S.G.M. Reqisition - Finances - Appeals Committee - RUMOURS ?

The Requisition for a Special General Meeting about the concern arising from the Equity Council proposing to change the way it presents the finances was turned down by the Equity Council and under the rules referred to The Appeals Committee. I predicted that the Appeals Committee would turn down the appeal….usually on the basis it would cost Equity too much money and matters could wait until the Annual Representative Conference. I have received a number of enquiries asking why I have not published the result as the Appeal was held last Wednesday. There are rumours doing the rounds as to what happened, but officially I believe that the Appeals Committee’s decision, and reasons if they so publish, have to be firstly presented to The Council, which presumably will be at their 5th December meeting. Only after this date will the decision/information be available to us ordinary Equity members.

CLIVE HURST - EQUITY - BECTU

The joint statement by Equity - Bectu mentioned earlier in relation to Clive Hurst's tenacious efforts may be viewed on his web at

EQUITY - BECTU JOINT STATMENT

MICHAEL EARL - THE STAGE

Equity Councillor Michael Earl hss had letter published in this week's STAGE concerning Jeremy Austin's article.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/letters/feature.php/14855/fight-for-union-aims

REQUISITION FOR S.G.M.

VONNIE - MEMBERS - APPEALS COMMITTEE

Northern Area Equity Councillor Yvonne Joseph and other members on behalf of 70+ signatures are due to present their case requisitioning for an S.G.M. before the Appeals Committee this Wednesday 15th November. The Council turned down the requisition. It concerns the decision of the Council to change the way it shows Equity's finances in the accounts. The change makes nonsense of Action 2000 and the ease by which one can identify sources of Equity's income AND it is all being done without any consultation with the members.
To date can you recall when the Appeals Committee has failed to back the Council?
Is the Appeals Committee really independent?
Does the Appeals Committee and its procedure provide for a "fair hearing in a fair court"?

JEREMY AUSTIN - OVERCOMING CRISIS - EQUITY - THE STAGE

Have you read Jeremy Austin's article "Overcoming Crisis"
in this week's Stage?

Maybe he has been "spin-doctored" ?

As the former News Editor of "The Stage" Jeremy had built up a reputation for writing well-researched and objectively fair pieces. This latest article though is biased in the extreme as he "explains what lessons can be learnt from the struggles at Guild House" apparently based on interviewing just one person ! His cavalier dismissal of truthful facts is astonishing especially to those who know that he must know the truth even though quite rightly Jeremy is entitled to his opinion. Maybe the passage of time has mellowed his enthusiasm for objective reporting or perhaps as a feature writer the same principles do not apply.

Do you think basing an article and opinions on the views of just one person is fair and objective reporting?

I know what I think and I written to The Editor of The Stage to tell him !

RULE 24 COUNCIL UNDEMOCRATIC

Who cares about rules? Does it really matter?
Well my view is that if you ignore rules, whatever your reason, it is the first step on the slippery slow into anarchy. The Council has shown it is undemocratic by breaching this rule and failing to hold a vote of the members within a reasonable time.

THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE A REFERENDUM ON THIS ISSUE.....THE COST IS BEING BROUGHT ABOUT TOTALLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE COUNCIL.
The rules provide for this rule to be considered and changed by members at a members' meeting......a less expensive option which would provide a better opportunity for members to take part in discussion compared with a referendum.
PLEASE REMEMBER OUR RULES DO NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM ON THIS ISSUE.

Why a referendum? Why in December?
Is it because polls held over the winter - Xmas time usually result in a very low vote?
Is it because at a meeting of members the chances of the Council losing the vote would be greater?
WILL THE MEMBERSHIP SLEEP WALK INTO ANARCHY?
WILL YOU ALLOW IT?

The Equity Council have, in my opinion, displayed that their ideas - in a Blair-like fashion - are paramount and all other members' views are to be disregarded. No compromise. No middle ground. The Council majority also seem to believe that an "unelected" Senior Management Team comprising of members of staff should be given greater credence than the professional views of members. The Council, in my opinion, are abdicating their responsibilities on behalf of our members.

This is the real issue behind my concerns about Rule 24.
If you believe Equity should be demonstrably democratic and answerable to our membership the you MUST VOTE AGAINST the proposed changes to Rule 24.
THE ONLY REASON FOR THE RULE CHANGE IS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WANT TO HAVE THREE ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARIES.

When Equity had over 43,000+ members we only had ONE Assistant General Secretary. Why with some 10,000 less members do we need THREE Assistant General Secretaries? The greater majority of organisations have ONE BOSS and ONE ASSISTANT BOSS....this is a proven management structure that has stood the test of time. We all want to know who is in charge of Equity when the General Secretary isn't available. We do not need a committee of Three Assistant General Secretaries or the additional salary and pension costs....look at our finances and membership income...we cannot justify the costs.

IF THE CHANGES TO RULE 24 ARE PASSED THEN THE COUNCIL CAN HAVE AS MANY ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARIES....AND THE ADDITIONAL SALARY IMPLICATIONS WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CONSULTING YOU ! ! !
IN ALL OF EQUIITY'S HISTORY THE COUNCIL HAVE NEVER HAD THIS POWER. WHY NOW?

No doubt you agree that Equity currently has too many chiefs in Guild House and not enough soldiers in the field. If you vote against the changes to Rule 24 you ensure a better management structure, a Council who will remain on this issue, as they have been for years, directly answerable to YOU....no changes without YOUR permission....a better use of Equity's money and hopefully as a result MORE SOLDIERS in the field and less centralisation in Guild House.
PUT OUR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS FIRST...VOTE AGAINST THE CHANGES TO RULE 24

and for the record.....AFTER HIS LONG SERVICE TO EQUITY AND GIVEN THE ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE GENERAL SECRETARY.....one must ask....WHY ISN'T ANDY PRODGER
THE ONE AND ONLY ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY....?????

WELL DONE CLIVE HURST

Equity Councillor Clive Hurst elected in July has basically run a one man campaign, against the practice of agents charging up-front fees, with considerably success. Clive has recently advised that The Equity Council have now agreed on a joint statement about this issue with B.E.C.T.U.
Well done Clive for your tenacity of purpose.