#1
Posted: 7/11/05 at 9:30pm
It’s a disgrace that the MAC BOD is not interested enuf to care what its mbrshp has to say in a meeting. The MAC BOD should have called a mtg. to give the mbrship an opportunity to debate the issues & to give the MAC BOD its input in an open & lively debate. Rather than lead the MAC mbrship by the nose, the MAC BOD should have called a mtg., allowed discussion & gotten a vote of the mbrshp.
The MAC BOD says in their “Letter From The MAC Board”: “First, it is clear that we should have alerted you all that the revised process would be an agenda item for the June 14th General Meeting. There were so many wonderful things we wanted to share with you at the meeting—seminars, MAC Nights Out, etc—that our exuberance led us to overlook the wisdom of posting an agenda. Please accept our apology for this.”
If it’s so clear that this vital subject should have been announced as being on the agenda so that a more prepared & a larger percentage of the mbrship might have attended, why is the MAC BOD stubburnly continuing to make the same mistake? Their unwillingness to have a mtg. & allow the mbrship to have its voice & potentially kick a revised version of this plan into the next yr. is yet another demonstration of the elitism & arrogance of the MAC BOD & their Advisory Cte. Some people have asked why I have used those strong words. This latest piece of behavior fr the MAC BOD is but 1 example. Why concede that they were wrong not to announce the agenda & then continue to refuse to allow the mbrship their say? P.S. If the mbrshp doesn’t get its act together, the MAC BOD is going to get away with this. By so doing, it sets a very dangerous precedent, i.e., conveniently "forgetting" to announce a vital subject on the agenda (“Oops, we forgot to tell you.”) & making an an apology (“We’re sorry. However, you still don’t deserve to have a mtg to discuss this ‘cause we know better than you.”). They could have attempted to correct such a mistake by holding a mtg in which this item is put on the agenda & mbrs are notified, etc. Instead, they're bull dogging ahead.
According to the stmnt written by the MAC BOD, everyone of these people voted unanimously that your voice didn’t warrant being heard in an open discussion. They believe they know what’s better for you. Since the vote was reported to be unanimous, you should know the names of the people on the MAC BOD who voted to eliminate your opportunity to speak, & the names of those on the Advisory Cte., some of whom attended & voted. A quick look at the names on the Advisory Cte. will probably tell you who probably wasn't there to vote, if indeed they consulted or were consulted on this matter.
Here are the names of your (MAC) BOD:
Barry Levitt, Pres.
Brent Winborn, VP
Scott Barbarino, VP
Jan Grossberg, Treas.
Cynthia Crane
David Kenny
Ruth Kurtzman
Peter Leavy
Sidney Myer
Colm Reilly
Here are the names of the Advisory Cte. to the MAC BOD:
Kay Ballard
Alan H. Bomser
Phyllis Diller
Peter Haas
Jerry Herman
Michael A. Kerker
Liza Minelli
Jeffrey Priore
Rex Reed
Joan Rivers
Shelley Roberts
Elihu Rose
Roy Sander
Liz Smith
Lily Tomlin
Jan Wallman
Margaret Whiting
Julie Wilson
I have no illusions as to which mbrs. of the Advisory Cte. were in attendance & approved this plan w/o a mbrship mtg to discuss this first.
What the MAC BOD is counting on is that you, who are reading this, won’t want to get involved because of fear or intimidation that you might not get an award by displeasing someone on the Nominating Cte.
To quote further fr. the “Letter From The MAC Board.“ “The MAKE-UP of the NOMINATING AND SPECIALIST COMMITTEES will be announced to the membership, probably early in 2006—NOT THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS, but the composition by role in relation to the art form, e.g., songwriter, publisher, critic, dedicated audience member, etc.” [emphasis added] Hello!
