MEAA Federal Council votes to move to appointed CEO
The leaders of the union representing journalists musicians and actors have voted overwhelmingly to put in place a new structure with a board appointed CEO in place of the current model of an elected federal secretary, removing the ability of members to directly elect the head of the union.
In a vote held yesterday in Sydney, the Federal Council of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) voted 64 to 28 to abolish the current model replacing it with a CEO who will be appointed by the elected federal management committee.
The win, which was tipped yesterday, is seen by some members as a victory for those aligned with current union secretary Chris Warren, who recently announced he would step down after nearly two decades at the helm of the union, and has since become a strong advocate for the change.
Warren told Mumbrella: “There was was a majority in every section in favour of the motion. There has been a good debate, we have had a robust debate both leading into council and at council and I think people are comfortable with the decision we have made.“There is now an understanding that the activists in the union need to ensure they run the politics of the organisation, which is what is appropriate for them, and then we will be looking for someone who can run an organisation that turns over about $10m a year and employs about 70 staff.”
I have been a member of the MEAA as long as Chris has been the secretary. I heard nothing about this CEO business and Chris stepping down. If it is not broke – why change it.
Oh well, I was planning on quitting the union anyway, this just makes me certain I’ve made the right decision. I’ve been paying $1000 a year in union dues and really can’t identify what benefit I get in return. Decisions to involve members less in the management of the MEAA will just hasten its decline.
I can’t even understand what the changes will be Surly Dave. If it is not going to be a benefit to be a member and it operates as a business and not a union, I might quit it too. For a long time I have been critical of the Walkley charging huge fees to attend their dinners, the Walkley awards controlled by and judged by the large players in media in OZ. As a freelancers who reports mainly for global media, I am not sure the MEAA offers any benefits to me to continue to be a member.
There has been debate about the move to CEO over the past 4 years. Anyone who has missed out on the debate has not been listening.
Anyone who thinks members will not be listened to or no longer be involved has that wrong too. It is strange to read about people thinking of moving away from the union when the benefits to all members are better now than they have been at anytime in the past 100 years.
What benefits Lindsay???
Lindsay, I note your comment that any MEAA member who was not aware of the proposed changes ‘has not been listening’.
Please clarify: exactly how and when were members informed of these proposals?
I am a long-time member. I get weekly emails from the MEAA which I read. These emails are the main regular contact with members yet they did not mention the big changes proposed until a few days before the vote.
There are many indications that the leadership buried this information – and certainly there was never consultation with members or a vote from members. At the last election these changes were not mentioned or mandated.
As for the vote this week at federal council, from my experience and observation the federal council members voting to end election of the federal secretary did not consult the members they are supposed to represent.
Personally I have an open mind on the question of a CEO v a directly elected leader.
But I strongly believe members should have been given a say on this important question.
That’s why I would support a plebiscite if others choose to campaign for it.
Carole, like all unions the MEAA does give all members support when they need it in industrial matters. But there is the constant support in upgrading awards and employment conditions, which would be greatly reduced without unions. There is also the eBulletin, the magazines that go out to members and the web site. There is always the phone if general information is needed. The MEAA also runs low cost classes for improving skills.
Then there is the low cost insurance (to members) which for journalists is a fraction of what it would cost an individual. Have you looked into this?
I note you object to paying to attend the Walkley dinners. The union could of cause not charge and just lift fees to cover the cost. But given the vast majority do not attend that option would seem more than a little unfair.
As for a plebiscite for deciding something as Peter suggests, that would be expensive and given the members elect people to the federal council to make decisions it would be a bit of a double act. Branch secretaries have been employed for some time and that system is working well. Federal council and presidents are all still elected so it is not had for anyone who wants to stand for office and get involved.
Lindsay, thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately while commenting on a possible plebiscite you failed to address the main question I asked you: how and when did the MEAA leadership inform or consult members about these important changes?
I assume you cannot cite any consultation or even information – therefore your accusation that members like me are at fault for ‘not listening’ is without foundation.
That is what irritates me about this debate. There are plenty such as yourself who are prepared to argue the case for an appointed CEO rather than a directly elected federal secretary. Fair enough, I am open to your arguments.
But none of you are prepared to let members make this decision. In fact you have actively keep the members out of it – which naturally generates suspicion about the motives behind the changes. Are you afraid we will reject the changes, therefore you dare not ask us what we think?
If the members rebel and demand a plebiscite the leadership will have only itself to blame. A classic own goal from an undemocratic process.
Peter, I have not kept track of how often members were told about what was being considered. It has been part of an evolving process.
