More on Censorship First!

Lest you think for one moment that the communications committee of the Screen Actors Guild voted to kill 2nd National VP Paul Christie's column in the next Screen Actor Magazine, the following from Liz Zazzi - one of the committee co-chairs - makes it very clear that the decision came from one (1) solitary member of Membership First. Liz is writing to Interim National Executive Director Peter Frank. After reading this, you might want to as well: pfrank@sag.org. Want to read Paul's letter? Go to http://sagfirebird.blogspot.com/2005/12/from-sag-2nd-national-vp-paul-christie.html

Dear Peter:

I am disappointed that the next issue of The Screen Actor will not contain Paul Christie's opinion letter. What is particularly shocking is the fact that the other two Vice President's letters will be running, in spite of the editorial subcommittee having issues with their content. So much focus was put on Paul's letter, that the other two slipped in with no impediment. Anne Marie's letter contains a statement referring to a unanimous endorsement of FTAC- patently untrue. There was "no objection" to devoting money to a study, but the blanket statement that FTAC was unanimously supported is not true.

Reading press coverage of Membership First's Communications Committee coup to silence Paul Christie portrays Loren Lester as some type of spokesperson for the Guild, when in fact he made what David White characterized as an ill-advised decision in a non-official meeting to cancel Paul's letter. To claim that no one showed up to "write a rebuttal" is nonsense. The Hollywood members of the Communications Committee showed up to write a rebuttal. The NY members of the Editorial subcommittee were vehemently against a rebuttal. We wrote and signed a letter to Alan Rosenberg, which you also have, stating that. Current editorial subcommittee policy gives every VP the right to an opinion letter in the national magazine. It is a valuable tool to communicate with membership. It is the only sure way we know to reach our members since many do not have, or do not use email.

In the four years I have served on this committee, we have frequently made editorial suggestions but never compelled the VPs to follow them. In fact, there were many times when a suggestion was ignored, and the VP's letter ran. This is the first time a VP's opinion was completely silenced.

As you know, the only reason Mr. Lester called a full Communications meeting was because the Editorial Subcommittee was hamstrung when the Hollywood members walked out to vacate the quorum. It is ironic that Mr. Lester would gripe that NY and the branches didn't show up for him, but keep silent about his own people who walked out on me. Mr. Lester also called that meeting in spite of the fact that Lisa Lewis and I (his co-chairs) were both booked, and expressed the desire of the majority of the Editorial Subcommittee that this matter go to the NEC. He instructed Seth's office to proceed with scheduling the meeting, and on the Wednesday preceding Thanksgiving at 3pm NY time, I was asked if I had any idea if NY members might be available! After all I went through, and the days, nights and weekend I spent on this matter, at the start of a holiday weekend, I was being asked to track down a replacement for myself, and to ensure there was a quorum!

I believe you want to do the right thing. In our rather lengthy telephone conversation of November 30, you stated that the Hollywood members' "walkout" was deplorable. Because you were present at the "walk out" you also heard David White's legal opinion that Paul's letter was not libelous. The simple fact is, Paul's letter contained the phrase "in my opinion" repeatedly. It is unnecessary and completely wrong for Loren Lester to feel compelled or empowered to rebut Paul's opinion. Mr. Lester was elected to nothing. He doesn't get an opinion in the Screen Actor. Mr. Lester was appointed. Mr. Christie was elected to his post, and I might add, by 75% of the vote. Vice Presidents get opinion letters in Screen Actor. Appointed members-at-large do not. That's our policy.

Peter, you have to take responsibility here. Loren Lester has got to realize that regardless of what he considers upsetting, untrue, or simply not what he wants other members to read, he has no right to make that decision. Why did you let him do that? As I have repeatedly stated, he broke with tradition, policy and past practice of the editorial sub-committee and censored Paul's letter. And he did it in a non-meeting with no quorum. Why bother calling a meeting?!!? Why doesn't he just do whatever he wants and then let us know? If I had followed editorial subcommittee policy in the non-quorum meeting that LA vacated, and made a decision to run Paul's letter, Loren Lester would have overruled me. So who overrules Loren Lester? This is absolutely unbelievable. The damage done here is going to be catastrophic. Aside from all the attention this is getting in the national press, what do you suppose is going to happen when the "letters to the editor" start pouring in to the Screen Actor demanding an explanation of the deletion of Paul's letter? Is Mr. Lester so short-sighted that he believes the NY members are going to sit quietly? Or is he preparing more of his "rebuttals?" Or will he simply choose not to print those either? What's going on here? Transparency? Unity? Precisely what criteria gives Loren Lester- an appointed, non-elected member- the right to decide what opinions are printable?

I need a response.

Thanks,

Liz Zazzi
National Co-Chair Communications, NYD
National Chair, Editorial Subcommittee at coup-time