MAC Awards and MAC BOD Questions & Answers (long) - Don't Read If You're Not Interested In MAC

[do_re_milla]

Posted: 6/22/05 at 8:34pm

Here are some questions that were posed to me by a MAC member along with my answers:

1. “I simply do not think about the organization a whole lot, as it does not affect my life or career to a high degree.”

This statement is very sad, but not surprising if these sentiments are typical of MAC members. It’s not surprising because MAC does not foster the belief that it makes a difference to the cabaret community or the cabaret performers’ careers.

2. "In the past, I have admired people ... who voiced their opinions with determination, despite harsh criticism and cruel (and truly disappointing) responses."

This is not about winning any popularity contests. If it were, I would bite my tongue. For every 1 of the postings/emails that I have received that purport concern for the welfare of my career, etc., I’ve rec’d just as many emails from people disillusioned w/MAC. What some people are doing to show their concern for cabaret & their disillusionment w/MAC is to join Stu Hamstra's cabarethotline rather than rejoining MAC.

3. "The point is, I care a whole lot about cabaret, and MAC is a part of that, so I’m taking a minute to write today."

Here is some common ground. We both care. We both want MAC to succeed. We simply have different visions of what MAC can and & should be doing. But we can certainly agree to disagree & debate the points honestly & openly. & so I’ll continue….

4. Why is "the MAC board ... described as 'elitist…'"?

“Many of the most elitist members of the previous BOD are either still on it or have shifted to the Advisory Cte., where they are still playing a major role.” Please note that those “elitist members” are self-proclaimed elitists and proud of it. In addition, the fact that they thought that something so fundamental should not be brought to the entire mbrship for discussion & a vote is in fact further proof of their elitism.

5. "I become curious as to the perks of being on the MAC board, or the pay-off of meeting in secrecy. Are they paid, dined, offered any particular reward for their participation on the board, offered pricey bribes to vote in a particular direction- do they even get discounts at the top tier clubs?"

What a curious question. The prominence of being on the MAC BOD could reasonably provide connections that increase your visibility & help your career. For instance -- & I’m not suggesting anything nefarious – MAC’s Sec. Sue Matsuki will be perf’ing in a MAC event w/MAC Pres B Levitt’s trio in MAC VP Scott Barbarino’s. club, the Iridium. Now, consider the perks & power that accrue to those who’d be on the Nominating Cte. If you’re a dir. & a you’re a nominator, the slightest understanding of human nature will lead you to the conclusion that that dir. will get more business – make more $$$ -- than the dir. who is not a nominator. & think this thru a little further & you’ll realize the total inequity of the nominating Cte concept. Unless all the clubs are equally rep’d by their club mgrs bkrs, tech people, etc, their votes – on a weighted ballot ---will totally skew in favor of the clubs that are better rep’d. What I’m saying is the BOD came up w/a lousy plan because they didn’t take an extra wk to listen to their own mbrshp. But more on that later…

6. "I know these people to be cabaret lovers who donate their time to MAC, even though they are constantly criticized for their efforts. It is a worse than thankless job."

Do they mean well? Yes, I’m sure they think they’re improving MAC. But it doesn’t matter how hard someone works if the work is poorly conceived, poorly planned, misguided and ineffective. I’m not criticizing them as people, I’m criticizing the plan they’ve created.

7. "So, you disagree with the procedure-ok-but what is the purpose of 'I Told You So' postings, and the other immediate, rage-filled reactions to their decision? What is really motivating all of that bitterness?"

Another curious comment. My reactions have not been “rage-filled”. Quite the contrary. I call my response to Ricky quite a restrained response, if anything. I agree with Stu 1000%. The fact that the title of my initial post was “I Told You So” is essentially so that people would open it up & read it. I guess that worked. As to the content, it was based upon the fact that I warned people that MAC had not yet turned the corner & that its leadership is not truly representative as only 1/2 the BOD has been elected. Other than that, most of what I wrote is simply that I agree with Stu. Nobody accuses him of being bitter, altho he clearly expressed his sense of MAC’s betrayal. I’m not saying people should attack Stu as they have attacked me, but perhaps I’m just an easier target.

I find it interesting that I am being criticized for my opinion when I agree completely with Stu and yet no one criticizes Stu. And he wrote about it first having been at the mtg when all of this broke. Stu’s gutsy response was enough to get me to rejoin cabarethotline but it wasn’t enough to get people to express their own thoughts about his comments.

8. "Sure, they should have bounced their ideas off of the membership-if it makes a large number of people unhappy, then it was clearly not a good decision on their part."

Yup, I agree with you there. However, I’m disappointed in the cavalier attitude toward the arrogant MAC BOD’s assumption that they did not have an obligation to hear what members had to say at a mtg that was coming just 1 wk after they met.