I do know there are over 90 elected delegates have all known about possibly employing a CEO for over 4 years. Most of those have been consulting members in their work places. It was expected of them to do so. I am sorry if nobody talked to you, but at no point has it been kept a secret. While there has been a small amount of feedback opposing the move the great bulk has been supportive. That was reflected in the final vote which was not even close (68 to 24).
Given the amount of talk and the long time the subject has been talked about I cannot agree it has been an undemocratic process.
Lindsay, you may not have ‘kept track’ but I have.
The MEAA sends a weekly e-bulletin to members of each section covering matters of importance and interest. This is the central and only regular point of contact between the leadership and the rank-and-file. The first mention of these changes that I can find is the e-bulletin to media section members on 17 March, ie the same day that federal council met to vote on the proposed changes. On the same day an e-bulletin to Equity section members was sent. Again this was the first time the issue had been raised in recent e-bulletins to that section. Again it left no time for member response or input.
On 6 March an item appeared on the MEAA website previewing the federal council discussions. The proposal to end direct election was buried within this report, posted on a website I’m prepared to wager few members read. This item then linked to another post: ’10 reasons why having a CEO is better for our union’. Surprisingly, given your insistence that wide consultation occurred, these 10 reasons did not include any claim that members were informed or consulted about the specific proposal to appoint a CEO. Instead a ‘survey’ was cited where members had liked certain motherhood values.
The next day 7 March a letter from three media section leaders was emailed to members. The fact that this was not proofread suggests to me the letter was published in a rush, responding to mounting concern outside the official union structures. I understand a similar letter went out to Equity members around the same time.
That was all the official information I was sent or could ferret out, and I followed the issue closely once I heard about it. Perhaps there was some consultation in large workplaces, I don’t know, but the MEAA represents workers in a fragmented industry where many of us work alone or in small shops or productions. Even taking your comments at face value, it seems there was no intention or effort to inform or consult these thousands of members. Not all of us are lucky enough to share a tea room with a federal council member. The issue had been around for years you say, yet the bulk of members had 10 days notice and no say.
This lack of consultation brings into question the moral mandate of the federal council to take such a big decision. Yes the vote was decisive (68-24) but does it reflect the views of members? I suspect we will find out in coming months.
Peter, you obviously have kept better records on the content of the e-bulletins that I have. But you are wrong if you are suggesting the Federal Council does not have a moral mandate to make decisions. It does, and it also has a legal obligation to take action on behalf of the members. There is nobody on the Federal Council who does not take into account both the legal and moral responsibilities.
It would be great if more members were actively engaged in the activities of MEAA. There are a number of measures which have been introduced to encourage this to happen. However it is true to say not enough take up the opportunities. Not enough vote in union elections. Not enough read all the information in the e-bulletins. Not enough consult the web site. Maybe next time there is a call for nominations for Federal Council or one of the other elected positions in the union you might consider nominating.
@Lindsay: your attitude is typical of the MEAA leadership for years and years. It is condescending and, in the end, untrusted. Peter makes a very very simple point: if you want to change an elected position to an appointed one in a member organisation then members ought to vote. The fact that there was not even a wide information process in this day and age is disgraceful. By the way, if you happen to be one of them, could you please ask when members will see the full disclosure of all finances? I mean: union funds, Walkley funds, related party (Media Super) etc? And all the relevant income of elected officers and staff?
Urgh, I am sorry if I seem to be condescending or untrusted, that is not my intent.
It would be great if more members of MEAA took and interest in the running of the union.
MEAA has been evolving for many years and over time many previously elected positions have become employed positions; basically because nobody wanted to nominate for election.
However given the matter of the federal secretary was under discussion for years (and it was not a secret), I find it hard to understand how members were not able to get involved if they had wanted to.
As for the financial records of the union, MEAA is not a secret society, and the annual reports are published every year for everyone to look at. They contain a full disclosure of the finances. It has always been so and it is even a legal requirement.
There are always things that could always be done better. But none of the things you have mentioned have been kept secret from the membership.
Urgh,
I would also like to see
when members will see the full disclosure of all finances? I mean: union funds, Walkley funds, related party (Media Super) etc? And all the relevant income of elected officers and staff?
I will send a request to the MEAA and tell you their response
cheers
Carole
@Lindsay: The annual report does not disclose all income of elected officers and staff. Nor any of their perks. It does not report the finances of the Walkley Foundation – and I invite you to show where its activities are disclosed in anything resembling a reasonable fashion. Equally, there is nothing on what financial relationship the MEAA has with Media Super. (There has to be one since the chairman and another director are from the MEAA and have been on its board for longer than anyone can imagine – 1986 in one case!)
Your comment that members should have known is the wrong answer. (It is also condescending.) It is the obligation of the governance folk to inform members of a change to this key role.
@Carole: good luck!