Thursday, December 29, 2011

Equity's head office location

The following question arose during the recent dues referendum:

Can you please explain why we are renting an office in expensive downtown Toronto. Surely there are cheaper places to rent.

I admit, this issue kind of snuck up on me. The assumption seems to be that, due to our location, we must be paying a frivolously high amount of rent. I don't know how widespread the concern is (according to some, everyone is always talking about it), but it's certainly worth a look.

To start with, the location of the head office is set out in the Constitution, so the Toronto part is a given. However, where in Toronto is not specified. For members not familiar with our address, we are in the heart of downtown, one street off the main drag.

The decision to move to Victoria St. goes back to 1996.We used to have offices not too far away on Richmond St. We needed more space and ended our lease to take advantage of the fact there was a glut of downtown office space at the time. Because the landlord was keen to rent, we were able to secure a very favourable price on a ten year lease for our current offices. 
We have renewed the lease once since then, again for another 10 years, and this time were even able to secure some needed renovations as part of the renewal negotiations.

Council policy requires staff to consider all options for decisions of this magnitude. Upon renewing the lease, staff reported that the new terms were competitive with other suitable locations, both downtown and in outlying areas. They also took into account the high cost of relocation and needed renovations. (Commercial spaces typically lease "as is". At the class of office space we can afford, generally very as-is.)

Yes, the amount of rent is large (about $300K per year to cover both offices), but commercial office space is no cheaper than any other real estate. Still, our rent is way below the typical market rates for the downtown. Our building is rated Class C (the lowest grade), which is described by one commercial real estate source as: "older buildings […] in need of extensive renovation. Architecturally, these buildings are the least desirable and building infrastructure and technology is out-dated. As a result, Class C buildings have the lowest rental rates, take the longest time to lease, and are often targeted as re-development opportunities."

Since posting this originally, I've received a copy of the quarterly office report put out by Colliers International, a major commercial real estate firm. I can confirm that our rent is well below typical for all buildings in the financial core (about 90% are buildings in Classes AAA to B), and about 20% below average for the Class C buildings in the area. Looking from Bayview to Dufferin (the greater downtown area), we are about 35% below average for our class.

OK, so does it have to be downtown? Well, we think it is desirable to be somewhere near the theatre district and where our members live and work, or at least within a reasonable subway ride. Looking at the rest of the GTA, we'd have to travel out to the fringes to get a rental rate that would make the relocation and renovation costs worthwhile. We'll always review the situation again when the lease is up for renewal, but Victoria St. remains a good deal for the moment.

Still not convinced? Do a bit of math. Consider what you would pay for a modest 500sf 1-bedroom apartment, then multiply that by 12 months, then multiply that 14 (we need 7000sf), then add CAM and occupancy costs* sufficient to run an office of 20 people. At this point, you will be well over $200K, which is what we pay for the Toronto office.


*Leasing agreements for commercial office space work differently than residential leases do. They're typically split into two components: leasing of the physical space (net rent), and the common area maintenance (CAM) and occupancy costs. CAM and occupancy includes a tenant's share of heating, electricity, water, property taxes, interior and exterior building repair, office cleaning, window cleaning, snow shovelling, building insurance, waste disposal, security, etc.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Combining CAEA and AFBS insurance

This column is based on a question from Facebook: "Could someone PLEASE explain to me why ACTRA and Equity have been unable to combine their insurance policies?"

The easy answer: it's not that easy.

Our two plans work in very different ways, and with different guiding principles. CAEA and AFBS have certainly talked about amalgamation from time to time, but have not been able to come up with a mutually agreeable solution so far.

OK, so what about picking one or the other? Actually, this is a great way to illustrate the disconnect that any amalgamation has to overcome. Let's explore the idea of simply dropping the Equity plan and adopting AFBS's. The Bronze plan is their most affordable, so we'll look at that one.

Challenge #1: affordability.

Bronze AFBS coverage costs somewhere between $500-600 per year. The actual figure is somewhat higher than that, but AFBS has a variable subsidy system that covers part of the cost, so let's use $550 as a typical amount.

The median number of work weeks for an Equity member is somewhere around 10 per year. This also varies, but the figure is accurate enough to use as a ballpark example. This means that a notionally "average" member pays approximately $150/yr for their existing Equity insurance. Conversion to the Bronze plan could be managed by either paying a top-up of $400, or by raising the insurance premium from $16/wk to $50/wk.

The financial adjustment itself would be easy enough to implement.

