Lynn:
A brief update for your blog:
On October 21st at the CAEA National AGM, members passed, by a ratio of almost 2:1 in favour, Terry Tweed and Barbara Gordon’s members’ motion that CAEA should apologize to me and compensate me for my legal expenses incurred after having been forced to seek Justice in QC Superior Court.
I subsequently sent an email to President Scott Bellis indicating the motion could provide a basis for us to reach a settlement and suggested we meet apart from any lawyers. My lawyer has estimated that CAEA lawyers’ fees defending against my Statement Of Claim could go as high as $40,000, to say nothing of the additional significant damages should the court find in favour of my claim. I am trying to save our membership further needless legal expenses.
On Oct 30th Scott informed me, via email, that Council had had a lengthy discussion at its meeting of Oct 29th but not come to any conclusion on whether to respect the National AGM members’ motion. There was, according to, Scott, a “hung jury.” He will schedule extra time at the next Council meeting on November 25th for the question to be revived.
A couple of observations from members during the National AGM zoom meeting indicate some aspects of the issue seem to have been misunderstood. –Never, during the more than three years this issue has needlessly dragged on, have I ever named, nor even had any issue with, any of the original complainants. They were entirely entitled to their opinions, and entirely entitled to take their opinions to Council. My issue is with CAEA Council. The QC Judge correctly determined that the Disciplinary Panel had falsely attributed conclusions to the independent investigator that he never made, nor was even tasked to make. In his final analysis after reading the 183 pages of statements collected by the independent investigator, the QC Judge determined the Disciplinary Panel had no concrete evidence on which to find me guilty of breaking any of our Bylaws. And that any reasonable person cannot but come away with, “…a staggering impression of the disparity between the gravity of the (Disciplinary Panel) conclusion (to suspend me) and the shallowness of its basis.” In an astonishingly forthright and, for CAEA, extremely embarrassing decision, he quashed the Disciplinary Panel’s determination thereby unequivocally exonerating me. CAEA, before suspending me, had never permitted me to see the (lack of) evidence against me, had never granted the right to defend myself in person, and had never granted me the right to appeal the original erroneous Disciplinary Panel determination. My only recourse in seeking Justice was to take the matter to QC Superior Court. Yes, this made it a matter of public record, but I had no other choice. It was the actions and non-actions of CAEA Council itself that resulted in the matter going public and the anonymity of the individuals involved being threatened. Two months into the Judicial Review process, and long before it went to trial and became a matter of public record, and before any significant court costs had been incurred, I even reached out and offered to settle the process. CAEA never bothered to discuss the offer.
If anyone on Council had taken to heart their serious duty of representing my side of the situation, they could have scanned the investigator’s 183 pages compilation of statements, and been able to see, as the judge did, that the DP had no factual basis on which to come to its determination against me. They would have seen that “rolling your eyes or sighing” is not a justification for suspending a member.
Elections are currently underway for the new CAEA Council. As part of the election process, meetings are being held across the country to give regional candidates a chance to present themselves. At the November 4th CAEA BC all-candidates zoom meeting, Scott Bellis, the CAEA President, was asked by one member if he was going to respect the members’ motion passed at the NAGM. Another member spoke up in Scott’s defence arguing that the voices at the NAGM of Terry Tweed, Barbara Gordon, David Ferry, Jeff Braunstein, Fiona Reid, Kyra Harper and myself should be devalued because we are on the wrong side of the what the member called the “age divide”. Wow! Discrimination on the basis of age is, I believe, contrary to our Canadian Bill of Human Rights. Ironic that this member’s documented attempt to persuade fellow CAEA members to ignore the opinions of some of us on the wrong side of the “age divide”, actually breaks CAEA Bylaws in a way that “rolling one’s eyes or sighing” never did.
The BC All-candidates meeting was taped and can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbo9QJNP038
The question to Scott with subsequent discussion starts at 41:45.
If you are a member of CAEA and believe that Council should live up to its own Constitution and, “assist members in pursuing their lawful rights and remedies.”, get in touch with your regional councillor before the November 25thmeeting of our national council and express your opinion.
Thanks again Lynn for taking an interest in this important issue.
guy sprung
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Much as I love, respect and am grateful for the existence and protection of CAEA over the years, I find in thus case the lack of due diligence by CAEA to be shocking and puts our trust in our association into serious question. And how can senior members of CAEA, who have kept CAEA strong over the years with their work at council level, be so discriminated against regarding the years they have lived and worked in the Canadian theatre? These are the very people now facing the nasty form of discrimination called Ageism. These very people have put in incredible amounts of their voluntary work and talent into making this association stable, as well as responsive to its membership. To the person who commented about their age being a condition that causes our votes to be less important—? This calls for an immediate change of perspective and another apology!
My thanks to members Terry Tweed, Barbara Gordon, David Ferry, Jeff Braunstein, Fiona Reid and Kyra Harper for their work in defense of Guy Sprung, in this appalling situation. And my great thanks to Guy for his courage and fortitude.
And shame on the council and Scott Bellis. We members deserve better.
Kate Lynch
The CAEA, like another of our performers unions, is in dire need of democratic reform. It is disappointing to witness the extent to which “groupthink” has penetrated or elective bodies in both organizations. The communication from CAEA to members on this issue is so oblique that one who wasn’t present at the deliberations would have no idea of the issues raised. The denial of access to the process by the claimant, Mr. Sprung, is but the most recent example of this. My dear friend and colleague Patrick Christopher was treated exactly the same way decades ago. Alas, it has nothing to do with the putative “age divide”.