[ssba]

Disagreeing to Agree

Stage Raw goes undercover: plus more facts and fictions about changes to the 99-Seat Plan, changes that everybody wants but that nobody can agree on

Actors Equity Association Executive Director Mary McColl was in town last week to celebrate the opening of the Union’s fancy new digs in North Hollywood. She spoke with the producer’s half of the 99-Seat Plan Review Committee as well as with Equity membership. Meanwhile, the Union is conducting a survey of its members regarding theater in Los Angeles.

Stage Raw had its own undercover operative at Friday’s meeting, a reliable source and Equity member whose identity we’ll protect even under threat of torture, though that threat is unlikely since said operative agreed to name no names of people speaking, honoring the Union’s appeal to protect members from potential retribution by producers:

Equity does not look kindly on producers, even those who are in its fold. Equity members who have produced plays in the past 12 months, even under Equity’s own 99-Seat Plan, are not invited to attend membership meetings or to let their feelings be known in the aforementioned survey. The reason for this lies in the “Conflict-of-Interest” clause of Equity’s Constitution:

ARTICLE VI CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Section 1. Employer-Member Defined. An “employer” within the meaning of this By-Law shall include any member who meets any of the following provisions relating to theatrical employment: employs actors; is a producer or is listed or billed as producer; signs contracts or acts as, or on behalf of, an employer; posts bond; is registered to do business as a theatrical producer; is a member of a producers’ or managers’ association; or is a theatre owner or theatre lease holder.

Section 2. Employer-Member Exclusions.
(a) Any member who is an employer, as defined hereinabove, shall, while holding such a position, not be entitled to receive notice of meetings of the Association nor to attend meetings of the Association unless expressly invited by the National Council, the Regional Boards or by a committee chairperson for attendance at a specified committee meeting, which attendance shall be reported to the National Council or the Regional Board.

(b) The term “Equity meetings” shall be construed to include National Council, Regional Board, committee, cast and membership meetings; and “members” shall be deemed to include members serving as Officers, Councillors and Regional Board members.

(c) Except for an employer who is a signatory to an Equity Code, for whom the period shall be three months, an employer shall be excluded from Equity meetings for one year from the time that the employer no longer is an employer, as defined hereinabove.

Gary Grossman, who serves on the Review Committee, told Stage Raw that the Plan is not a contract (Equity’s Maria Somma concurred with that detail), and therefore Equity has no business defining producers working under the Plan as “employers.” Fees received by actors under the Plan are not “wages” but token “stipends,” says Grossman – i.e. expense reimbursements, in what is essentially a volunteer effort by both producers and actors. Besides, Grossman adds , referring to what he describes as an artificial divide: “Many if not most of the producers in town are also actors.”

Here’s the report from Undercover Stage Raw Agent 411:

“Much of the meeting had very little to do with the 99-Seat Plan. It was a regular membership meeting where they were reporting on committee improvements and work, and they were very proud to present their new [North Hollywood] building, which was very impressive and very exciting. The perspective through which the union sees L.A. has changed, because they’ve made this huge investment in this building.

“The vast majority of the participants were there to talk about the 99-Seat Plan, which surprised [Equity management], which is appalling, given what we know. I think there was a lack of understanding about the amount of social media chatter about the Plan that’s been was going on.”

“Nobody mentioned Re-Imagine LA Theatre [The rogue organization spearheaded by Douglas Clayton, which aims to provoke core structural changes to the 99-Seat Plan]. There was a number of people who spoke about either ‘I want more pay,’ or ‘We should be paid’ and ‘the Plan should be reviewed.’

“But an equal number of people stood up and said the opposite of that – how we should have to work for financial reasons or for artistic reasons.

“There were actors on both sides of the argument, It was very cordial, structured, Even people in opposition were supportive of the speakers. The tone of the meeting was actually very encouraging. It had an air of, we can change this, we can bring more pay to Los Angeles, more productions and more work, to LA, so that’s good.”

Stage Raw: How did Equity management react?

“I would say that they alluded to a survey that union members are taking, they are asking a number of questions, a lot of what they’re asking is ‘What’s working and what’s not working within the plan?’ They encouraged people many times to fill out the survey, so Equity could get information to them.

“There was very little discussion of timeline, so it felt that this was not imminent, that there would be a data collection phase, then a planning phase, and then an execution phase. In that way, it was a little mysterious, but the way it was framed — the reason it’s mysterious is because we are still collecting data, we don’t’ know what the membership wants – I thought was fair.

“One of the things that was remarkable, they said, was that past membership meetings were poorly attended and this was exceptionally well-attended. Everybody on the waiting list was admitted, as far as I could tell. It didn’t look like anybody was turned away.

“If they hadn’t admitted everybody, I’d say that would have seemed weird and selective, They said if membership meetings were this well attended in the future they would get more space.

“My big takeaway was how disengaged they are from the common man – they were not even aware that the 99-Seat Plan would be the big issue – it speaks to their distance from the bulk of actors in Los Angeles. If we all agree that the bulk of actors work under the 99-Seat Plan, and they’re not going to make any money from that, they do at least need to understand the interest of people working under that Code.