However, according to the insurance survey, the premium level affordable for the greatest number of Equity members was less than $15/wk. Unless the median number of work weeks miraculously triples, that's a serious affordability gap to have to bridge.

Challenge #2: universality.

All Equity members in good standing have extended insurance coverage for all weeks of work, and basic coverage year round. ACTRA members have similar basic coverage, but only about half of their members have extended coverage while working.  The rest have not worked enough to become eligible for insurance and/or cannot afford to top up their premium accounts. Equity members have current insurance for the work they are doing today; ACTRA members work today toward eligibility for insurance in the future.

In the insurance survey, about ⅓ of Equity members reported having active AFBS coverage, with half of those being at the Bronze level.  By combining incomes and premiums, there is no doubt that more Equity members would be able to afford at least Bronze coverage, and some members already at that level could move up to Silver or Gold.

We'd need bilateral income stats to nail down a precise number, but drawing on member-reported income data from our 2007 general survey, it's likely that roughly 50-60% of all Equity members would be able to afford some level of AFBS coverage if the premiums from both associations were combined.

However... The flip side is that somewhere around 40% of Equity members would almost certainly lose their existing coverage. Because those members would be (by definition) at the lower end of our income spectrum, their ability to top up their contributions to maintain coverage would be limited.

Challenge #3: coverage types and levels.

Trying to compare group insurance plans is like trying to compare apples and elephants, so I'll just highlight some of the items most mentioned by our members.

AFBS Bronze coverage differs from the our base plan in several areas we know to be of importance to Equity members. It does not offer disability coverage, nor orthotics, and coverage for massage and other physical therapies is roughly half of that under the CAEA plan. There is also nothing comparable to our Health and Wellness Benefit until members have over $4000 in their AFBS account. That said, the Bronze plan does offer year-round coverage, 50% dental coverage up to $400, a biannual eye examination allowance, and an option to purchase dependent coverage. In a combined plan, these differences would affect the 50% of Equity members likely to be covered at the Bronze level.

Whether the Bronze mix of coverages is "better", "worse", or "worth it" depends greatly on individual needs and income. However, Equity members wishing to retain all their current coverage after a shift to AFBS would need need to buy in at the Silver level, at the cost of an additional $350/yr, plus a separate disability premium.

Conclusions?

There is no global conclusion to be drawn here, other than showing that combining the two plans would be no easy task. The AFBS plan was built to serve ACTRA members, their incomes, and their work circumstances; ours was built to serve our members, our incomes, and our work circumstances. Even opting to simply abandon one in favour of the other has some pretty significant ramifications, ranging from improved coverage through to total loss of coverage.

Does this mean it can't happen, or that there is no way to do it that doesn't have a significant downside? No. The results from our insurance survey have freed us up to explore a range of options that we did not have before. Also changes made by Equity in 2003, and AFBS in 2006, have created new flexibility in each system that might make combination more feasible.

Staff will be shopping around new plan options derived from the survey results and AFBS will certainly be approached. Who knows? This may turn out to be the last time the "why can't we" question ever needs to be asked or answered.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Dance Representation Next Major Council Issue

Every November, Council puts together a work schedule containing a broad overview of its agenda plans for the coming year and beyond. Planning work in advance this way allows us to ensure that all the basic governance needs are covered on a cyclical basis, and that larger topics are given the time and resources to be explored in depth.

For each year's work plan we identify, among many other things, a major membership issue on which we anticipate focussing a great deal of time. In the past, these have included diversity issues, insurance plan renewal and the independent theatre review. Current multi-year topics include a reassessment of our joining process, and a review of how we respond to harassment complaints.

At its most recent meeting, Council determined that dance representation will be our next major topic under the microscope. Although Equity has long had a solid connection to the major ballet companies, our representation within the world of independent dance has lagged far behind. We'd like to remedy that. The Canadian Dance Policy was inaugurated in 2009, and we would plan to have our work complete in time for its reissue in 2014.

Council will be reaching out to our dance membership, and beyond, as part of this work. We encourage all members with experience or interest in independent dance to contribute when we begin this work in the new year. Please keep an eye out here and at EQUITYONLINE for details on how to participate.

If we are to serve you well, we need to hear from you.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

ITRC Final Report available online

An EquiFlash posting recently went out on this topic, but I'm posting it here for those who subscribe to this blog.

Council recently received the final committee report for the Independent Theatre Review Committee, and will be drafting final policy for passage by February. The report can be found here. Policy recommendations will be posted soon, with final policy notification expected shortly after they are complete.

