Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
this sounds great!
ReplyDelete-Stefano, Vancouver