The Committee For A More Responsible Local 47

I. THE SALE BALLOT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY (INTENTIONAL OR NOT)
II. MEMBER COMMENTARY – LOOPHOLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT
III. MEMBER WRITES TO BOARD – GETS REPLY
IV. LOTS OF COMMENTS
IV. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

===================================

I. THE SALE BALLOT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY (INTENTIONAL OR NOT).
IT HAS TO BE REVOKED, REWORKED AND RE-MAILED.

Colleagues,

if you’ve gotten your ballot for the building sale, DO NOT SIGN
AND RETURN IT.

Why?

Read what it says in DETAIL.

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles (“the Club”) be
authorized to sell the Club’s real property. – located at 817 Vine Street, 
Hollywood, CA 90038 – for not less than Twenty Two Million
Dollars ($22,000,000) to the successful highest bidder?

It is followed by a yes or no vote.

So if you vote YES they can sell the building for anything
over 22 million. if you vote no, they can sell it AS LONG
AS It’s Over 22 million OR it can be sold below 22 million,
depending on how you read it.

Either way they can use your vote to sell the building!

The board may not have intended the mis-direction,
but the wording leaves it wide open to be used as
a yes vote.

Perhaps not all members of the board realize this,
but certainly the counsel and the president should
have.

The question should have been

—————————-

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real properties.
– located at 817 Vine (and the parcels on Lillian Way)
Vine Street, Hollywood, CA 90038.

—————————-

THAT would be honest.

Any Board member who did not realize this potential
problem should be asking some serious questions
of the president and the counsel.

It might have been just careless writing and not thinking
it through, but the ballot cannot be trusted because of it.

If you’ve been asked to make phone calls, know that
you are taking part in a potentially mis-directed situation
unless the ballots are rescinded, reworked and re-mailed.

This ballot does not provide a no vote, only a YES vote
under different conditions.

There have been so many questionable actions in this
process, could they at least get the question right?

THE COMMITTEE

——–

THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTS:

a. Do NOT return this first ballot at all, but retain it for
“non-vote verification” of that ballot # (and make sure
“Everyone” knows those un-mailed ballots are being
retained, to be counted if “necessary”)

b. Members’ Cc to FMA and The Committee, stating
that they did not return their ballots due to lack of
information.

Please let us know if you do not return your ballot.

===================================

II. MEMBER COMMENTARY – LOOPHOLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT

LOOP HOLE LANGUAGE IN BALLOT REGARDING THE SALE OF CLUB 47’S BUILDING:

How I see this decision, and why I will make a decision on how
to ensure my NO means NO: The way I see it is, I see that there
is a “loop hole language” in the ballot which I personally do
not trust. I saw it the moment I opened my ballot.

When this language was brought up at the meeting, The board
said the counsel gave it to them the reasons of “legal technicality”
as the explanation to this loop-hole language “… for not less
than Twenty Million Dollars…”.

However, whenever they have the counsel write in language,
the executive board has a past practice during membership
meetings of stopping people’s brains by throwing up this
wall called “legal technicalities”. It is like the very word
“legal” or “lawyer” is intended to shut off the brains of the
members and not ask further. For instance, what exactly
are these “legal technicalities”? They (elected officials)
failed to say what these “legal technicalities” are.

Was this deliberate?

I take a close look at my ballot and see that my ballot
does not say “Does club 47 have permission by the
membership to sell our property?” Then yes, or no.

What I do see is, my ballot cited a qualification under
which Club 47 can not sell the building. My ballot
says this qualification for being able to sell the building
is as long as it is not sold  “… For not less than
Twenty Million Dollars ($22,000,000.00) to the
successful highest bidder.”

Club 47/elected officials fail to say on the ballot
with this qualification under what terms that can
not sell the building is that, they ALREADY have
bids for $24,000,000 and more.

Could it be then, that the “legal technicality” cited
at the meeting is that the counsel has written in a
contingency to be able to sell the building even
if the majority of votes are “no”?

Think about it: they way this ballot is written says
that what we are really voting on is not whether
the building can be sold or not. We are voting to
make sure it is not sold for less than $22,000,000.

This legal technicality is not about the ballot, the way
I see it. This legal technicality seems to me that we are
being set up and Club 47/elected officials (one in the
same) have their loop hole legal technicality savior to
tell us the building will be sold even if we voted NO…

How? Because, they have created the room to say to us
that “the voters only voted that we could not sell the
building if it was UNDER 22 million. Since we have a
bidder for $24,000,000, we then have permission by
the membership to sell it. They voted on a price we
can not sell it below, they voted only that we sell it
to the highest bidder above $22,000,000, not whether
or not we can sell the building.”