These policy changes will form the core instructions for staff to begin changes to the existing engagement policies. Our Executive Director, Arden R. Ryshpan, anticipates being able to share a draft with Council once CTA negotiations are substantially complete in mid-spring. Wider distribution for feedback will follow shortly afterward. So that implementation is not unduly delayed while new agreements are finalised, staff will also look for ways to recognise the policy changes within the existing agreements on an interim basis.

Enormous thanks are due to the committee members, and to all members, staff and engagers who took the time to complete the survey.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Insurance Survey results and policy changes

Most members will already have received an EquiFlash posting on this, but I thought I'd echo it here for those who follow this track.

Council recently received the final committee report on the Insurance Survey, and Council has made several policy changes based on the recommendations in the report.

The basics can be found here (open document), with the Insurance Committee final report and the survey results also accessible to members.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Insurance survey update

At our September meeting, Council completed policy work resulting from the insurance survey. Our final report, with survey results and a forecast for action will be published in the next couple of weeks. It will appear in all the usual places.

You spoke; we listened. And just as importantly, we will act on what we heard.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Board governance podcast

OK. This is one of those posts that I know will have a limited audience – it's about organisational governance – but I figured I'd publish it anyhow for those of you who would like some sense of what Council does and how it operates.

I was recently invited to speak on an online radio show focussed on non-profit governance. Governance, by the way, is a catch-all term for the leadership work done by the board of any organisation. The radio show is called Nonprofit Spark, and it is hosted by Renee McGivern, a consultant, coach and trainer in Minneapolis, who works extensively with non-profit boards. Renee's goal is to provide resources and ideas to the thousands of non-profit boards across the continent. Depending on the topic of the week, the show reaches 5-7,000 listeners, which is pretty good, given the highly-specialised subject matter.

Many non-profit boards are comprised of volunteer members, as is ours, and not a few of them struggle with issues of knowing what the board is supposed to achieve, and whom they are supposed to represent. Those that manage to figure that out then typically go on to struggle with actually doing it. As a result, there are a lot of board members who curse the day they ever got suckered into agreed to take on a board role.

I take some pride in noting that the recommendation as a guest on the show came from an outside individual who knows our Council and its work, and who suggested Equity as an example largely free of these common dysfunctions. We're not perfect, of course, but on the whole I'd agree that we have the typical head-banging issues covered.

Here is a link to the show. If the topic of governance is of particular interest to you, I'd suggest you start from the top and also listen to Susan Mogensen, owner of Brown Dog Consulting, who has some useful points to make on board dysfunction in general. My interview starts at about 27:15 into the show, and is focussed on Equity Council. I hadn't heard Susan's segment before taping mine, and it's intriguing to hear some of the same topics arise in both. As always, questions are welcome in the comments section or by email if you want to know more.

Thanks to Renee McGivern and the Nonprofit Spark Radio Show for having me on as a guest. If you serve on other non-profit boards and are seeking the kind of resources she offers, check out her topic archive for a whole range of subjects.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Engagement document updates

Earlier this year, Council completed new policy on the review process for scale agreements and engagement policies. These are the core documents under which members are contracted. They take two forms:

  • negotiated, where the terms and conditions of engagement are the result of mutual agreement with an engager or association of engagers; and
  • promulgated, where Equity itself sets the terms, based on the negotiated terms of like-type agreements.
The new policy enforces two key requirements: members must be aware of and have the opportunity to contribute the review process for each cycle, and members must be informed of the results of that work. Policy details can be found in section EL-11 of our policy document.

Since agreements are reviewed/revised in different ways, these two requirements will necessarily have different implementation across the full range of engagement documents. In the case of the Ballet Agreement, for instance, the review cycle is quite apparent to all members engaged under that agreement. It's relatively easy to get the affected membership together in one place to discuss issues and possible changes, and to share information with them through the conclusion of negotiations and ratification

For many of the other agreements, particularly the promulgated ones, this process is much harder to replicate, since the affected membership is in constant flux and spread across the whole country.

Council's goal in establishing policy in this area was to provide a common-denominator standard to all reviews. Established processes that already exceed these expectations will continue to operate as before.

If you want to know what's coming up for review, and when, and how you can contribute, you can now find that information in one place, available to all members. Beginning with the Summer 2011 issue of EQ magazine, members will find a regularly-posted information block detailing upcoming contract reviews, a basic schedule for each, and information on how to contribute to the review or negotiation. All engagement documents are already dated to indicate the review cycle as a whole – review information will only be posted in EQ as the review dates approach.

