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.

Environmental Update 2012

While running a national organisation unavoidably has a significant environmental footprint, Council and staff continue to actively explore options to reduce that footprint wherever possible.

Recent initiatives include Council's decision to move to a largely electronic voting format for the recent dues referendum. Although a goodly number of respondents still used their mail-in ballot out of habit, we anticipate no barriers to completing the switch to a fully electronic (phone and internet) balloting system in time for the upcoming CTA ratification vote and Council elections.

We also made the decision to avoid the significant environment impact of the travel required to hold a series of in-person referendum meetings across the country. Instead, we focussed on answering questions online and by phone, and through a series of web conferences scheduled to suit each timezone.

For travel that is unavoidable, we have begun purchasing carbon offsets 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.

Executive Director contract renewed

Council is pleased to announce that Executive Director Arden R. Ryshpan has been engaged for a further three year period, effective the beginning of April.

Evaluation of the Executive Director is conducted annually, measuring performance against each of Council's Ends and Executive Limitation policies, and the most recent cycle was completed at the recent February Council meeting. Arden has consistently met Council's expectations over the years, and support for her contract renewal was unanimous. We are very fortunate to have such a capable administrative leader at the helm, as we complete (and continue) the many major improvements to how Equity operates and serves its members.

Please join us in thanking her for all of her hard work to date, and in welcoming her aboard for another three years.

Customer service - the other side of the coin

Having launched new service standards this past year, I think it's only right to take a look at customer service from the other side of the inbox.

I went into a store a couple of months back, and headed to the service desk to return something. Taped prominently to the counter was a sign I had never seen before. The gist of it was this:

Our service staff is not expected to put up with rude, aggressive or threatening behaviour from customers. Staff have been instructed to promptly summon supervisors and/or security personnel in these instances.

I can't imagine that the decision to display that sign was taken lightly. After all, the whole point of the customer service desk is customer service, and here they were posting a notice (presumably) saying that Mr. or Ms Customer could expect to find themselves out on the sidewalk should they get aggressive with staff. How fraught can returning a toaster possibly be? Apparently, for some, very.

So, what's this got to do with Equity?

A few times a year, I get letters from members, or have correspondence copied to me, that leave me shaking my head in disbelief. These are the exchanges that make me wonder if perhaps we should print up a couple of those signs for our own use. Actually, they bring to mind rather more deliciously draconian responses, but a putting up a sign is probably the polite way to go about it.

I thought I'd share a few of the exchanges with you. Anyone who has ever worked in a customer service capacity will recognise these people instantly. As unique as the theatre community may be, some things are apparently universal, and it's amazing to see how quickly basic customer service interactions can escalate into movie of the week dramatics.

These are examples of actual phone calls and letters, boiled down somewhat, and expletives abridged so as not to aggravate anyone's spam filter.

« What do you mean, you can't process my contracts in time [Friday 2pm for a Monday rehearsal start]? You may recall I used the word “bull****” last time you told me this and got the contracts turned around in 5 minutes so I know it can be done. Stop ****ing around or your members will have one less theatre to work in next season. »

« Hi. I just got my dues invoice and see that you have added $10 to the amount that was owing from earlier in the year. Where does it say that there is an overdue fee? … Oh… I don't think I should have to pay it, because [insert one of a short list of well-worn reasons.] … Great! Now you're asking me to pay more because I didn't pay you in the first place. All you guys ever want from me is money! [Fully one quarter of dues payments arrive late.] »

« Why won't Equity allow me to take part in this project? … Well, I was told that they won't. … No, I haven't spoken to anyone at the office – the engager told me that you said that they couldn't hire me. So, why won't Equity allow me to take part in this project? »

« As a member, I expect that you will [do any number of things] for me. I'd hate to have to resort to legal means in order to have this happen, but I have already spoken to a lawyer in preparation for that and I'm confident that the courts would agree with me and make Equity comply. »

« You're all ****s. There's no work out there and you want to put the dues up. WTF. Ridiculous. [from a new member] »

Here's what staff does. They explain; they soothe; they direct people to the note on their invoice informing them of the late fee; they look up credit card information to let members know that their card expired last year; they confirm that the office does have the correct mailing address on file; they direct members to the insurance brochure online; they refer members to the recent article on the topic; they inform members how they (almost always) can take part in that project; etc., etc. And they get the contracts processed in time for rehearsal on Monday.

