EQUITY PLAN OFFERS FEW SURPRISES

After months of speculation, Actors’ Equity Assn. has come up with what had largely been anticipated: a proposed set of modifications for its Equity Waiver plan (whereby the actors’ union “waives” its jurisdiction in theaters of 99 seats or less).

At a press conference Monday, Edward Weston, Equity’s western regional director, outlined an 11-point set of regulations for the newly christened Actors’ 99 Seat Theatre Plan. (Currently almost no regulations or restrictions cover Equity Waiver productions.) These were arrived at by Equity’s Joint Committee (its 99-seat Waiver Committee and its Developing Theaters Committee) in response to actor demands and after 10 months of study. Equity’s Western Advisory Board, Weston said, unanimously recommended adoption of these new rules.

Whether, in fact, they will be adopted could be determined at a special meeting of Equity’s 7,500 Los Angeles members called for Sept. 5 at 1 p.m. If the membership’s response to the new proposal is negative, Equity might shelve the project. If reaction is favorable or even mixed, a referendum will be mailed to area members asking them to decide (1) if this modified plan should be adopted, (2) if the Waiver as it stands now should be retained, or (3) if the Waiver should be forever terminated.

How deeply could the proposed modifications affect the smaller theater scene in Los Angeles? Deeply, say Waiver proponents; moderately, maintains Equity.

Under the new plan (characterized by Weston as “mild”), actors would still be allowed to perform without salary in 99-seat spaces (except for mandatory carfare of $5 per performance), but other, more problematic limits would be set.

Budgets would be restricted to $30,000 per production or $150,000 annually (in the case of ongoing year-round theaters). Rehearsals would be limited to four consecutive weeks (why, if no one’s getting paid?) and the number of public performances to 30 in a maximum of six consecutive weeks.

Even more restrictive is Equity’s insistence that the producing organization be not for profit, which virtually eliminates a fundamental purpose of the Waiver: to give actors wishing to produce themselves that opportunity.

“The point was that actors could band together to put on a play,” said the Colony’s Barbara Beckley. “They’ll no longer be able to.”

The remaining requirements (“safe and sanitary” working conditions, open casting calls, complimentary tickets for industry people and free admission of card-carrying union members to any performance on a stand-by basis) are less quarrelsome.

“We are a conservatory theater,” said American Theatre Arts’ Don Eitner, “which automatically puts our annual budget over $150,000. That would make us ineligible to produce.”

Josh Schiowitz, one of the producers of “Curse of the Starving Class” now at the Tiffany, believes that the limited rehearsal and performance time cannot be made to make financial sense.

“You need at least a week of previews,” he said, “two weeks to get a reviewer in--if you’re lucky--and three weeks to build word-of-mouth. Now you have to make a decision about a show that’s just beginning to sell, put up a bond and commit to pay actors out of money you may not have. It’s just too soon for most productions. And what about theaters of much less than 99 seats? How can they hope to come out of this alive?”

Eitner, Beckley, the Matrix Theatre’s Joe Stern and Schiowitz, as well as Ted Schmitt of the CAST, see this new plan as deadening to the scene, putting an end to much experimentation and certainly to large-cast shows, which would become too costly if they went to contract after six weeks. (Pension and welfare contributions on the lowest payment scale for actors could amount to 53% of the base salary, or an additional $53 for every $100.)

All agree that more flexible solutions need to be found and that a workable payment schedule for actors might be based on a percentage of the gross.

At the heart of the difficulty, they believe, is Weston’s refusal to meet with Waiver theater operators to openly discuss problems.

Weston has insisted that his refusal is based on a variety of reasons, ranging from a concern that the Waiver Operators Committee is not representative of the whole Waiver spectrum, to his often invoked “on advice of counsel.” (The latter defense followed Equity’s defeat earlier this year in a suit brought by the Tiffany Theatres, a pair of 99-seat houses whose Waiver status Equity attempted to deny over a technicality. The court loss apparently exacerbated an already festering situation.)

“If they’d sat down and talked to us, the Tiffany thing might not have happened,” Stern said. “They wouldn’t even talk to the Tiffany!”

Weston and Rod Loomis, chairman of Equity’s Joint Committee that drafted the new plan, defend it staunchly as a response to member complaints. “Our committee might have put the Continental Congress to shame,” Loomis said Monday. “Everyone aired their views and voted unanimously.”

Weston maintains that the temper of the Sept. 5 meeting and the wishes of the membership will be taken fully into account in determining whether to carry this plan to a referendum or abandon it.

“We want to listen to any wonderful new ideas,” Weston said. “Maybe this is a very good opportunity for those who wish to produce in this arena to find that there are (contractual) ways to do it.”

Meanwhile, it seems the Waiver wars have only just begun.