The fact that there is a qualification under which they
can not sell the building means we are not voting on
if the building can be sold or not. We are voting on
making sure it is not sold for under $22,000,000.

Read carefully.

Translation: the old switcheroo….

The question in my mind has become, “Will my NO
really mean NO? if not, what can I do to make sure
my NO means NO?”

With the way this language has been written, I doubt
my NO means NO- because I will have only voted –
whether I say yes or no – that the building can not
be sold for under 22,000,000.

Since I have seen no proof that my no means no, and
since I know all too well how under handed and tricky
titled officers and board members can be, to date-
the only way I can see my No meaning NO is if I
simply do NOT turn in my ballot:

Club 47 needs to have to have certain number of
ballots turned in to even go forward. Therefore, I
choose to not contribute to helping Club 47/elected
officials reach the required number of votes and then
finding the legal right to turn my NO into a YES
because the “legal technicality” was that our union
dues money went towards helping our elected officers
thwart my voice.

Also, is it really Club 47’s intent to sell only a portion
of our property for no less than $22,000,000. It came
to everyone’s attention that the address they are asking
permission for does not include all the properties.
They are having us vote on only one of their four
physical addresses.

If we are not voting on all the properties, they have no
permission to sell all four, since not everything was voted
on – even if it sells for not less than $22,000,000.

Again, my personal answer to myself to even that dilemma?
I won’t turn in my ballot to contribute to the necessary
required number of ballots. It is the only way I can think
to ensure my NO means NO.

My thoughts and opinions only, and how I plan to proceed.
For whatever it is worth. Local 47 had a history of
disenfranchising its members, leaving them out of the
loop, pulling fast ones….

For instance: Look at the write up done recently when
people thought they were going into a discussion at the
union meeting, but the “fast one” was it was a Club 47
sales pitch. It turned out to be a Club 47 meeting in
which members could not even make motions. Everyone
who showed up to that meeting, in this regard, was
disenfranchised, excluded from decisions on whether
to sell the building or not, not given enough information,
no motions by members could even be made. That was
a fast-one. Everyone who was there felt that sting, and
everyone who read about it in the blog because they
were unable to attend felt the sting of being
disenfranchised equally so.

And now? This ballot: a “legal technicality” that potentially
protects Club 47 if/when Local 47 members because the
ballot was written to not IF the building can be sold, but
making sure they could sell the building so long as it was
not sold for under $22,000,000.

This act once again potentially can disenfranchise the
entire membership by a sale of the building – even if
there was a majority NO vote – simply because people
didn’t realize they were really voting on a qualification
for what manner and cost the property could not be
sold below. Call me crazy, but all members votes should
actually have a real voice that is not contingent on a
dollar amount.

Members who want to vote NO should not be forced
to say yes to a sale because of a loop-hole language
in the ballot that said “so long as it does not sell for
below $22,000,000 if they did not want to say “yes”
to any sale in the first place.

Just my perspective. 

===========================================

III. MEMBER WRITES TO BOARD – GETS REPLY

Recently, LOCAL 47 member Charles Fernandez wrote to the board
with his ire up about the wording of the ballot, and what he sees as a fix
in the balloting. That in turn was answered by the board,..
and in turn a reply from Member Fernandez.

Here is the exchange that took place.

1) Member Fernandez’ Letter to the board:

To the Offices and Board of Local 47,

Evening all,

I felt it important enough to write to all of you directly.
I have seldom before bothered to write to the entire
board, but I finally got around to opening the ballot and
was honestly gobsmacked by what I read.

I can only think that some of you guys didn’t know
that this is what the ballot says….

Read the sentence below carefully if you would be
so kind…

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real property.
– located at 817 Vine Street, Hollywood, CA 90038 –
for not less than Twenty Two Million Dollars ($22,000,000)
to the successful highest bidder?

See the problem yet?

It would be an honest ballot if the sentence said:

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real properties.
– located at 817 Vine Street and Lillian Street, Hollywood,
CA 90038

Then a yes or no vote would matter.

By adding  – for not less than Twenty Two Million Dollars
($22,000,000) to the successful highest bidder,… the ballot
is saying that either a yes OR no vote can be used to sell the
building, just under different terms.

If you vote Yes, they can sell the building for not less that
22 million If you vote No, the building can be sold without
it having to be over 22 million, OR it could be interpreted
to mean that it can be sold for any amount OVER 22 
million (We already have a bid for 24 million.)