Then they listen to stories of how shabbily they treat people.

Y'know what? That's bull****.

Saskatoon Council meeting cancelled

Beginning in 2006, Council changed bylaws to enable us to take one in-person meeting of Council on the road each year. Equity is a national organisation, and we felt it was important that members across the country had access to Council meetings, similar to that enjoyed by Toronto-area members. Since the implementation of this policy, we have held meetings in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's. Our meeting this summer was to be held in Saskatoon.

Regretfully, Council has had to cancel the Saskatoon meeting due to financial constraints and the meeting will, instead, be held in Toronto. Convening Council outside Toronto entails significantly greater cost (potentially as much as $15K more), and meetings across the country have attracted scant or no attendance by the local membership. Despite our desire to continue making Council meetings more accessible, we cannot currently afford the cost and the time-consuming long distance planning required for these to continue.

Council will be reexamining the bylaw on meeting locations at its February meeting, with the goal of maintaining as much cross-country access as possible, while reducing expenses. We welcome ideas for how Council can help members across the country remain connected to their elected representatives.

Dues referendum results

(The following is a reprint of my Winter 2012 EQ column.)


By this point, I hope that most people know how the recent dues referendum turned out. More than half of the membership supported both proposals, but bylaws require us to achieve a two-thirds majority, and that means that both ultimately failed. We take our instructions from the membership and respect what you have told us. Council and staff will move quickly to adjust to this new fiscal outlook, and you can expect to hear more regarding service and structural changes in the coming months.


This referendum was full of learning opportunities for Council and staff. It was our first referendum conducted electronically, and also the first conducted through multiple channels. Although any stumbles were mercifully minor, we took copious notes for future improvement.


Given the fact that our members are so plugged-in to the Internet, we were surprised to discover that almost half of all ballots came in by mail. Habit, perhaps, but this drove up the final cost of the referendum beyond what we expected. For next year’s Council elections, we will almost certainly shift to an all-electronic process to keep expenses down. Mail-in ballots may still be available by request, but not sent out as part of the voter package.


It was also our first referendum conducted in the era of Facebook. Previously, members would get together and discuss the issue du jour with a half-dozen colleagues in a green room or bar. Now they can do it with hundreds at once. While that is great for encouraging debate, it means that we have to practically camp online to keep up with the pace of discussion. Facebook gives me hives at the best of times, and I spent almost three whole weeks answering questions and posting different versions of “well, actually...” messages. I’ll be glad to see the back of that for a while....


A truly staggering number of members wrote or phoned in the final days to say that they didn’t know there was a referendum going on, and wanting to know how to cast their vote. The office phone rang with these inquiries right up to the very last minute. I personally find this level of incognizance far more dismaying than the referendum results. After two EQ columns, a special edition of the Council Link, EQUITYONLINE postings, special FAQ pages on the Council Connection blog, a series of five web forums, a dozen targeted email reminders, hundreds of Facebook posts, an automated phone campaign, and a mailed-out voter kit, all I have to say is, “Wake the  up! We flogged the referendum to the point of nagging – this is your Association and you need to pay better attention.” (I can say that, because I know they’re not reading this.)

I’d like to finish with a special recognition for all the staff who provided yeoman service on this project, coping particularly well with the frenetic pace of the last few days of voting. While I’ve closed a number of recent letters and messages with the statement that everything Equity does begins with the members, you also need to know that it wouldn’t happen, period, without our excellent staff. Hats off to them.

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.