clear in the discussions following the negotiation of the recent CTA is that the membership needs more information on exactly how negotiations are conducted. Here are some of the questions asked...

Why can't we get X, or make Y happen?
Negotiation is the development of mutually agreeable terms for member engagement and related activities. We do not have the ability to go into negotiation and demand anything, any more than the other party does. The other party is not compelled to give us whatever we ask for, and neither are we compelled to give them whatever they ask for.

Sometimes, achieving a goal is just not possible, or only partially possible, or only possible on terms that we believe the members would find unacceptable. This is almost never a situation of mere mule-headedness or obstruction on either side. Not that this is news to anyone, but theatre negotiations invariably take place in a context of constrained resources – every new benefit for one party has a tangible cost for the other.

If that's the case, how can we expect to make any improvements at all?
Negotiation is a delicate balance of give and get. Remember that both sides are seeking improvement, and most of our agreements are mature agreements. That means there are basically no aspects of the contractual relationship that have not been mapped out already, wall to wall.

In that context, both parties need to be willing to give something in order to get something. Our biggest negotiation stalemates over the years have been where gets were expected by one party or the other, with no willingness to give. There is never a get without a corresponding give.

What, never?!
Well, hardly ever. Sometimes there is a negotiation topic for which neither party is seeking any particular advance, beyond a general improvement in how the whole thing works. The recent CTA revision in dealing with new and old media is a great example of that.

We agreed to fix this by basically dumping the utensil drawer out on the kitchen table and working our way through it to find the things we all agreed were needed and that worked, and reorganising them so they were more accessible. That process took quite a while, but in the end it involved very little "give" for either side in order for both sides to "get" a more workable agreement.

When there is a major new proposal on the table, why can't we have a national discussion and vote on it before negotiations begin?
The goals for negotiation begin with member input accumulated over the term of the existing agreement, so members are definitely in on the ground floor. However, from that point on, it's all up to the negotiation team (including staff and members) for several reasons.

The first is that, in most cases, a concrete proposal doesn't even exist before negotiation begins. Although we may have a clear idea regarding a goal we would like to achieve, such as greater employment opportunity for members, the actual mechanics of getting there are far from settled. Major proposals developed in detail in advance never make it out the other side of negotiation without significant changes being made.

That being the case, if we get membership approval in advance, we're effectively locked in. Once members pre-approve Proposal X, any change to that equals Not Proposal X, and is by definition unapproved. We can't realistically keep going back to a few thousand members every week or so for three months for re-approval on Proposal X-1, X-2, X-3, etc. as they get worked out.

Also, any proposal approved by the membership in advance is essentially public knowledge. That means that we go into negotiations with only one result we are able to contemplate, and that do or die proposal is completely visible to our negotiation partner.

Negotiations are not just about trading A for B; they are also about problem-solving for both parties. If our negotiation team has no latitude to innovate, no ability to work things out, then there is not much point in going into something called "negotiations."

Why do the members have to ratify the agreement as a whole? Why can't we ratify it in pieces, so we can approve what we like and reject what we don't?
Simply put, that's not how negotiations work. Anywhere. The final product of negotiations is an intricate balance of costs and benefits for both sides.

Consider the matter in any other negotiation context with which you may have experience. Think about purchasing a house. How would it work if the buyer could unilaterally say "no" to the high price, "yes" to including the spiffy new appliances, "yes" to re-shingling the roof, etc., and the seller had to accept whatever terms the buyer chose? Ok… I guess we can dream, but that's not how negotiation works.

The final product of negotiation is a single document, representing all the points of consensus on change to the existing scale agreement. We draw all amendments to the members' attention, with explanations for each, so that no aspect of is it buried or hidden. There are always some gives on each side, but both parties expect equal value gets for all of them. We have to ratify it as a whole as do our negotiation partners, and neither gets to cherry-pick in ratification.

Saturday, September 1, 2012

Agreement Ratification Process

The root of the current ratification practice of negotiated agreements can be found in Equity's bylaws, which stipulate that changes to a negotiated scale agreement must be put out for ratification by the members who have worked under the expiring agreement.

This approach has been in place for many years, and it predates anyone currently on Council or staff. It was already in place when the bylaws were compiled into their current format in 1988, and was ratified by a referendum of the whole membership on January 17, 1989. Since then, it has received regular attention by Council, since no year goes by without the ratification of one or another of our negotiated agreements.