We hope that members will make active use of this information, so that our engagement documents continue to reflect the expectations of our membership in this ever-changing business.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Independent Theatre Review Committee report

At the most recent Council meeting, the ITRC presented an initial report on the results from its member survey work, and you can find the summary document here. This report only covers the results from closed-ended questions (i.e. where a selection of possible answers were provided), and over 7000 open-ended text replies are still under review. As one may guess, collating and summarising these into a reliable data set is an enormous undertaking.

The ITRC also has a requirement to survey engagers and Equity staff on related matters, so that Council can have a complete picture from which to consider policy changes. This work is still ongoing.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Customer service standards

I wrote several months back regarding new customer service standards that were in the works, and they have recently been published on the Equity website. You can find all the details here, but these are the basics:
  1. All persons dealing with Equity may expect to be treated in a courteous manner.
  2. All persons dealing with Equity may expect a knowledgeable response to their inquiry.
  3. All persons dealing with Equity should expect to receive a timely response to their request for services or in response to their communication.
Just as importantly, there is now a clearly identified process for dealing with complaints.
As with all policies, Council will regularly monitor results from this change, and that will be added to our review of policy EL-2, in June of each year.

In the context of the thousands of service interactions each year, problems are fortunately rare. However, we do recognise the impact that a even minor issues can have in the context of an individual production or members' livelihood. Equity is committed to identifying issues as they occur and working toward improvement. These new service standards are an important step in that process.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Philanthropic policy

For a while now, Council has been looking at the possibility of writing a new philanthropic policy, one that would allow Equity to use a small portion of its resources for charitable purposes.

In truth, Equity already does this in some measure, but it is peculiarly self-serving type of charity. In pursuit of specific goals (assistance with career transition, affordable housing, and financial crisis), Equity either directly contributes to t
he Dancer Transition Resource Centre, PAL and The Actors Fund of Canada, and/or specifically recognises them as preferred fundraising recipients. All three certainly qualify as charities, but we know that our own members are significant beneficiaries of their work.

What Council was exploring, however, were activities solely to the benefit of third parties. Many members will recall the 2006 Oruuano project as an example of this, where we assisted a fledgling sister artists' association in Namibia. By the way, if you are not familiar with that project, you can read about it here.

The topic engendered some spirited discussion at Council. Representing artists with precarious livelihoods, and being no different ourselves, there is a natural desire to assist those less fortunate. However, there is also a recognition that Equity works with very slim resources, and shouldn't charity begin at home?

In the end, we decided to go out and do a quickie poll of the membership, using the various regional CPAGs. We asked about member interest in this kind of activity, preferred targets, level of resource use, and whether we should seek Canadian or international beneficiaries.

Although two-thirds of respondents felt that Equity should be devoting some portion of its resources to philanthropic activity, the results on the various detail points (who, when, how, etc.) expressed a wide range of opinion. Without reproducing all the results here, it summarises the situation nicely to note that with 66% of members surveyed supporting regular philanthropic work, quite a few of the summary comments that came back expressed reservation about using association resources for anyone other than members, for activities elsewhere as opposed to here, for using resources for this purpose at all, and so on. A very mixed message.

What Council has taken from this feedback is that support exists, but it is hardly overwhelming and is significantly qualified in many respects. In April, Council passed new policy approving philanthropic activities, but respecting the following limitations:
  • that fulfilment of this policy is not an annual obligation, so Equity can wait until a worthy project presents itself;
  • that activities under this policy are capped at 0.5% of the previous year's revenues;
  • that projects needed to be of a clearly philanthropic nature; and 
  • that fulfilment of this policy may not compromise achievement of other key policies which benefit members.
What all this means is that such projects are now permitted, but within strict resource limits and only when the resources so used will not have a negative impact on our core services. 


In other words, Council intends to take the same approach most of us do in our own giving when someone shows up at the door: if we can afford to contribute, we will; but if our circumstances do not so allow, we will wait until they do.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Professionalism and a code of conduct

Partly as a result of recent discussions regarding professional status, Council ended up discussing a tangentially related issue: professionalism. In fact, we ended up there repeatedly. It's was pretty easy; there is a strong connection between the status (earning a livelihood, for instance) and behaviour (turning up for rehearsals on time).

Although professionalism is not a formal topic on the Council agenda at the moment, I thought it might be interesting to hear from the membership on the subject. So, I created a placeholder for a new post.