Mbrs should let the MAC BOD know how they feel about not having a mtg in which they can express their own feelings about the change to the MAC Awards. & just for starters, if the MAC BOD is so confident about the Nominating Cte., why wouldn’t the MAC BOD, of course, list the names of the individuals so mbrs would know whether the Nominating Cte mbrs have credibility or not. Seems to me that they are nervous about the credibility of the individual nominators they might appoint. For example, if the MAC BOD says "critic", it might mean that they have chosen some critic who doesn’t see many shows rather than a critic whom the mbrshp knows does. If they say "songwriter", it could be a songwriter whose credibility is not to be considered vs getting a songwriter whose name would mean something to the potential candidates & the mbrship.
We still have not received an answer as to who was on the Song Selection Cte. in past years. It’s been 1 or 2 people who made the decisions & they were not songwriters. Rumour has it that the yr. before, it may have been fewer than 2 people. Is that possible? Who was on the Cte. last year? Who was on the Cte. the year before? Since the MAC BOD is unwilling to list the names, will those mbrs of the Song Selection Cte. come forward & identify themselves? If the award is meant to have credibility why would the people who did the voting not want to identify themselves? If the MAC BOD has nothing to hide, why are these "Committees" covert?
The MAC BOD is once again ignoring the voice of the mbrshp. They can do this by virtue of the Bylaws that they wrote for just this purpose. They are manipulating the governance of this trade association.
In light of the fact that the MAC BOD refuses to allow mbrs to gather in a MAC-sanctioned meeting in order to discuss & vote on issues of vital importance to you, the members, is it worth it to be a MAC mbr? Remember, if you’re not happy with the BOD’s decision, they say you can always vote them out. However, if I remember correctly, w/o a quorum, they vote themselves in & they have, as stated above, manipulated the bylaws so that it’s nearly impossible to get a quorum. Remember, again, there are 2 tiers to getting nominated to be voted upon to the MAC BOD. If they think you think like them, the MAC BOD can nominate you. If you don’t, then you would have to get a large number of MAC mbr names on a petition in order to be nominated.
For those of you who just don’t care enuf to get involved maybe you should. To quote 1 mbr of the press who goes to see shows, but from his writings is very unlikely to choose to be on the Nominating Cte of an organization he does not respect, “Some help that outfit is.”
Many more thoughts to come when I stop steaming from this outrage.
Milla
Letter From The MAC Board
The MAC BOD says in their “Letter From The MAC Board”: “First, it is clear that we should have alerted you all that the revised process would be an agenda item for the June 14th General Meeting. There were so many wonderful things we wanted to share with you at the meeting—seminars, MAC Nights Out, etc—that our exuberance led us to overlook the wisdom of posting an agenda. Please accept our apology for this.”
If it’s so clear that this vital subject should have been announced as being on the agenda so that a more prepared & a larger percentage of the mbrship might have attended, why is the MAC BOD stubburnly continuing to make the same mistake? Their unwillingness to have a mtg. & allow the mbrship to have its voice & potentially kick a revised version of this plan into the next yr. is yet another demonstration of the elitism & arrogance of the MAC BOD & their Advisory Cte. Some people have asked why I have used those strong words. This latest piece of behavior fr the MAC BOD is but 1 example. Why concede that they were wrong not to announce the agenda & then continue to refuse to allow the mbrship their say? P.S. If the mbrshp doesn’t get its act together, the MAC BOD is going to get away with this. By so doing, it sets a very dangerous precedent, i.e., conveniently "forgetting" to announce a vital subject on the agenda (“Oops, we forgot to tell you.”) & making an an apology (“We’re sorry. However, you still don’t deserve to have a mtg to discuss this ‘cause we know better than you.”). They could have attempted to correct such a mistake by holding a mtg in which this item is put on the agenda & mbrs are notified, etc. Instead, they're bull dogging ahead.
According to the stmnt written by the MAC BOD, everyone of these people voted unanimously that your voice didn’t warrant being heard in an open discussion. They believe they know what’s better for you. Since the vote was reported to be unanimous, you should know the names of the people on the MAC BOD who voted to eliminate your opportunity to speak, & the names of those on the Advisory Cte., some of whom attended & voted. A quick look at the names on the Advisory Cte. will probably tell you who probably wasn't there to vote, if indeed they consulted or were consulted on this matter.