If any of you did not realize this, you should (I should think)
have some serious questions to ask of John Acosta and Levy
Levy at least (Since it was Mr. Levy’s Idea that the number be
included, according to John Acosta) and I dearly hope you do. 

Some of you should be very pissed and feel manipulated.

If you DID know this, shame on you. You need to realize
the only honest thing to do is rescind/nullify the ballots
that have gone out, fix the wording and re-mail them so
an honest vote can be taken.

All parcels need to be listed, not just 817 Vine.

To put it plainly, this ballot is a fraud. The question is, is
it a willful fraud or was it inadvertent.  

So really folks,

-You put the Building up for sale in July without informing
the membership. (Two days after I asked an officer about
it it was taken down)

-On the October 5th meeting you pull a bait and switch on
which organization is meeting to shut down motions.

-You pull the same thing from the opposite direction at
the meeting last Monday? And then this wording?

I trust I might hear from a couple of you that you had no
idea this was going on,..I hope I do, but this is some real
karma dumping you’re doing here.

Someone should be held accountable and I’d say an
apology is due the membership for the deception,
intentional or not.

Please cancel the balloting, and do the right thing.

Thanks

Charles Fernandez

—–

2) Board reply to member Fernandez:

Dear Brother Fernandez:
We are responding to your email of Wednesday
October 28th. First, let’s be clear about one thing:
the Bylaws of the Club govern the referendum
process and the Club is strictly following those
requirements as well as any other(s) placed on
the Club by external law.

Next, the ballot is neither ambiguous nor did the Club’s
Directors try to make it so. The question placed to the
membership and the authorization sought thereby is very
clear: permission to sell the Musicians Club’s real property
(i.e., 817 Vine: the “Property”) for not less than $22 million.
We cannot see what is confusing, confounding or
conspiratorial about such a straight-forward ballot question.

Moreover, your insinuations about the motives of the Club’s
Directors is not only uncalled for, but belied by the actual facts.
First, the Bylaws of the Club expressly provide that if there is a
“no” vote or an insufficient amount of ballots returned, the Club,
and its officers, is/are deprived of any legal authority to sell the
Property, no matter the price. In other words, your musings
about a “no” vote really being a “yes” vote for some other
transaction is entirely false and finds no support in the Club’s
Bylaws, the law or the record.

Second, all of the materials circulated by the Club – with regard
to the referendum – clearly and unmistakably detail and discuss
a sales transaction where the price shall be $22 million or more.
In not a single verbal statement or written document has the Club
or its officers stated, or even implied in the most remote way,
anything to the contrary.

Simply put, you have completely misconstrued the referendum
process, conveyed that misconception to untold numbers of
Local 47/Club members and, in so doing, have clearly attempted
to besmirch the motives of the Club’s officers. Unless you have
some actual proof to back your claims, they need to be immediately
retracted, with an apology to all concerned.

—–

3) Member Fernandez’ reply to the board:

Hey Gary,

Please forward this to the board, if you would. 

The statement on the ballot as it stands can in fact
be construed (depending on your point of view) to
enable a NO vote to be used as a yes vote for a
particular price. Regardless of intent, this is the result.

The ballots have to be reworked, the boards previous
actions (some of which were outlined in my previous
email), have left the membership with a record low
trust factor for the Local. At every step there have
been suspicious actions on your part.

The problem with the wording was brought to my
attention by several people, and once I saw it it
jumped out at me immediately.

Do yourself a favor, make the intent of the ballot
foolproof, remove the sale amount and make it,
“Does the board of Local 47/Club 47 have the
authority to sell the properties on Vine and Lillian Way.”

YES OR NO. there is no possible way to have that
misconstrued.

Most of you, or perhaps even all of you didn’t not
foresee this complication, but it is there and it will 
persist until addressed directly.

DOES A NO VOTE MEAN THAT THE CLUB CANNOT SELL
THE PROPERTY, Yes or no.

Thanks

Charles Fernandez

…..More as the situation develops.

=======================================

IV. LOTS OF COMMENTS

When I asked about the presentation of DETAILS
about the costs, [Of the sale and refurbishment of
the potential new building] etc. President Acosta
said they’ve been discussing it since february
– still no details.

Just vote no. That’s a no brainer
—————–

There is a reason our municipal ballot information says…
A no vote on this means xxxx
a yes vote on this means xxxx
Look no farther than “it depends on what your definition
of  is..is.”