“When it did emerge, they did respond to things, they took notes, they responded when they could.

“I think in the future, we can expect they will be a little more aware of the importance to their membership of the 99-seat Plan.”

Fictions and Facts You Should Know About the 99-Seat Plan in Los Angeles:

Fiction: All people on the planet are idiots.

Fact: Many people on the planet are idiots.

Fiction: Producers in Los Angeles are all ethically bankrupt.

Fact: Some producers in Los Angeles are ethically bankrupt, a larger proportion are facing financial but not ethical bankruptcy trying to keep their theaters afloat. Most producers have the mixed bag of virtues and vices that characterize the majority of human beings in the arts. This would include actors.

Fiction: Actors are all stupid children who shouldn’t be running theaters.

Fact: Some actors are stupid children who shouldn’t be running theaters. Most are neither stupid, nor children — even the older ones. The business and marketing sides of any enterprise generally present a challenge to creative types, such as actors. Their lack of business savvy and discipline may contribute to the financial poverty and organizational disarray that inflicts most theaters under the 99-Seat Plan, but that may also be a faulty generalization. Financial poverty may also stem from the high-rent/low income economy that characterizes so much of Los Angeles, while organizational disarray is certainly not restricted to actor-run theater companies. It is also frequently found in institutions administered by professional administrators, such as the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital and the main U.S. Post Office in Pasadena.

Fiction: There is a large group of producers profiting financially (i.e. engaging in exploitative behavior) from the labor of actors, under the 99-Seat Plan.

Fact: Most productions under the Plan lose money. Often producers invest their own savings, and those of their children, into these money-losing endeavors. Financial profit is not the driving motive for the majority of these producer/presenters. Even our most artistically successful theaters operating under the Plan survive hand-to-mouth. While there have been rare instances of one producer investing up to $100,000 for a production in which the actors received stipends of $7 to $15 per performance, such instances are not the norm. Such producers should face a firing squad on public television, and the ad revenue from these public executions should be given to the theater community. That’s not a proposal, that’s a fact.

Fiction: There is one camp that wants big changes to the Plan, and an opposing camp that wants no changes to the Plan. The former camp consists of a younger generation. Their opposition consists of an antiquated guard of actors who helped create the plan. The stubborn old guard is now resisting the avant garde.

Fact: Among dozens of people I’ve spoken to, from supporters of Re-Imagine LA Theatre to members of the Producers League, to members of the 99-Seat Plan Review Committee, there is nobody in any camp who has ever expressed the belief that the 99-Seat Plan is satisfactory the way it is, and that it should not be scrutinized and improved. Nor has anybody expressed the desire to scrap the 99-Seat Plan. There is nobody I’ve spoken with who does not share the desire for actors to be paid more for their efforts. The question, in this economy, is how – how to improve the compensation of artists for their efforts; how to preserve the often exemplary quality of many productions made possible by the 99-Seat Plan; how to continue providing hundreds of Equity actors in the region with a literal platform for their work, how to balance financial concerns with artistic ones. The veterans’ very real anxieties stem from an extremely rocky history with the New York-based Union, which did not create the 99-Seat Plan. It was thrust upon the Union by its West Coast membership, while the means for changing it was cemented in a court-filed, out-of-court settlement. These veterans recall Equity’s former Western Regional Director Ed Weston vowing to dismantle the Plan, they recall having to raise $250,000 in legal fees to protect it; they also recall Equity’s most recent Western Regional Director Ralph Remington vowing to dismantle the Plan.

Fiction: Los Angeles is not unique in having a 99-Seat Plan. San Francisco and New York also have such plans, respectively the Bay Area Project Policy (BAPP) and the Showcase Code.

Fact: According to Equity’s Maria Somma, “There is no other agreement or code that is identical to [LA’s] 99-Seat Plan.”

Fiction: Equity’s BAPP plan for Northern California – in which a no Equity actor may receive less than the fee given to any designer, director, contractor or member of the theater staff — is a model of, yes, equity, that we can emulate. It is fair-minded and engenders a healthy cultural ecosystem.