In 1996, the bylaw was modified to allow the ratification pool to be expanded, first at the discretion of Council, and then at the discretion of the Executive Director. The change was intended to allow members who would imminently be represented by an agreement, such as fight directors under the CTA, to vote on it. In the 30 or so ratification votes since then, Council has faced that situation only twice.

Here is what I understand to be the rationale behind the current process:

  • The existing bylaw is designed to provide equal ratification rules across all of our negotiated scale agreements. Creating special rules for the CTA alone (as proposed by some) would suggest that some agreements are "more equal" than others.
  • The list of members who have worked under any given agreement in its most recent incarnation is relatively stable, whereas the list of members who used to work under the agreement expands with each passing year. Costs would escalate endlessly for each successive ratification vote, were we to expand the pool along with the list.
  • The purpose of the ratification vote is to determine if, on balance, the membership working under the agreement finds the proposed changes to current rules to be acceptable. Since the agreement changes with each round of negotiation, the members in the best position to compare the old and the new rules are those who have most recently worked under them. Importantly, the negotiations are also driven by input coming exclusively from those with current work experience.
  • In the 2012 CTA ratification, for instance, the pool will include roughly 2700 members, which gives a margin of error of somewhere around ±2%, providing a very high degree of confidence in the results. It’s worth noting that, historically, these votes tend to pass by enormous margins (85-95%). Even the most recent CTA, which was quite contentious, passed by 74%, well within the margin of error.
In summary, the current approach exists to ensure: equal rights across all negotiated agreements, a ratification processes within our financial resources, a decision made by members with most current knowledge and who largely shaped the negotiations, and a ratification pool providing for a very small margin of error.

This is not to say that the bylaws can’t change going forward to formally redefine the ratification pool to something larger, and a request has recently gone in to do that. Council will be examining this in the new term.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

What does it take to be a Councillor?

[The following items were posted in the run-up to the 2012 elections, and arose in a series of online information meetings.]

Thanks to all those who turned out to get more information about running for Council. Best of luck to each of you in the election.

A number of questions came up repeatedly over the evening. At the risk of discouraging attendance at the final session, I've posted the questions and answers below. If you have further questions to which you'd like to see answers posted, please get in touch.

What is the core time commitment for Council?

What about missed meetings due to contracts?

What about the time commitment between meetings?

What about committee work?

I run a small theatre company – is that a conflict of interest?

What are the big issues on the horizon?

Will there be a steep learning curve to participation on Council?


Do I need a "platform" to run on?



What is the core time commitment for Council?
The principal time commitment is to attend meetings. There are ten meetings per year; seven are 2-hour conference calls / web-conferences, and the other three are two-day in-person meetings, generally held in Toronto. Travel and accommodation expenses for the in-person meetings are covered, of course. If you are unable to attend in person on occasion, Council also arranges telephone conferencing participation for those meetings. However, in-person attendance is encouraged if at all possible; those are the meetings where Council digs into its biggest and most complex topics, and being present in the room is greatly preferable for efficient and effective discussion.

The not-so-fine print: serial non-attendance (missing three entire meetings in a row) will result in automatic removal from Council – it is important that your constituency receives the representation it deserves.


What about missed meetings due to contracts?
Obviously, we're all in the same boat in that regard, so occasional absence is accommodated. First off, our usual meeting day is Mondays, which works well with the majority of contracts. If you know that you will be unavoidably absent for three meetings in a row due to contract obligations, you can ask for a leave of absence for that period. However, this accommodation can only be used once per term. Because of the conference call option, Councillors generally find the attendance requirement quite manageable, even if work obligations mean they miss a couple of meetings each year.


What about the time commitment between meetings?
In general, the largest between-meeting time obligation will be preparing for each meeting. Councillors are sent the meeting package 10 days in advance of the meeting, so they have ample time to review the information; it can generally be done in less than an hour.


What about committee work?
Council operates with very few standing committees, and a couple of cyclical ones (the election committee, for instance.) Additional committees will occasionally be struck to tackle specific topics, but presumably if you put your hand up for one of those, you will already have an investment in the topic. Council does not have any "habitual" committees that need to be filled just so that we can say we have one. If we need one for something, we create it. When it's done its work, we dissolve it. As well as preventing the usual proliferation of board committees, it helps keep Councillor committee work much more manageable.