Here are the names of your (MAC) BOD:
Barry Levitt, Pres.
Brent Winborn, VP
Scott Barbarino, VP
Jan Grossberg, Treas.
Cynthia Crane
David Kenny
Ruth Kurtzman
Peter Leavy
Sidney Myer
Colm Reilly
Here are the names of the Advisory Cte. to the MAC BOD:
Kay Ballard
Alan H. Bomser
Phyllis Diller
Peter Haas
Jerry Herman
Michael A. Kerker
Liza Minelli
Jeffrey Priore
Rex Reed
Joan Rivers
Shelley Roberts
Elihu Rose
Roy Sander
Liz Smith
Lily Tomlin
Jan Wallman
Margaret Whiting
Julie Wilson
I have no illusions as to which mbrs. of the Advisory Cte. were in attendance & approved this plan w/o a mbrship mtg to discuss this first.
What the MAC BOD is counting on is that you, who are reading this, won’t want to get involved because of fear or intimidation that you might not get an award by displeasing someone on the Nominating Cte.
To quote further fr. the “Letter From The MAC Board.“ “The MAKE-UP of the NOMINATING AND SPECIALIST COMMITTEES will be announced to the membership, probably early in 2006—NOT THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS, but the composition by role in relation to the art form, e.g., songwriter, publisher, critic, dedicated audience member, etc.” [emphasis added] Hello!
Mbrs should let the MAC BOD know how they feel about not having a mtg in which they can express their own feelings about the change to the MAC Awards. & just for starters, if the MAC BOD is so confident about the Nominating Cte., why wouldn’t the MAC BOD, of course, list the names of the individuals so mbrs would know whether the Nominating Cte mbrs have credibility or not. Seems to me that they are nervous about the credibility of the individual nominators they might appoint. For example, if the MAC BOD says "critic", it might mean that they have chosen some critic who doesn’t see many shows rather than a critic whom the mbrshp knows does. If they say "songwriter", it could be a songwriter whose credibility is not to be considered vs getting a songwriter whose name would mean something to the potential candidates & the mbrship.
We still have not received an answer as to who was on the Song Selection Cte. in past years. It’s been 1 or 2 people who made the decisions & they were not songwriters. Rumour has it that the yr. before, it may have been fewer than 2 people. Is that possible? Who was on the Cte. last year? Who was on the Cte. the year before? Since the MAC BOD is unwilling to list the names, will those mbrs of the Song Selection Cte. come forward & identify themselves? If the award is meant to have credibility why would the people who did the voting not want to identify themselves? If the MAC BOD has nothing to hide, why are these "Committees" covert?
The MAC BOD is once again ignoring the voice of the mbrshp. They can do this by virtue of the Bylaws that they wrote for just this purpose. They are manipulating the governance of this trade association.
In light of the fact that the MAC BOD refuses to allow mbrs to gather in a MAC-sanctioned meeting in order to discuss & vote on issues of vital importance to you, the members, is it worth it to be a MAC mbr? Remember, if you’re not happy with the BOD’s decision, they say you can always vote them out. However, if I remember correctly, w/o a quorum, they vote themselves in & they have, as stated above, manipulated the bylaws so that it’s nearly impossible to get a quorum. Remember, again, there are 2 tiers to getting nominated to be voted upon to the MAC BOD. If they think you think like them, the MAC BOD can nominate you. If you don’t, then you would have to get a large number of MAC mbr names on a petition in order to be nominated.
For those of you who just don’t care enuf to get involved maybe you should. To quote 1 mbr of the press who goes to see shows, but from his writings is very unlikely to choose to be on the Nominating Cte of an organization he does not respect, “Some help that outfit is.”
Many more thoughts to come when I stop steaming from this outrage.
Milla
Letter From The MAC Board
Updated On: 7/11/05 at 09:30 PM