Fact: BAPP is very fair-minded and morally virtuous, but if implemented in Los Angeles, it would constrict our finest 99-Seat theaters (in fact, each of our 99-seat theaters) to producing no more than six productions in three years, scale back their production designs to workshop standards and/or force them to use exclusively non-Union actors. (Some have argued that impeding the ability of small theaters to do great work is a good thing, as it would help clarify for confused potential audiences the difference between good theater and bad, between distinguished companies and vanity showcases.) However, creating more impediments to putting on high quality plays in smaller theaters is a dubious panacea, likely aiding amateurism rather than professionalism. Brad Erikson, Executive Director of Theatre Bay Area provided Stage Raw with the estimate of 75 companies that “regularly produce in houses of 99-seat theaters or less” — on par with Los Angeles. On the surface, this looks hopeful. However, Equity’s Maria Somma estimates that only “20-40” companies present regularly under BAPP, meaning that those other 35 to 55 99-Seat companies are community/amateur theaters operating without Equity actors. Furthermore, Maria added, “a majority of those [BAPP productions] are one-offs. Theaters can only use the BAPP six times over two to three years, and regular use is limited to six productions.” Even if “a majority” of one-offs is kept at the most conservative number possible, 51% of the peak estimate of 40 companies, that leaves a maximum of 20 companies (across the entire Bay Area, including San Francisco, Alameda, Marin and Mendocino counties) producing regularly under BAPP, contrasted against the 75 Los Angeles companies (in LA County alone) performing regularly under the current 99-Seat Plan. Without this statistical benefit of every doubt, the Bay Area number is likely much lower. Add the budget cap of $20,000 on all BAPP productions (this includes the costs of the theater lease, actors, director, all designers and staff, being paid equally), and you have what sounds like a beautiful, communitarian utopia, until you actually run the numbers. You might then arrive at the sobering realization that the scope of excellence that defines LA theaters from Rogue Machine to the Fountain Theatre to Theatre @ Boston Court would be seriously if not fatally constricted by a plan like BAPP – along with employment opportunities for Equity actors. Jean Shiffman reported in Back Stage what one NoCal audition notice looked like in 2006 (two years before the economic crash of 2008): “A recent issue of Theatre Bay Area Magazine listed 45 auditions, including calls for community or amateur, college, and professional theatres. Of those, nine offered an Equity contract or a stipend under BAPP.” This means that of the 45 available roles that week, only 1/5 were for Equity roles (including stipends under BAPP) for theaters across four counties. For a San Francisco perspective on the conundrum of finding a balance between artistic principles and economic realities, published in January, 2014, read Marissa Skudlarek’s lovely rumination, in San Francisco Theater Pub.

Fiction: The 99-Seat Plan is preventing the growth of mid-size and larger theaters.

Fact: This is a half truth: Historically, at the time when the number of 99-Seat theaters was expanding exponentially (the mid 1980s), when the economy was comparatively robust, number of mid-size theaters was expanding exponentially as well. The crash of 2008 put a halt to expansion of theater of all sizes. What’s preventing the growth of mid-size/larger theaters is a combination of a moribund economy and Equity’s own restrictions, within the plan, that confine even the most successful productions to 99-seats, while restricting allowable ticket-prices. Were there a bridge plan, allowing 99-seat mega-hits to expand under terms less daunting than the current, next-step-up HAT Contract, we might actually see some evolution of smaller productions to larger ones, particularly if a “bridge contract” permitted theaters to return to their 99-seat scale, once their mega-hit had run its course.  

What is to be done?

Rebecca Novick’s 2011 article for Granstmaker in the Arts presents a cogent argument explaining the growing irrelevance of America’s regional theaters, and how that irrelevance is tethered to top-heavy administrative structures, leaving actors in poverty. She cites New York’s Elevator Repair Service and the Neo Futurists as examples of a successful actor-based companies that place actors at the center of things, committing payment to actors first, and then tagging on administrative costs around them, rather than building theaters around administrators, designers and contractors.

“’When the company needed more administrative support,’ explains Aaron Landsman, a playwright and longtime actor with ERS, ‘We looked around and saw that the artists in the work had [administrative] skills already. So we worked with people who already had committed to ERS artistically. That keeps us all more employed, and keeps the integrity of the work front and center.’”

Ironically, with variations, that’s largely the communal/ensemble model that’s evolved for many membership companies under LA’s 99-Seat Plan, from Open Fist Theatre Company to Antaeus Company to Poor Dog Group, to Critical Mass Performance Group.

There is a variety of structures under the 99-Seat Plan. Among the calls for change comes the argument that there needs to be more clearly defined “tiers.” Why this matters escapes me. What matters are the huge voids in our community – the lack of marketing to the city at large, the lack of empirical data to quantify who is attending theater in LA, and why. Without such data, we’re adrift, lashing out against pain centers such as poverty, perceived injustices, misperceived “greedy” producers, while being stirred into emotional frenzies by swaths of accusations and misinformation.

The future of the Plan is in Equity’s hands, but Equity has its own agenda. Like any Union, its primary concern is the welfare of its membership, and of aiding its membership to garner income. I can’t find anybody who opposes that goal.

However, there is also some truth to the oft-argued and oft-ignored warnings from veteran actors-producers that where, in other cities, Equity has stepped in and “improved on” codes like LA’s 99-Seat Plan (not the best revenue magnet, for anybody), the long-term effect has been comparative artistic drought. Neither mid-sized nor small theaters have flourished in this difficult economy. What everyone seems to ache for is growth, and not much can grow in a drought.

We need to find the structural models that preserve artistic quality at all levels, while encouraging growth and payment to artists, within the confines of our taxing economy. Given all that we’ve accomplished artistically in the past several decades, which has been remarkable on many levels, the impulse for change should not be impetuous. The best of what we have is too good to be decimated, and though the risk of artistic decimation is not imminent, it is serious.

See here for the prior Notes from Arden on the Neo Waiver Wars.