Shortly afterward, I received a link to a website article, which reports on a code of conduct created in 1945 for the Circle Players, an ensemble-based theatre in Los Angeles (thanks, L). I've copied some of it below, but you can see the original LASTAGE post here. A couple of days later I got an email from another colleague, proposing that Equity set standards for dressing room behaviour (thanks, B).

There seemed to be some kind of alignment in the stars on this topic, so over to you. As a professional artist, what would you nominate for a code of professional behaviour? 
Are there even "traditional" standards that ought to be relaxed or removed as no longer applicable.

And of course, it would be interesting to hear from members on the matter of dressing room and rehearsal hall etiquette, especially in regards to all the newfangled gadgetry that has shown up in the last little while. Funny, how we ask patrons to turn off cellphones, but we don't do it ourselves...

The full Circle Players code includes 17 points, but here are the first 7 to chew on for starters:
  1. I shall never miss a performance.
  2. I shall play every performance with energy, enthusiasm and to the best of my ability regardless of size of audience, personal illness, bad weather, accident, or even death in my family.
  3. I shall forego all social activities which interfere with rehearsals or any other scheduled work at the theatre, and I shall always be on time.
  4. I shall never make a curtain late by my failure to be ready on time.
  5. I shall never miss an entrance.
  6. I shall never leave the theatre building or the stage area until I have completed my performance, unless I am specifically excused by the stage manager; curtain calls are a part of the show.
  7. I shall not let the comments of friends, relatives or critics change any phase of my work without proper consultation; I shall not change lines, business, lights, properties, settings or costumes or any phase of the production without consultation with and permission of my director or producer or their agents, and I shall inform all people concerned.
Share your thoughts in the comments section.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Joining Process - Part 2

Last year, I wrote about our discussions on the topic of the joining process. That discussion has advanced considerably, and I'd like to bring you up to date. If you want to read the original post, you can find it here.

As mentioned, we'd like to achieve a few things with a new joining plan. First, we'd like to ensure that the process works well for prospective members. Right now, through longstanding practice, if you accept an Equity contract, you join. That's pretty much it. We do have provisional and probationary memberships, but they are voluntary options and not often used. While we think it's great to welcome new members at any time, many join at a point in their career when they really need to be maintaining flexibility in their options, and when they are not at a stage that they can make the kind of commitment to the collective benefit of the membership that joining entails.

The second is that we would like to put the process of joining much more firmly in the hands of Equity; right now, most decisions to join are made in discussion with an engager. We typically find out we have a new member when we suddenly receive a contract with a name that we don't recognise. We haven't had the chance to say "Is this the right choice for you?" or "Have you considered this other option?" or even "Hi! Welcome aboard!" Depending on when we receive the first contract, new joins may get a welcome package before they begin work, while they are working, or even well after the contract has ended. That's far too late for the Association you have just agreed to join to be getting in touch for the first time and telling you what joining Equity involves.

So, what have we come up with?

We are exploring a dual stream approach, involving both apprenticeship and a form of permit membership very similar to our current probationary/provisional options. I'll use these terms in what follows, although they may yet change, as may some of the other details, by the time the new programme is implemented. Also, please note that this material relates only to performers in theatre at this point. Council will examine how it might apply throughout the membership, but as our largest member contingent, this was the best place to start the review.

Although apprenticeship is not well-used among performers, most of our scale agreements allow a percentage of non-professionals to be engaged on shows, and many of them will eventually go on to join. So, having some kind of entry programme geared toward gaining experience in the business is important. Apprenticeship will continue to fill that need on much the same terms as it does today.

For those offered their first Equity contracts, the plan under discussion would no longer make full membership immediately available, and only probationary membership will be offered. This will permit engagers to fulfil their professional quota requirements, and allow the artist to receive the full engagement benefits and protections, including representation by Equity, for the duration of the contract. Following the contract, performers would revert to the equivalent of apprenticeship status, and retain all the engagement flexibility that category offers.

There will be some, however, who do wish to join right away, and the new plan will accommodate that. Any actor engaged as a probationary member will have the option to take out full membership within two months of the start of their contract. The cost for joining will be the same as if they had joined as a regular member immediately.

One benefit of this deferred joining approach is that we will no longer expect engagers to serve as de facto front line staff in our membership office; we anticipate this will be a welcome change! Joining will instead be something arranged directly between the new member and Equity staff. Questions such as those noted earlier can be asked and carefully considered by the prospective member before a choice is made. Full membership will no longer be compulsory for engagement (although not indefinitely so) and the moment of joining will therefore be much more in control of the artist.

