Is Equity gambling with your money?
A formal complaint has been sent to Harry Landis - Equity President
Background:
Some five months or so ago I raised the question of Equity having more than one "Assistant General Secretary". Equity said that there had been a "technical" breach of Rule 24 and I pointed out you could not have technical breaches of rules. At that time I made a formal complaint but held it on the back burner in order to give Equity an opportunity to rectify the situation. Whilst I personally believe an organisation operates efficiently both in terms of response and financial considerations by having "One Boss" and "One Assistant Boss", which is basically what Equity's Rule 24 requires, it would appear that the Council have now authorised THREE posts at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in clear breach of Rule 24. They hope that the membership will vote to change the rule to allow the Council to do this is,
The Council cocking a snoot at its requirement to abide by our rules. It is also gambling with Equity's finances, because if you decide that the "one boss - one assistant boss" is the better way to run Equity and therefore do not vote for a Rule Change, who recompenses Equity for the financial implications of having appointed three persons at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in breach of the rules?
The complaint is occasioned by the fact I have been waiting for our General Secretary to respond to an email about this matter. To date no reply has been received.
Background:
Some five months or so ago I raised the question of Equity having more than one "Assistant General Secretary". Equity said that there had been a "technical" breach of Rule 24 and I pointed out you could not have technical breaches of rules. At that time I made a formal complaint but held it on the back burner in order to give Equity an opportunity to rectify the situation. Whilst I personally believe an organisation operates efficiently both in terms of response and financial considerations by having "One Boss" and "One Assistant Boss", which is basically what Equity's Rule 24 requires, it would appear that the Council have now authorised THREE posts at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in clear breach of Rule 24. They hope that the membership will vote to change the rule to allow the Council to do this is,
The Council cocking a snoot at its requirement to abide by our rules. It is also gambling with Equity's finances, because if you decide that the "one boss - one assistant boss" is the better way to run Equity and therefore do not vote for a Rule Change, who recompenses Equity for the financial implications of having appointed three persons at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in breach of the rules?
The complaint is occasioned by the fact I have been waiting for our General Secretary to respond to an email about this matter. To date no reply has been received.

