Scanning BarCodeGate

The letters/statements/internal emails we’ve all been waiting for are out for all to see. I deliver the goods, followed by my knee-jerk reaction and what the guy who ignited BarCodeGate thinks. Is this what my mother meant when she advised me not to hang out in bars with strange men? Poor Ma, that ship set sail long ago.

First up, a letter to the Allens from “Uncle” Ned Vaughn and two of the more-famous members of his Otter Jug Band.

“The following message was just sent to SAG National President Alan Rosenberg and SAG National Executive Director Doug Allen. [LH note: I got this at 10:31 this morning]:

Dear Alan and Doug:

Over the last couple of days, we've heard disturbing rumors that the response cards included in the Contract 2008 Special Bulletin were coded to allow identification of each member and how they voted, by name. In our conversations with Michelle Bennett and Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, neither denied the accuracy of these rumors.

As you know, secret balloting is a bedrock principle of union democracy. When members are polled in either a binding or advisory manner, they expect their responses to be protected by anonymity. Coding their responses in a way that can identify how each member voted is highly unorthodox.

It’s especially troubling in this case, given the nature of the ‘contract update.’ In fact, the mailer provides little in the way of an update, as there has been no progress since the AMPTP made their final offer on June 30. That raises questions about why this mailer--which presents the work of the leadership in very positive terms--was sent during an election in which members of the leadership are running.

We believe SAG members deserve to know why this mailing was timed in the middle of the board election and why their votes on the response card are identifiable by name. Specifically, members should be given answers to these questions:

1. Who made the decision that members’ responses would be identifiable by name? Who approved that decision?

2. Why were the response cards coded that way? (If the intent was to ‘ensure that only active members in good standing participate’ or to prevent fraudulent responses, this could have been accomplished without including personal identifiers.)

3. How will information about individual members’ votes be utilized?

4. Why weren't members plainly told that the response cards were coded in a way that allows the guild to know how they voted, by name?

5. Why was the mailer, which clearly casts the current leadership in a positive light, sent during the board election? Even if electioneering was not the intent of the mailer, the risk that it will unduly influence votes is nonetheless real. What prevented the mailer from being sent before or after the election?

We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
Ned Vaughn, Kate Walsh, and Adam Arkin”

 A SAG higher-up--who shall remain nameless--then sent me this missive from Grand Poo-Bah Allen to the national board members at 10:54 am. Not sure if Allen had read the Vaughn-Walsh-Arkin letter before dashing this off:

“Message from Doug Allen, SAG National Executive Director

 

Dear National Board Members and National Board Alternates:

Some board members have asked about the response card that accompanied the recent negotiations newsletter.

The poll using the response card is not a ballot election or a ratification or referendum vote. It is intended to be a sampling of member views on the AMPTP proposal in the TV/Theatrical contract negotiations, a sampling that will help inform me and the Negotiating Committee. The response cards are received by Integrity Voting Systems and are scanned to determine that they are authentic. Then Integrity Voting Systems will tabulate the results of the poll.

The sample response card reviewed by the National Board at the meeting on August 21, 2008, contained a reference to a ‘unique bar code’ to prevent fraudulent reproduction of the poll response card, so the Board was aware of this component of the poll at the time of its review. (The actual language on the card distributed at that meeting was as follows, “This postcard includes a unique bar code to ensure that only active members in good standing participate in this poll.”) [See attached]

The bar code on the card is unique to the individual member to whom the newsletter was sent. This was done for two reasons. One reason, as mentioned, was to make sure only one card would be returned and counted per individual member, preventing anyone from skewing the results of the poll by reproducing the cards in large numbers and returning them filled in. Another reason for the unique bar code was to permit demographic analysis of the response to determine how representative the response is. If the response is statistically similar, for example, to the distribution of membership by branch/division, it is more reliable as an expression of overall membership sentiment. We will also be able to analyze the results by earnings under the contract. This information will be shared with the Negotiating Committee. All demographic analysis will be done in the aggregate. Any reports generated will not contain any information by name or by which option an individual member chose on the response card or even by which individuals sent a card back.

I have instructed Michelle Bennett to make sure that the name of any responding member is to be kept confidential and is not to be used for any purpose. My instructions to that effect will not be changed without further authority from the National Board.