We've put the plan together in a summary document that staff is now examining. They will consider any anticipated administrative issues, review the fee structure, and propose suggestions they feel will make the change smoother to implement, and stronger in the long run. We will hear back from staff in June, and should have a final version to share with you not too long after that.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Defining "professional"

One of Council's most intriguing discussions of late has been an effort to define the term "professional" as it is used in our various bylaws and policies. This is turning out to be rather more difficult than hoped. Or, perhaps, just as difficult as anticipated.

In theory, coming up with a usable definition should be a fairly simple process: open up a dictionary and copy down what you see printed there. However, our membership works across a wide spectrum of career realities, so pinning down a simple definition is elusive. This may be why we haven't developed one to date.

It might be worth a word or two on why we would want to do this in the first place.

The initial impetus came from our desire to handle resignation applications fairly and consistently. Our bylaws require the applicant to confirm an intention to "terminate his or her professional career" within the jurisdiction of Equity. OK, but then where do you draw that line? In the case of applicants who specify that they wish to continue their career in live performance in a "non-union" capacity, the answer is pretty simple. In the case of members who no longer wish to pursue their livelihood in live performance, but who plan to participate in local non-professional work on the strength of their prior careers, that line is less clear.

Should "professional" be viewed in terms of income, or pursuit of income, or defined in terms of a level of skill or talent? After all, someone who has devoted a significant portion of their life to acquiring and honing a high level of skill, and who has worked at that level, doesn't suddenly drop back to an "amateur" level simply by virtue of signing a piece of paper. Or is it a combination of these two, and in what proportion? Should tenure within the profession figure into it at all?

In considering these questions, we also need to give thought to how any definition would apply to our active membership.

Our members run a wide gamut, from people who work fairly steadily at fairly comfortable salaries (an unfortunately slim minority), to those who deliberately combine livelihoods within and without our jurisdiction, to those who only work sporadically in their chosen profession (a dismayingly large number). Yet, all of them are pursuing a professional career, and few of them would hesitate to swap their second (first) job for a decently-remunerative theatre gig and a chance at more. Is the actual percentage of one's livelihood earned in our jurisdiction an appropriate metric, or should it perhaps focus more on the desire or intention to earn a livelihood?

And how far should self-definition figure into it? If asked, I'm guessing that 100% of our members, no matter how intermittent their contract history, would categorise themselves as "professional".

Beginning to get the picture?

If anyone has a blinding flash of inspiration on this topic, please feel free to drop us a note in the comments!

Monday, March 28, 2011

Member benefits - secured fees

Unlike many member benefits, working with secured fees is one of those invisible protections of which most members are thankfully unaware. I say "thankfully" because in the best of circumstances, it, like a high-wire safety net, remains unused. However, just like a safety net, you would not want to be without that protection if you do need it.

All member benefits and protections have their roots in Council policy. In this case, the applicable policy is
End-2: Working Under Contract, which states:
Members will work with secure contracts in place, ensuring…appropriate and consistent remuneration [and] a guarantee on a portion of the fees payable…
In practice, this means that either the engager must put down a deposit on a portion of the fees (typically two weeks' worth of fees, taxes and benefits) or must prepay the artists. In the case of a tour, the per diems for the same period are also require a bond.

For established theatres, this security is most often posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, although some theatres post cash bonds with the office. Cash bonds are kept separate from all other Equity accounts, and are not used for any purpose other than as security. Also, interest paid on cash bonds is credited to the engager, and does not go into Equity's general revenues. In all cases, Equity has the unilateral right to withdraw funds from the security deposit if required.

If you have served as a deputy on a show, you will recall having signed a "release" form at the end of the contract. Receipt of this form is critical, as it advises our staff that all the contractual financial obligations have been satisfied by the theatre, and Equity may now release the security back to the engager.

If you are the deputy, it is really appreciated, by both the theatre and Equity staff, when you get that form back to the ofice promptly at the end of a contract. If you are contacted by the deputy on your show and asked to confirm full payment so they can send in the release, please get back to them ASAP
Theatres are understandably anxious to know that their security is unencumbered, and Equity does not want to tie up an engager's money any longer than absolutely necessary. If you happen to have misplaced the form, please download one here – send it in as soon as the production has closed and  you can confirm that there are no outstanding fees.

