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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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.

Back to the top

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

Do I need a platform to run on?

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.

Back to the top

"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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Small-scale theatre policy changes

As announced at the time the ITRC final report was published, Council dug right into policy work and was able to complete it by its self-imposed deadline of February Council.

Reporting on policy language is a pretty dry business, so please forgive me if I don't bore you to sleep with the specifics. The full policy document is here , so you can look up the exact wording, but I'll stick to generalities in this post. I’ve included policy numbers in each case, to point you toward the correct policy.

To begin with, Council decided to standardise on the term “small-scale” theatre, which is generally defined as engagement opportunities that encourage income, career advancement, or artistic fulfilment, through self-production and collaborative production.

In general, the direction from the membership as regards small-scale theatre was three-fold in nature.

• First, that these engagements are seen as much less geared toward immediate income generation. While members consider income to be important, and the survey clearly indicated a disinclination to wholly forego pay in favour of more intangible benefits, they recognise these projects as being about more than a paycheque. Factors such as artistic exploration, artistic fulfilment and showcasing talent also enter into their “compensation” calculation.

• Second, that there be as few “administrative” impediments as possible between the idea and the performance. What members really want to do is get a production up in front of an audience, with the least possible time dedicated to filling out paperwork about it.

• Finally, members asked for greater flexibility in terms when being engaged for this type of work, and wanted regular input opportunities into those terms going forward.

In February, Council enacted several policy changes in response the ITRC recommendations…

Council has expanded on the language in End-3. Previously, it was couched almost entirely in terms pursuit of auditions/interviews in hopes of securing an offer of work. End-3.4 now recognises that development of collaborative production and self-production, where members play a much larger overall role in the realisation of a project, is an equally valid form of pursuing work opportunity for oneself within Equity's jurisdiction. It also calls upon the Executive Director and her staff to facilitate this type of work. Finally, career advancement and artistic fulfilment are now explicitly recognised alongside income opportunity for small-scale productions.

Several changes were made in EL-11, which deals with the negotiation, development, administration and enforcement of our various engagement documents. The first (EL-11.1) is that “engagement policies”, the internal engagement documents under which most small-scale theatre is done, are now specified for regular review and member input, much the same as negotiated agreements.

While the ITRC recommended that engagement policies be subject to a ratification procedure, Council was not able to incorporate that. Two key factors came into this decision. First off, ratification is intended for negotiated documents, where there is a trade-off between what two parties may be seeking. In a situation where the input comes almost entirely from within the membership and Equity has the ability to promulgate whatever terms arise from that input, a unilateral ratification process would only replicate the member input that shaped the document in the first place. As well, properly transparent and verifiable ratification votes are not inexpensive. The working dues revenue from the majority of small-scale engagements is zero, and very low in almost all other cases. As things stand, these engagements are not able to cover the cost of their own administration; in our current financial circumstances, Equity cannot bear an additional, large unfunded expense such as ratification.

Also in EL-11.2 (E), staff are now required to take into account a much wider range of special circumstances when evaluating proposed deviations from standard agreements, including inherent economic challenges relative to a specific project, regional variation, diversity of practice and cultural variation. Finally, in EL-11.3, the organisation is prohibited from implementing administrative requirements in respect to engagement of members, beyond those reasonably necessary to ensure compliance with applicable bylaws and governance policies.

Taken together, these policy changes address all of the recommendations put forward by the ITRC, save one for financial reasons, and closely adhere to what members told us is important to them when being engaged for small-scale projects. Staff is currently at work preparing for a summer consultation “tour” to put the final details on revised engagement documents, and on track for a late fall/early winter launch date.