There may have been excellent ideas coming out of the mbrshp, but the mbrshp did not know that something this important was being discussed which might have increased attendance had they known. I might have thought about going, myself. The MAC BOD should have w/held their final decision on the revised MAC Aware plan until interested mbrs had the chance to express their opinions. I’ve said this before but w/an issue this imp to the mbrshp, some sort of referendum should have been offered or at least discussed. The hubris in dealing w/the mbrshp is alarming

9. "I BELIEVE THEM when they say they were just trying to raise the bar of excellence for the MAC Awards."

I don’t think they’re liars. I don’t think they’re cheats. I don’t think they think. I’m sure that raising the bar was their aim but the wrong plan now, another failure by MAC, will set the cabaret industry back yet another 10 years.

10. "What personal pay-off does any member of the MAC Board get for changing the nomination system?"

Members of the MAC BOD & the Advisory Bd will likely have 1st dibs on being on the Nominating Cte. Unlike the old Screening Cte., they will have the power to choose the final nominees. This gives them great control over the voting process -- & that is their personal pay-off. For those people who want to be big fish in a small pond, they’ll be stocking the lake.

11. "Do you believe that these busy people are intent on forming cliques and owning the process?"

CORRECTION HERE: I didn’t say that “[I] believe that these busy people are intent on forming cliques and owning the process.” I said that cliques will inevitably form. We live in the real world, so friends will vote for friends. The system should be devised to keep that kind of abuse at a minimum, not encourage it.

12. "Call me naïve, but I just don’t believe that any one of those folks has such ….. schemes on his/her agenda."

Okay, you’re naïve. But not to be glib, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. That they should see how inequitable and open to abuse that the system they’re proposing will be. If they took a little time to think it thru – or better still – let the membership comment upon it at an open mtg so that better ideas might emerge – that might have helped. Or am I naïve?

13. "Who are they to make major changes in the system? They are the Board of Directors, and we chose them. Rather, we chose many of them."

As I said before, “only 1/2 the MAC BOD has been elected by the mbrshp. The BOD also made this decision before replacing the spot left vacant by the loss of Richard Kennedy. Many of the most elitist members of the previous BOD are either still on it or have shifted to the Advisory Cte., where they are still playing a major role.” I should add that they have not established reasonable term limits. And what are the term limits for mbrs of the Advisory Bd?

14. "Years ago I looked into what it would actually take to create a union."

MAC is not a union, was not set up to be a union. It was set up to be a TRADE ASSOCIATION.

15. "I also don’t expect a whole lot from MAC, as it is staffed entirely by volunteers who have other full-time jobs."

And I completely disagree with you. Volunteers or not, they should be held to high standards and held accountable for their actions. Posters write about raising the bar. Well, it’s not just about raising the bar for the MAC Awards. It’s about raising the bar as to what the public thinks of cabaret and cabaret performers, changing the pubilc’s opinion, so as to increase the numbe of attendees outside the little cabaret world. There are so many talented people in our community who could go so much farther in their careers if MAC was more successfully promoting the art form in which they work.

16. "You may disagree and say that their efforts have produced results with which you are unsatisfied- but to accuse these folks of dishonesty, elitism, secrecy?"

Let me remind you that I didn’t write it. I quoted it from Stu. I agree with Stu when he writes in his newsltr “[a]ll these decisions made under ‘cover of secrecy’ and the membership never given a chance to voice their thoughts and suggestions until after the ‘irreversible decision’ was made! Once again the board has adopted an ‘us’ (the board) and ‘them’ (the members) attitude.”

18. "Lennie Watt’s Big Mac story [about not going to Burger King for a Big Mac] was right on the money. Even if Burger King pays ultimate attention to the needs of its customers, and caters to them, it will NEVER EVER sell a Big Mac. It cannot do that. So, ya’ stop asking Burger King for what it can’t give and head to a MacDonalds, if one exists."

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. So yes, I've gotta correct you here. MAC was incorporated as a trade association. Period. The fact that it’s not being run like one does not prove Lennie’s anecdote. Lennie’s story has it backwards insofar as MAC is concerned. MAC, if it was a fast food restaurant, would have trade association on its menu. That’s what it was built to sell. The reason that it’s on the verge of going out of business is because it’s not selling it’s prime product: cabaret. As they say, you can look it up.

19. “MAC can’t offer much (as a union can), but I believe that MAC is trying to improve on the things it does offer.”

MAC can offer a lot as a trade association. I believe that this latest attempt to “improve on the things it does offer” is a sad, poorly conceived, poorly thought out & poorly executed attempt at a quick fix that will set cabaret back instead of pushing it forward.

20. "Disagree absolutely, that is your right- but could you concede that the people responsible for making changes are not dishonest, but out of touch with your needs?"

The MAC BOD is not simply just “out of touch with [my] needs.” They are out of touch with the needs of the entire industry & if continued slip shod leadership, failed quick fixes, etc. (no matter how well intentioned) results in continued failure, well, we will ALL suffer.

21. “You regularly hear that after the MACs, and the board knows that [‘This is a joke’].”

What needs to be addressed is improving the perception and opinion of the cabaret industry. NOT JUST THE MAC AWARDS.

Milla