Does Equity ever have to pay members out of the security deposit? In a word: "yes", several times per year. I'll pull together some details for a future post.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Council's environmental responsibility policy

In a recent post, October methinks, I talked about how Council has an annual roster of cyclical agenda items, so that every aspect of Equity's work gets examined on a regular basis. One thing I neglected to mention is that Council also examines its own work on a cyclical basis – we have committed to excellence in governance, and that means engaging in regular appraisal of ourselves.

Part of last year's review included consideration of Council's environmental footprint. With 10 meetings per year, and three of those being full two-day meetings, Council goes through a lot of paper in the preparation of agendas, minutes, policy documents, discussion papers, etc. Council meetings also necessitate a fair amount of travel, since we bring all members of Council together three times per year.

Having written new policy to reduce our environmental footprint, here is what we have done since then to put that policy into action.

Paper
In the middle of last year, we switched to an electronic meeting package format for all seven teleconference meetings. This means that not only is much less paper consumed, but the environmental impact of sending that paper across the country is avoided. Councillors who are away from their home base can still request hard copy packages as needed, but that is now very much the exception.

Meeting packages are still sent out for in-person meetings – the number of documents that need to be reviewed in advance of a two-day meeting is more than we can reasonably expect Councillors to print at home. Also, while on a conference call, Councillors can usually refer to documents on a computer screen, something not easily managed when we meet in person.

We reviewed this approach at our February meeting to ensure it is working well for Councillors and staff. Although it will see a few tweaks to be more user friendly, it appears to be a success. We will also be reducing some of our other reprint schedules in favour of update sheets when necessary. Aside from the environmental benefits, there are also financial benefits to these changes: we are now using much less paper and toner and staff time for our work, as well as reducing courier costs.

Travel
We also looked at turning some of our in-person meetings into telephone conferences. However, m
uch efficiency is gained by actually having participants together in the same room – converting even one two day in-person meeting into teleconference format would mean the addition of roughly ten more two-hour phone meetings in order to complete anywhere near the same amount of work. We did, however, add teleconference capability to our meetings, so that Councillors who are not able to attend in person are now able to be there by phone.

Video conferencing was also explored, but the current cost of having that set up for two whole days in nine or ten locations across the country is enormous. Doing the same thing through personal computers is not a viable option when meetings involve 20+ participants. Perhaps some day...

Instead, we will be purchasing carbon offsets for our travel on an annual basis. At the end of last year, a calculated equivalent in carbon offsets for our Council travel footprint were purchased from
Less Emissions Inc. Less is currently the highest rated carbon offset vendor as reviewed by the David Suzuki Foundation and The Pembina Institute. Here is a link to their guide and grading report, if you want more information.

Administration
In order to ensure environmental awareness throughout all of Equity's operations, Council established similar policy for our Executive Director and her staff. A recent monitoring report detailed several new and updated initiatives:
  • Waste paper is  now sent to a shredding company, both for security reasons, and to ensure that it is properly recycled and not combined with other waste.
  • When the office photocopiers were replaced due to age, new ones were chosen that cost less per month and are much more energy efficient than the ones they replaced. Used toner cartridges and old drums are recycled through the manufacturer.
  • Fax machines have recently been eliminated and all incoming faxes are now delivered via email.
  • Every effort is made to distribute information regarding member services and other topics of interest via “piggybacking” with necessary mailings: either EQ or member invoices.
  • The dep pack, one of our most constant mailings, was recently pruned to use less paper.
  • EQ is packaged in an oxo-biodegradable polybag, and while the EQ paper stock has a glossy feel, the paper used for it has 50% recycled content and is acid and elemental chlorine free.
  • When choosing a hotel for Council meetings, one of the criteria assessed by staff is whether or not the hotel has an environmental policy and what the specifics are.
Running a national organisation unavoidably has a significant environmental footprint, at least given current technologies. Council and staff will continue, however, to actively explore options to reduce that footprint wherever possible.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

National AGM this Monday

Don't forget...

Equity’s 2010-2011 National Annual General Meeting is coming up shortly.

Date: February 28, 2011
Time: 7:00-10:00 p.m. (doors open at 6:30 p.m.)
Venue: Currie Hall (National Ballet School)
Location: 105 Maitland St. (between Church and Jarvis Sts.- south of Wellesley St. E.), Toronto

All Equity members in good standing are encouraged to attend. Apprentice, provisional and probationary members are also welcome and encouraged to attend. Please bring your current membership/apprentice card to show at the door.

