Langham Court Theatre board shake-up

...this is less about the specifics of Langham, and more about the SJW efforts to change basic theatre norms everywhere...

SJWs want to change the norms everywhere. They are essentially anarchists - often with public funding.

I’m not interested in the specific argument being waged at Langham Court, but like SJW’s everywhere, this is less about the specifics of Langham, and more about the SJW efforts to change basic theatre norms everywhere. 
 

In this case, it’s about getting rid of the power of a shows stage Director, something that has been a foundational element of live theatre for many decades. 
 

It’s about stealing power from those who have traditionally held it, and giving it to theatre students, and those who feel they’ve been “wronged” by Directors at some point in their past. 

Traditionally, theatre Boards of Directors support (indeed they usually choose) a stage Director for any given show. Thus the BOD coup at Langham. 
 

That’s the basic math behind what’s going on at Langham Court. 

So much drama.  Forgive the pun.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 12 January 2022 - 08:42 AM.

Not-for-profits with elected Boards need to tread very carefully in order to prevent such occurrences from happening ... and many Boards address the issue by taking a percentage of their Board (say 50%), and declaring that those positions will be assigned by existing Board Members (rather than voted on), this in order to provide long term stability and protection from Board coups such as has occurred at Langham.

Is there no ability for enough members to vote to conduct a special AGM and then have a new election?

There could be, but it would have to be specified in their existing Constitution and By-Laws. 
 

You can't appoint more than 1/3rd of your directors in a non-profit. You can stagger term limits though, thats a better way to head this off, IMO (and also helps with continuity).

The Canadian Not for profit act has this clause:

• 130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

Edited by lanforod, 12 January 2022 - 03:19 PM.

 

You can't appoint more than 1/3rd of your directors in a non-profit. You can stagger term limits though, thats a better way to head this off, IMO (and also helps with continuity).

 

The Canadian Not for profit act has this clause:

• 130 (1) The members of a corporation may by ordinary resolution at a special meeting remove any director or directors from office.

 

That was what I was getting at. Seems like a simple way to dump the new board as long as the broader membership wants that.

The members would need to get a special meeting called. I'm not sure if one director can do that or if that requires a board vote, but the act states that Calling special meetings

(3) The directors of a corporation may at any time call a special meeting of members.

These are from the National act, I do not know if they apply to LCTS or if BC has one that applies.

The members would need to get a special meeting called. I'm not sure if one director can do that or if that requires a board vote, but the act states that Calling special meetings
(3) The directors of a corporation may at any time call a special meeting of members.

These are from the National act, I do not know if they apply to LCTS or if BC has one that applies.

selling memberships at the door seems pretty naive

in order to vote there should be a time gap between sign up and the meeting date

then at least you would see it coming

  One possible reason for some membership payments at door of AGM. Here is an item from the Board minutes just before the AGM                               

                                              5

iv. Membership renewals in advance of AGM?
- some expire soon; Dick will send notice to those people so if planning to
renew then can be done in advance of AGM

Moderation is just a troll for the Woken Dead, ignore him,

 

Langham Court member Judy Treloar in 2017 that she was not eligible for a particular role because “a black woman would not be a neighbour or a sister” for a play Treloar was casting at the time.

Is it true that the play Treloar was set in a time and location where a black person would not be in the demographics of that era? 

It would have been better to have ignored the historic accuracy of the setting for the play to make sure it was inclusive.  However, the way Langham Court has been torn down, was there something much more dramatic going on?  There are racist people in our community for sure, but does anyone truly believe institutions like the Museum or Langham Court are hotbeds of anti-minority racists? 

West Indian women, from both the Francophone and Anglophone Caribbean, came to Montreal after the Domestic Immigration Program of 1955 was established.^[

^{There have been black people in Montreal for hundreds of years. Having a black woman in the play would not have ignored historical accuracy.}

Correct, and many fled slavery by coming to Canada.  Does that mean there were African Canadian students in my classes growing up?  No, there were not.  Did it mean that everyone in my school was a raving racist?  No.

I still wouldn't try to preserve the historic accuracy of classmate demographics had a play been written about the school.  That would be asking for trouble.

Is it true that the play Treloar was set in a time and location where a black person would not be in the demographics of that era?

I simply pointed out that there was a French speaking population of women in Montreal at the time. Some of whom were poor ,acting as maids and child minders. and thus within the same economic situation and class level as all the women in the play. 

 The woman actor was told no it was not appropriate historically for a black women to be in the play..  This was incorrect I believe based on reality.

. However both sides seem to have become fixed on their positions and we are now at this point.

The point is there were no black actors written into the play!

Treloar didn’t write the play, and her directorial vision didn’t see her re-writing the play. 

Racism had nothing to do with it.

It was simply a play about a white, Canadian family living in Montreal … the play had nothing at all to do with black diaspora in Montreal. 

^ The problem was Treloar trying to be helpful. No good deed goes unpunished as the saying goes.

Had the candidate simply been told they were not selected for the role and left it at that there would not have been an issue.

Indeed. Treloar was gregarious and outgoing, and would engage in productive conversation with anybody. 
 

In this case, the the race card was pulled and played, and the rest is now seen as this disgusting drama currently being played out by a bunch of miscreants on the Langham Board who “didn’t get the part” in times past, and are now out to burn it all down.