The Supreme Court has had a recent ruling on the what the
language of some legislation really meant.
No need for member Fernandez to apologize to anyone…

—————–

Since the next publication of the Overture will not
be until January, all letters to the editor that have
been sent in opposition to the sale will not be seen
by the membership. This appears to have been
carefully orchestrated. The Executive Board has
controlled the timeline.

The latest email blast from the local regarding the
agenda did not list a discussion of the sale. Guess
this will be brought up under new business…unless
we can move it up. I have seen people leave
the room on cue to avoid a quorum.

Make no mistake… these folks want to maintain
the status quo for themselves. We have take a
collective cut and so should they. 

Absent other facts to date, it appears that Local
47 wants to use Club 47 as a cookie jar with no
plausible plan to refill it.

Thanks for all your efforts.

[The letters should be printed in the online
version of the overture, which comes out
every month.

We shall see.]

—————

A few days ago I got a call from someone at Local
47 ostensibly to ask me if I knew about the vote re
the sale of the building.

This person at first said they are trying to reach all
the union members to make sure they know about
the vote, and would I be interested in volunteering
to call some of the other members.

I asked if that was usual, to call about voting, because
in the past, I’ve only gotten emails and mailings. In
the course of answering, he said that in order to sell
the building, the vote  requires 50% plus 1 to vote
“yes”, and this was why it was so important to reach
the members… Not to make sure enough knew about
the vote, but to make sure enough people voted “yes”.

—————

I am glad a member brought this up- what he did say but
was pretty clear regarding the hiring Ludlow’s company
[BRIDGESTREET INC.] (: bad judgement on their part.

As to the EB taking a leadership role on the building
sale process- less than 400 people elected them-
hardly a mandate- I think that is why they needed help
in selling the idea to at least half of the 3211
members that must return valid ballots.

I am pretty sure they royally mucked up the actual
ballot, by not mentioning all 4 properties- or a better
wording like- the common property known as 817 VINE
street-

—————–

At last night’s meeting, John Acosta once again said
words to the effect of, if you don’t feel you know
enough about the sale, don’t vote. He tried correcting
himself later, but he’d said the same at the October 5th
meeting.

I think if members have not been sufficiently informed,
they should vote no.

——————-

During all this information that has been presented for
the selling of the property something stood out about
the 1 million L47 still has in its accounts.

What got my attention when it was mentioned that the
million wouldn’t be enough if there was a law suit?????

How many law suits do we have?????

What came to mind was the outstanding law suits
against the big four represented by none other than
Lewis Levy.

So is it necessary to sell because the RMALA got us
into these law suits and the building has to be sold
so the RMALA.

Can continue on their quest to reap their money
(rightfully theirs) but at a time when the local is in
dire straights??? Is this why it is urgent to sell???
Is this how they will handle future money???

This could be a ploy to get the money out of the union
by selling the building and then have access to who
knows what they have planned.

This is based on information provided so a conclusion
of RMALA’s behavior who still feel they own the local.

If the RMALA wins the lawsuit it would be a feather in
their cap and would strengthen there support further.

Speculation, but John A. is the only one, being president,
that has the most information then anyone else of the
elected officials. It is his turn now.

To add to this are they a bunch of idiots to sell 47
they will blow through that money in no time with
absolutely no alternative solutions to bring in more
capital.

A strip mall?????????  Sophisticated and classy. Very
professional.

[EC: The logical question to ask would be who is funding the
lawsuits, The Local or the national. This is however, an
excellent question.]

—————————

Why not pull a L47 move and try to declare the
building a historical landmark? L47 tried that
with Sony without their permission or request.
If someone does that, it will tie the building
up and it can’t be sold, or even listed possibly.

—————————

Something smells that they all knew. How else
would you get that wording without L. Levy being
the one who worded it for the officials to endorse???
This is not something the Board have the capacity
to do.

This is a fast one and does not reflect intention,
they should all resign!!!

And the RMALA is behind this which are setting the
direction.

Just as though we became aware that all the upgrades
were for the purpose of selling the building in the
first place years ago.

The RMALA was in control then and still is now. The
whole bunch all who enrich their lives from money
that comes into the union will cash in when the building
is sold.

This confirms to me they are trying to get at the cash,
selling the building is the only way to free up money
that they don’t have now.

—————————-

They will try ANYTHING!

—————————–

I read it several times Sunday night and I saw the
“head’s I win; tails you lose” message. Ugh.

—————————–

What is going to happen to the guys who need a
rehearsal space for big band and chamber concert
practices if they don’t have a place to do so. And
to sell this iconic landmark building so that they
can profit from their hideous practices already is
a sham and a mockery. This town is really f***ed up.