The NAGM will be divided into two segments. The first portion will take care of necessary business items and be kept as concise as we can reasonably manage. It will include:
  • brief reports from the President and Executive Director, including a review of recent Association activities and updates on current initiatives, such as the Insurance and the Independent Theatre reviews
  • receipt of the audited financial statements and appointment of Equity’s auditors for the coming year
The world of recorded media has changed drastically in the past decade, and continues to evolve at a furious rate. The second half of the evening will be an open forum on the subject of new media technologies and their increasingly important role in live performance. We’re calling it:

The Digital You
Remember the days when recorded promotional material consisted of two minutes of current affairs video shot by a local TV crew, a couple of newspaper interviews, and a handful of setup shots taken by a professional photographer? Well, say “So long!” ‘cause they aren’t coming back. The technology to create compelling video segments, audio clips and photos, and the means to easily publish them, are now within the reach of pretty much everyone. In fact, many of us carry that technology in our pockets. 
Requests for access to the backstage, green room and rehearsal hall, for the purpose of recording promotional material, are increasingly common. The artist interview no longer lasts 10 minutes – members self-interview, through blogs or Facebook or Twitter, on a daily basis for weeks. And when the show is all done, and the last piece of glowtape has been peeled from the stage, all that digital material enjoys a life everlasting on the internet.

Join Council, your colleagues, and panellists…

Maev Beaty (performer, writer)
Marjorie Chan (performer, writer)
John Karastamatis (Communications Director: Mirvish Productions)
Ross Manson (performer, director, AD of Volcano)
Michael Wheeler (co-AD of Praxis Theatre, theatre blogger)

…for an information sharing session on new media technologies, and how artists and engagers are using them, followed by open discussion on how we should be treating this material in our scale agreements and engagement policies.The forum will be an opportunity for members to share experiences and advice, learn about copyright, ACTRA jurisdictional issues and more. 
We hope you are able to join us for what promises to be an informative evening. It’s a chance to connect with Councillors from across the country, your regional advisory and, of course, your local colleagues. Refreshments will be served.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Insurance survey completed

Thank you, on behalf of the Insurance Committee and Council, to all the Equity members who participated in the Association's recent insurance survey.

Our research partner, Leger Marketing, will be collating and analysing responses for presentation to the committee and Equity's national Council. Committee recommendations for the future of the plan will be developed over the next few months, with a report to Council scheduled for June.

Thank you again for helping Council shape the future of your health and
disability benefits plan.

Friday, January 14, 2011

New Equity Honours Category Announced

One topic that has been stewing away gently on a back burner for a while now is a review of our slate of annual honours.

For those of you unfamiliar with our honours programme, here are the basics. Each year we solicit nominations from members across the country, for deserving honourees in three categories. The nominations and support material are reviewed by a Council committee, and the results presented to Council for approval. The awards themselves are presented at a honours evening each fall/winter.

Like everything, even our honours structure needs an overhaul now and then. Honours committees over the years had identified some confusing overlap between award categories, a few procedural concerns, and the absence of an award category for contributions that did not fit neatly into one of the existing options. The review work is now done and reflected in the new policy GP-14, for readers who want all the details.

And for those of you who prefer the executive summary...

Life Membership is awarded to members who have made an outstanding contribution to the performing arts within the jurisdiction of Equity. It recognises not only an extraordinary career, but also colleagues who have gone "above and beyond" in other ways that contribute to the benefit of either Equity or its members.

Honorary Membership is awarded to an individual who is not an Equity member, but who has made an outstanding contribution to Equity and/or its members, or to the performing arts within the jurisdiction of Equity.

The Larry McCance Award is awarded to a member or to a former staff member, who has made an outstanding contribution to the Association and its members, through elected representation, notable service on staff, or other exemplary action and advocacy.

And now for the new one...

Beginning in 2011, The CAEA Award of Distinction may be given to any organisation, individual, or group of individuals, excluding current staff, in recognition of significant contribution within the realm of live performance benefitting the membership of the Canadian Actors’ Equity Association.

The purpose of this new award is to allow Equity and its membership to recognise worthy recipients who would not otherwise be eligible for one of the other awards. The criteria are very open, so that the nominators have free rein to let us know what is important to them.

Full details on the honours categories, as well as a nomination form and instructions, can be found here. The nomination cutoff for each round of honours is May 1st. However, nominations
 are accepted all year, and will automatically be considered for the next available round of honours, depending on the submission date.

The next time you catch yourself thinking "people really ought to know how special that person is", head to the nearest computer, or give the office a call, and submit a nomination. That is exactly the kind of person the honours exist to celebrate.