[ssba]

Twelve Questions for Equity

On the future of L.A. theater

 

 

 

After an amiable discussion yesterday with Actors’ Equity’s Association National Communications Director Maria Somma on the actor/stage-manager union’s proposal for 99-Seat Theaters, Ms. Somma agreed to answer written questions related to topics raised in our chat. The questions are as follows. Her reply is forthcoming.

 

 

1) I heard that there’s a two-year cap on theaters working under either the L.A. Self-Produced Project code or the L.A. Company Membership Rule, i.e. that this code and rule will expire after two years. You said you could find no such wording in any of your documents, and neither can I. If that does exist, can you please let me know.

2) It appears that  under the New 99-Seat Theatre Agreement, that requires Equity actors/stage-managers to be paid at least minimum wage for rehearsals and performances, while employers pay into their Equity-contracted health coverage and retirement pensions, those actors may still leave any production at any time for better paying jobs of any kind — just as they can under the current 99-Seat Plan, for which they’re being paid token reimbursement stipends. So, hypothetically, let’s imagine the very realistic prospect of a producer into the third week of (very expensive, given the revenue potential in a 99-seat theater) rehearsals in what’s obviously a money-losing proposition,  going into previews and the leading actor says, thanks for the generous employment but I’m out of here. I just got a TV role, rehearsals start tomorrow. It appears that this is simply a gamble that theater producers must take under the New 99-Seat Plan, or they must double cast all of their actors-stage-managers at double the (at least) minimum-wage cost. Can Equity please explain how this plan bolsters employment or artistic opportunities for its membership.

3) Under the proposed Self-Produced Project Code and the L.A. Company Membership rule, do any of the actor health/safety protections of the current 99-Seat Plan exist?  Are there any restrictions for rehearsal times/lengths/durations and for the number of permitted performances or for ticket-price caps to ensure that the membership is not exploited by unethical/amoral producers — even if they also happen to be Equity members?

4) In the last two years, productions that premiered respectively at The Fountain Theatre, Theatre @ Boston Court and Rogue Machine (three companies that will be pressured to close or go non-Union under the New 99-Seat Plan) transferred to London’s West End or to Off-Broadway — the latter using U.S. Equity actors. How does compelling an untenable financial burden upon those 99-seat (or less) theaters, if they employ Equity actors, foster employment or artistic opportunities for the membership?

5) What is the purpose of, from April, 2015 (changed on Equity’s website from the Feb. 6 date in the mailed out docs), forbidding Equity actors from joining membership companies under the L.A. Membership Company Rule? Even without the rumored two-year expiration date, it would appear to serve the purpose of squeezing membership companies to death by attrition, to deny them the right to reinvigorate their companies with new Equity members and/or compel them to continue with new non-Union actors. Is that its intent?

6) How does denying 99-seat membership company opportunities to Equity members just arriving in L.A.  foster employment and artistic opportunities?

7) Does Equity foresee a flood of new mid-size/larger theaters to fill the void that will be left after the decimation of the smaller professional-standard theaters? 

8) Does Equity hold smaller theaters responsible for the dearth of mid-size/larger theaters in the region, or for the lack of employing local talent at those theaters?

9) Does Equity intend making the findings of last month’s survey public?

10) Why is the upcoming membership referendum non-binding (“advisory”)?

12) At the last Equity membership meeting, there was extended discussion on making actor-remuneration proportional to a show’s budget, in order to avoid the possibility of actors being exploited by producers, and to protect producers operating on modest budgets from being priced out of existence. Is there any inclusion of that idea in Equity’s new proposals?