Being able to tie each response card to an individual member was necessary for the reasons stated above. Neither I nor the Negotiating Committee, however, has any reason to know whether a particular member responded or which of the two options he or she chose. That information will not be disclosed.

We promised the membership that if they responded, their identities would be kept confidential and we will keep that commitment. To make that promise clear, I added the following language to the postcard before printing, “The confidentiality of your response will be maintained.” If you have not already done so, I encourage you to read the newsletter carefully and to fill out and send in the response card. Please encourage your fellow members to do the same.

In solidarity,
Doug Allen
National Executive Director
cc: Negotiating Committee”

Allen’s explanation for the bar code is credible if you ask me. SAG does need a way to ensure that people don’t vote numerous times--and that only members in good standing vote (not that someone couldn’t flip it to their assistant, nonunion neighbor, or 4-year-old to fill out, but that’s beside the point). Allen says they also need a way to analyze the demographic data to ensure the cards represent a good cross-section of the membership—also understandable and responsible.

But Vaughn and others aren’t questioning those motives. The question is WHO gets to see the voters’ personal data? Per Vaughn’s question No. 4: “Why weren't members plainly told that the response cards were coded in a way that allows the guild to know how they voted, by name?”

Allen’s response is reliably vague. He says he’s “instructed Michelle Bennett* to make sure that the name of any responding member is to be kept confidential and is not to be used for any purpose.” And the info regarding who voted for what “will not be disclosed.”

But “keep confidential” from and “not disclosed” to whom—isn’t that what Vaughn and Co. want to know?

I happened to be on the phone with “VoiceGuy” himself--whose confusing conversation with Bennett started this whole dealio--when Allen’s email popped up in my inbox. We read it together, which was adorable.

After sharing a [candy] cigarette, he called Allen’s email “an inadequate answer to the concern because the information is sitting there waiting to be misused now or in the future if somebody chooses to…. I think he’s essentially corroborating what Michelle Bennett told me. Namely, that Integrity Voting is going to pass along to SAG who voted and how they voted…. I don’t have a concern that you’re going to publish my vote to the public. I have a concern that SAG knows what it is.”

So is there anything Allen or SAG could say that would satisfy VG? Sure, he says, “I think the only way SAG can solve this problem properly is to tell Integrity Voting not to report who voted and how they voted to SAG--to tell Integrity to collect aggregate statistics about the vote…but to stop there and for Integrity to protect these cards in their vault….

“I fault SAG for not just doing the right thing right now in saying, ‘Look, we screwed up. It’s not too late to fix it.’”

Yeah, that’ll happen when Sarah Palin lets down her up-do, throws off the glasses, and reenacts the “doggie chow” scene from Showgirls [preferably with Cindy McCain as Gina Gershon]. I might actually vote Republican in that case. Nah, probably not.

--Lauren Horwitch

*By the way, how busted is this Michelle Bennett (whom I’ve never spoken with, for the record). She’s so having a worse day than I am. Plus, she only makes $130,815 per year—low for SAG standards. (Yes, I still read the LM2 and cry myself to sleep every night).

Let’s commiserate over mojitos and pie at Marie Callender’s, sister. We’ll discuss our down-and-out days of eating doggie chow. I’ll be Elizabeth Berkley, you be Gina Gershon. Or vice versa—it’s your call.

Comments

[You're Kidding]

The explanation is credible? We do secret ballots all the time, and track with bar codes - but there's a second envelope, a secret ballot envelope, which is NOT bar coded. So you can track who voted, but not how they voted.

The Allens got busted trying to find out the names of their enemies, and trying to intimidate those who'd vote against them.

Busted, as in busted again and again and again.

It's time for them to go.

[Vested]

Nah, it makes no sense. How many times have SAG members received a ballot in the mail? And how many times have those ballots recorded their NAMES?
Answers:
1) Too many to count; and
2) NEVER ... until now. These "push poll" cards, and the information they track in the bar codes, were designed that way for reasons known only to those at 5757. And NONE of the real reasons show up in DA's love note.
After reading Allen's limp missive, my B.S. detector is pegging.
The man wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass.

How long till this utterly destructive bunch is OUT of here?