I run a small theatre company – is that a conflict of interest?
Several current Councillors are in the same position. As a general rule, Council has found them to be in a "manageable" conflict, which essentially means that they are expected to withdraw from discussion or debate if the topic strays into the realm of conflict. They can otherwise fully take part in the business of Council.

In practice, recusal is very rarely needed, since Council's discussion is generally at such an "umbrella" level, that conflict of interest for an individual theatre is unlikely. Either way, Councillors are expected to represent the membership as artists engaged for various productions, and the ability to set aside one's "engager hat" when serving on Council is essential. Candidates expecting to serve in an engager capacity are likely to find councillor-ship very unsatisfying.


What are the big issues on the horizon?
The past three Councils have worked very hard to clear the agenda of issues that have been pending for a long time: insurance, diversity, reevaluation of the joining process, independent theatre, greater involvement of the membership in the negotiation/review of scale agreements, safe and respectful workplaces, etc.

Coming up, we want to improve how Council communicates with the membership - electronic communication is a much larger element than it used to be, but we still can't ignore the direct contact and outreach. Finding a new balance in that area, with guidance from the membership, will be important.

Beyond that, it's largely an open question. It will definitely be time in the next term to go back out to the membership with a general "Now what?" question, to chart the course forward on what the membership tells us are the current priorities for them. And then, of course, for Council to act on what it learns.


Will there be a steep learning curve to participation on Council?
A bit: steep-ish, but no more than a couple of meetings, and navigated with lots of help. Unlike many boards, where one is expected to pick it up as one goes along, Council prioritises training right off the bat. The first meeting will be three days long, which will largely be devoted to learning about how Council operates (the practical mechanics as well as the general principles) and other key aspects of governance. With that training under your belt, and a bit of guidance from returning Councillors, you'll feel comfortable with the process and responsibilities in no time.

Back to the top

Yes and no. 

The no part...  When you agree to serve on the board, you agree to serve on behalf of the entire membership, not just on behalf of people from your region or personal theatre community. It's most accurate to think of Councillors as serving "from" a constituency, rather than "for" a constituency.

Any member, regardless of whether or not they sit on Council can propose topics for Council consideration, so sitting on Council is not one's sole opportunity to bring forward a specific issue. Everyone has that opportunity, year round. Besides, focussing on a specific platform tends to attract a very narrow band of voters, and Equity is nothing if not diverse in its views and approach to theatre.

The yes part... By serving on Council, you will be part of helping to make Equity better, and work better, for all members, so that is really the core of every Councillor's platform. Council takes its direction from the whole spectrum of the membership. For a broader exploration of the panoramic approach that Council and its members take to the work of governance, see my earlier post on Council Basics.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

"Virtual Green Room" election chats scheduled

Thinking of running for Council?

Serving on Council is an important commitment. If elected, your colleagues will be counting on you to help govern Equity on their behalf, and that is no small responsibility. If you’re on the fence about running and there is something you desperately need to know before you make the leap, here is your chance.

Join President Allan Teichman for an informal online/telephone chat to learn about how Council works, what is expected of Councillors, and…really to field any questions you may want to have answered before you throw your hat into the ring. (Or even if you already have!) It’s just me, my phone and my webcam (you don’t need one yourself) and probably a cat or two. Heck, you could even join the conversation just to find out what my basement looks like.

Log in or phone in at any point during the times below, and I’ll take questions as long as the coffee holds out.

Monday, August 13
8:00-11:00 p.m. ET


Tuesday, August 28
9:00 p.m.- midnight ET


By phone: 1-888-289-4573 / participant code: 9390733#
Online: caea.adobeconnect.com/election2012/


Note:If you choose to join the online version, select "guest" on the log in screen.


Thanks to all those who attended!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Council Shelves Member Directory

As mentioned in prior postings and dues referendum information, Council has been exploring the creation of a members' directory, where engagers and directors could find member listings and be able to contact members directly. Council was preparing for a small-scale survey to determine the extent of the need for this kind of service, especially since there are other directory services out there.

