I don’t mind bar codes, at least when they’re on books, boxes, and bags of sugar. When I find them on ballots, though, I get more nervous. That turns out to be a legitimate concern in the case of SAG, which sent out a 12-page mailing a few days ago assailing the studios’ proposed deal, accompanied by a bar-coded postcard asking SAG members whether the Guild should keep fighting for a better contract or accept what the studios were offering. Now it seems the bar code may compromise Guild members’ confidentiality.
Let’s leave aside the fact that this survey is a push poll – a poll designed to influence opinion rather than simply record it. Leave aside, also, the fact that this mailer, paid for by union funds, comes in the middle of the Guild’s annual elections, and echoes the platform of the dominant faction, Membership First, which has 33 candidates on the Hollywood Division ballot: in other words, the mailer is close to being a piece of campaign literature paid for out of the union kitty.
Instead, look at the bar-coded postcard. As recounted in an anonymous SAGwatch posting (also discussed on Blog Stage and Vallywood (and here)), SAG National Director of Governance Michelle Bennett allegedly told a SAG member that “authorized staff members” at SAG could have access to a record of how each member voted (which is trackable because of the bar code).
If true, that’s not a confidential vote, despite language on the postcard that claims this to be the case. And the lack of confidentiality will no doubt leave some Guild members uneasy about voting – particularly in light of the highly partisan nature of the elections. Considering that Membership First controls the union, the dissenters – those who believe it’s time to get a deal done – may be hesitant to cast votes. That’s plain wrong: No member should have to fear his or her own union. The integrity of voting – even if only advisory voting – should be maintained.
I spoke with SAG about these anonymously-sourced allegations. The Guild told me the bar codes are necessary so that the independent company receiving and tabulating the postcards could verify that no member voted multiple times. Fair enough, I said, but would in fact a staff member such as the National Executive Director be able to get a list of who voted how … and if so, why should he be able to get such a list? SAG said they’d get back to me by the end of the day, but never did.
What to do? For one thing, the Guild and the independent tabulating company need to agree publicly, and in writing, that individual member voting information will not be made available to any SAG staff, even the National Executive Director, nor to any officer or Board member. They have no legitimate interest in it.
Second, the Guild needs to commit to publicly release all results from the survey – not just the overall percentages yea and nay, but also the absolute numbers (the turnout), with all figures broken down by Division (Hollywood, NY, or Regional) as well. SAG declined to commit to this transparency when I asked.
Finally, members who are concerned should contact SAG. Judging from the SAGwatch posting, the appropriate person may be Michelle Bennett, SAG’s National Director of Governance. Her number, according to the SAG website, is 323-549-6094. Perhaps if enough members call, SAG will assure true confidentiality, and transparency, for the survey vote. If you do talk to her or any other SAG staff, send me an email (jhandel (at) att (dot) net) or leave a comment here (anonymously if you wish), so that we all can know what position SAG is taking on this.