[Delectable]

Love you Lauren, but you're missing a pretty good chunk on this one. Whether or not Doug Allen knew about the UFS letter when he wrote his to the board, it turns out Ned Vaughn replied directly to Doug Allen later Friday afternoon. They've got it on SAGWatch.

Don't know if it's kosher to post it here, so I won't, but suffice it to say that Vaughn's reply makes it clear just how NON-credible Doug Allen's explanation is. And he didn't even address the issue of whether or not the whole exercise was simply electioneering (which it certainly looks like to me).

I can't wait to see how Allen answers him back. You should post Vaughn's second letter if you can get it.

[Lauren Horwitch]

Thanks for the comments, y'all. I love you, too. :)

Let me clear up what I meant by "credible explanation." I do think that SAG needs to ensure the polling cards cannot be duplicated, lest people want to send in hundreds hoping to sway the results. It also seems credible to me that they need to know whether the result of the vote accurately represents what the overall membership wants. After all, a small percentage of people who received the postcards will turn them in.

What I question and don't necessarily find credible is that a bar code was the way to achieve these needs. As Ned points out in his letter released later that afternoon, Doug doesn't answer WHY he (or whoever) chose to use a bar code. He also isn't specific about how the cards will be kept confidential and confidential from whom?? I think that's what members really want to know.

Perhaps where I f*ed up was saying the explanation itself was credible. It fails to answer what members want to know, so it isn't sufficient. However, I wanted to point out that Allen isn't entirely wrong: it is necessary to track the votes so the result is fair. But I do -- like many of you -- question why he chose a bar code as a method to do this.

A SAG rep told me on background that the way it’s always worked is Integrity Systems sends SAG the results and demographic information, but does not send the guild a record of who voted for what. They’ve done it this way many times before. If Allen said that in his statement, it would have been far more credible -- but he didn’t and I have to wonder why. A statement from Integrity stating a policy about keeping individual names/votes confidential would be good, too.

And it's totally appropriate to post Ned's second letter here – post away! I'll blog about it later (I'm already past deadline on a larger, analytical article about this fracas), but for now, here's a link to it on SAGwatch: http://blog.sagwatch.net/2008/09/05/campaing-watch-unite-for-strength-responds-to-allen-push-poll-trojan-explanation-with-more-questions/.

BTW, is anyone going to the Wildbunch meeting at 5 pm in the Valley? I’ll be there. Come say hi or hip check me into the bar. I do roller derby--I can take it: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-13outthere-fl,0,4142593.flash

--LH

[VoiceGuy]

"A SAG rep told me on background that the way it’s always worked is Integrity Systems sends SAG the results and demographic information, but does not send the guild a record of who voted for what. They’ve done it this way many times before. If Allen said that in his statement, it would have been far more credible -- but he didn’t and I have to wonder why. A statement from Integrity stating a policy about keeping individual names/votes confidential would be good, too."

As we discussed, I don't have a problem with SAG collecting demographic information. My problem is specifically with SAG knowing how individual people voted, by name. In the secret ballot context -- assuming that Integrity plays by the rules, which we must assume -- there is no way to associate names with votes. The names are on an outer envelope, which is separated from the inner envelope containing the ballot before the ballots are processed.

There is no reason that Integrity Voting Systems couldn't replicate the same process here. Yes, theoretically they have the ability to associate their bar code with a member's name, and record that member's vote -- but they should choose not to (as a matter of corporate ethics) and SAG should not ask them to.

It's unclear from your reporting of the background discussion whether Integrity Voting Systems is in fact reporting the names of the people who voted in secret ballot elections and ratification votes. I probably don't have a problem even if they are doing so, as long as it's just a list of who voted with no correlation to how they voted. In that regard it's no different from what happens at my public polling place: When I show up to vote, my name is crossed off the list. But no one spies on which candidates I choose or which measures I vote "for" or "against."

I again call upon SAG to instruct Integrity Voting Systems not to furnish individual voting information to SAG. If SAG wants IVS to furnish a list of names of who voted, I can live with that. But it sets a terrible precedent for SAG to start archiving the actual votes of members, particularly in a context where the members are deceived into supplying those votes by false statements implying that SAG will not learn what the votes are.

VG