Regrettably, Council has had to shelve the project due to budget limitations. Although the survey itself would have been inexpensive due to a limited scope, Equity does not currently have the financial resources or staff to bring a directory project to fruition, should it have received member support.

We'll keep the idea on the books for a possible future revival, if finances permit. Staff will also keep an eye out for alternative cost-effective options to create such a directory.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Paying dues electronically

A member recently contacted me with some money-saving ideas around paying dues, one of which was creating an electronic payment page on the Equity website. Although that is not within our financial or server capabilities, we offer three other options that accomplish the same thing. I thought I'd draw them to your attention.

As with many household bills, members may arrange pre-authorised payment of dues from their credit card or bank account. In order to set this up, complete and send in the appropriate debit or credit card
authorisation form. Please note that members are responsible for keeping the office up to date with a new expiry date upon receipt of a replacement credit card; dues payments will be declined by the credit card company if our records have not been updated.

Members can also pay dues electronically, directly from their bank account, by setting up the payment in the same way as other common bills, including recurring payments if your bank permits that. Details on how to do this may be found here.


If you have any questions about this process, you can contact the Membership Administrator by email or telephone.


Each of these options save Equity time and money for processing, and we encourage all members to make use of them.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Changes to professional development funding

At it's March meeting, Council approved a 75% reduction in the funding available to subsidise professional development and training opportunities. This change was made necessary by the outcome of the recent dues referendum, and the need to ensure ongoing financial stability.

Although loathe to make the cut, Council recognised that PD funding is not a core activity for the Association, and cost reductions need to address peripheral areas first. For the coming year, our Executive Director is expected to make available financial assistance worth up to $15,000 per year, down from the previous minimum of $60,000 per year.

At this point, $12,500 has been committed to cyclical projects already scheduled for 2012-2013, and $2,500 will be available for member-initiated professional development activities in the current fiscal year. PD funding will be disbursed on a first-come, first-served basis. Funding applications and guidelines will soon be posted at EQUITYONLINE, and available through the national office.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

New Council Advisory Structure Planned

The following is an expanded reprint of the Spring 2012 EQ and Council Link columns on this topic. Those who have already read both will find the additional material in the Q&A section toward the end.

Historically, Council has been assisted by a slate of elected regional advisories, currently named Council Policy Advisory Groups, or CPAGs. Over the years, the role of the advisories has changed considerably, and the CPAGs themselves have been asking Council to reconsider their structure and goals for a while now. Something else has evolved over time as well, and that is Council’s increased ability to consult directly with the membership on a national basis. The traditional idea that the only way to hear from members is to get them together in a room is long overdue for re-evaluation.

Members seem to come together far better around issues of interest, and those advisories that were the most successful in engaging with the membership during the past two terms had chosen a topic around which to focus their work. Another impetus for change arose during the recent dues referendum, when members clearly indicated to Council that they need us to reappraise our traditional choices.

At its most recent in-person meeting, Council decided to take a bold step away from “but, we’ve always done it that way” thinking, and to implement a new member input approach. Beginning in November, Equity will move to a more flexible system of issue-based advisories.

These advisories will no longer be elected as a matter of course, but will instead be formed when and where the members tell us one is needed. Council can either create one itself (such as the Independent Theatre Review Committee), or representative groups can apply to create one on a topic of their choosing (such as for repertory theatre, diversity, small-scale opera, or even for a geographical region). Either way, Council will facilitate and provide resources for advisory work, and the advisories will report directly to Council. We expect that the slate of committees will change over time as needs dictate, but the list of advisories will now be determined by what you tell us is necessary, and not by rote adherence to a static structure.

Council anticipates that this new approach will be far more effective than the traditional one, and will allow members to come together around important topics of common interest. As part of our election process, we will be asking for proposals for advisories to be created right off the top of the term, but they can also be created at any point during a term upon application by a representative and reasonable number of members at large.

Council expects that members may have some questions regarding the new format, so I’ve tried to anticipate a few of them here.

Q: Why is Council making this change? 


A: Council is moving to a different advisory structure because the CPAG members from the past two terms have consistently told us that our traditional approach is no longer effective, and needs to change.
While the regional advisories have long had a general assignment to connect with the members about, well, whatever they wanted to talk about, the CPAGs find that mandate to be far too vague to be useful. The most productive committees over the past two terms have always chosen a core topic around which to focus their discussion and efforts. When you think about it, even at the traditional members’ meetings, what is most likely to encourage good attendance is a hot topic, not hot hors d’oeuvres. By changing to a series of issue-based advisories, we’re taking our cue from what years of experience have taught us is most effective.

Q: What is the difference between the old system and the new?

A: Put in blunt terms, the current situation is that, every three years, we go out and beat the bushes to try and gather 73 members willing to fill the seats on the 13 regional advisories that bylaws tell us we need to have. With some additional recruiting after the elections, we generally manage to get about 80-85% of the people required, however some seats remain vacant for the full term. Of those we do get, most are acclaimed to the position, so there are relatively few people actually elected in the first place. Then, when the CPAGs first get together to meet, they are presented with a rather vague agenda, the key element of which is that the CPAG has to exist because…um…well, that’s what bylaws say needs to happen. The rest is largely up to the CPAG to figure out.

In short, we populate 13 regional committees with several dozen people, who all arrive with their own individual interests, many of whom were cajoled into participating in the first place, and who are then expected to fulfil an ill-defined mandate. On top of that, because of the long commitment required, there is a fair amount of churn over the course of a term. This is not exactly a recipe for organisational success, and their effectiveness has been pretty much what one would expect under those circumstances.

As noted earlier, the CPAGs that achieved the greatest member engagement were the ones who succeeded in identifying an issue of common interest and focussing on it. Moving to a flexible set of issue-based advisories builds on that approach and has the following benefits:

  • Advisories get created because the current members tell us one is needed, not because a decades-old bylaw says one has to exist in case it is needed. 
  • There are never any empty seats, because the advisory doesn’t exist unless the members tell us it needs to. 
  • Members don’t have to be strong-armed into filling the seats, because each committee will be born of an issue we already know to be a hot topic for the members. 
  • Members don’t need to agree to serve for 3-year terms. If the work of the committee can be completed in less time, then the committee dissolves when its work is done. 
  • No committee has a vague mandate – the existence of a clear issue and expected committee product on that issue is the precursor to the committee’s very existence. 
  • Support resources do not need to be split 13 ways. We anticipate having around 4-6 active committees on the go at any point, so as each topic comes to a head, it can expect to have the resources necessary to complete its work.
Q: What will the new advisories look like? 

A: The new advisories will be created and composed in a very similar way to the current Directors, Choreographers and Fight Directors CPAG, and the recent Independent Theatre Review Committee.
Either Council or the membership at large may call for the creation of an advisory to deal with matters related to a particular topic. Those issues may be discipline-related (such as the current DCFD advisory), national (such as the ITRC), or issue-oriented (such as a Diversity advisory). They can even be regional or local, where the will and need to create such an advisory exists. A Councillor will be appointed as a liaison, and then the committee will be created from the membership at large, with the representation appropriate to the topic.

Q: If the traditional CPAGs no longer exist, won’t that make it more difficult for members to connect with Council? 


A: This change will actually create a much more direct and focussed input mechanism than we have had in the past.
As always, members can connect with their Councillor(s) any time. Contact information is available via the Governance link on the main page of EQUITYONLINE, or by calling either office.

Members can also directly propose a topic for the Council agenda, using the Request for Council Consideration (RfCC) form found at EQUITYONLINE, or by mailing it into the national office. This option is available year round. Members will receive a follow-up contact within 2 business days of receipt, and immediate email confirmation if the request is submitted online.

If there is a specific issue that may need to be addressed in detail, members will now have the ability to propose and form a Council advisory for that express purpose. Previously, there was no formal mechanism for doing such a thing. Applications will be handled online, or by calling either office. It’s easy, and can usually be arranged by the next Council meeting.

Sometimes the most effective way to connect with members is still to collect a bunch of them together in the same room, and we’ll facilitate that, too. Regional Councillors will continue to have the ability to organise membership meetings as the need arises.

Q: Sounds good – why on earth didn’t Council think of this earlier?


A: Actually, we did. Council first considered a change similar to this back in 2005, but we figured it would be a tough sell for the membership. Our members are no different than most people – we have a strong attachment to existing approaches, and tend to view change with suspicion. However, after two terms’ worth of CPAG members asking us to fix the system, we figure if they know it’s not working, maybe it’s time to take the plunge.

It is.