——————————

Oh no. I didn’t understand it that way but now I see
what you mean. It is very confusing and unclear.
Unfortunately I already sent the vote back to 47.
I don’t think that was done intentionally but it is
clear a big mistake that needs to be fixed.

——————————-

The moment I saw this I knew it was BS.

Sad to say I belonged to a church that sold a
parsonage that was meant for a youth pastor…..
we figured it would be to pay off the church’s
bills to be debt free………but after the pastor
did that, he gave himself and his family a raise
and upped his retirement package and left us
without a home for a youth pastor and they
get paid so poorly. He pirated the money if
you ask me.

This had the same stench!!!!

They are up to no good and are looking for ways
to line their greedy pockets.

I haven’t been following this as close as I should
be – but will there no longer be an affordable
rehearsal place if they sell it????

[EC: If they are able to sell the building, they
say there will be rehearsal rooms.]

————————————

The two separate topics are this:

If elected officials/Club 47 wanted to inquire
if they can sell the building and then,  after that,
inquire how low they can sell it for (if they got the
“yes” Votes they needed to the separate question
if they can sell the building), those are two separate
questions that need to be made into two separate
ballots.

Club 47 combined both questions into one ballot
question and made a NO vote turn into a YES vote
regardless how a person feels about the building
being sold.

The first ballot should be “do we have permission
to sell the building?” Yes or No.

If the answer in a vote comes back “yes”, the next
ballot should be the language in this ballot regarding
the minimum amount of $22,000,000.

But they all are m**** f****, clearly intent on
disenfranchising members – this time, the entire
membership. Not just a little insignificant group
no one cared about.

Darius Campos has a conflict of interest. Of course
he says this is a great idea: look at what he stands
to make in commission, even if he is donating some
back to any relief fund. Having him, as a union
member, tell members this is a good idea, that is a
conflict of interest. 

Again. Oh for f*** sake! 47 just brings out my potty
mouth!

————————————————–

Do you think the RMALA is behind the sale of the bldg to
shut up all the folks that keep saying they are the cause
of the recording loss and lost wages and work dues to the
local – in other words – “Let’s shut up the rank and file non
RMALA members with a fat bank account so the local
doesn’t have to worry about collecting work dues from
front end work” – so they can ride the wave down to the
bottom and not have the local go under……

[EC: There are no doubt many aspects of this sale that are
unclear and many members have told us that they think
there’s another shoe that will drop at some point.

Additionally, Most do not feel their is a great deal of
premeditation in the wording of the ballot, they just
think whomever wrote just didn’t know any better and
the wording is simply careless. Our stance is that there
are no doubt those on the board acting in good faith,
even they did not see the working problem coming,
but some did, whether intentional or not, the balloting
is faulty and must be retracted. and replaced by an iron
clad question that cannot be misinterpreted.]

———————————————

If they wanted to inquire about how low they can sell
the building for AND inquire in addition  how low they
can sell it for, that should be in two different ballots.
Those are two questions they combined into one…
Making it a trick question!

This is NOT a ballot asking for permission to sell the
building.

This is a ballot telling us they already have a bidder,
and they are asking us permission to sell – so long
as the bidder does not lower his bid below $22,000,000.

Oh for f*** sake.

—————————–

Musicians I have been speaking with liked getting
the blog delivered to them every week.

Was the list eliminated of all concern when the site
went down?

I believe the afm had used their influence to cause its demise.

The Local tried to get it shut down over 5 years ago but
wasn’t able to. He even acknowledge this at that time.

[EC: We’re working on getting the mailing back. Please
stay tuned.]

(more…)

Local 47 meeting 10/26/15

Small crowd for the meeting tonight, but we did have a quorum… 51-53 attending.
Pathetic considering the importance of the subject matter.

Called to order at 7:34.
Pledge – Roll call – 50 year pins – Minutes approved

Special Guest – State Senate Candidate – Anthony Portantino spoke.
Democrat – Seeks local’s endorsement.

OFFICER REPORTS

President – officer’s offices are always open. Use the local, tell them what you think.

NEGOTIATIONS:
Completed negotiations with
1) Symphony in the Glen
2) Center Theater Group – 10% increase over 2 years
3) Magic Mountain contract
4) New Beverly Hilton Hotel CBA for Pianists. (4 rotating players)
5) Redlands Sym – 9% increase;
6) New contract – Experience Carrie LA; (trying to get more money for scoring.)

Have visited with 5 senators for support AB 1199

NLRB Charge against Local has been dismissed. President called them frivolous.
Have been meeting with City of LA reps, counsel members –
discussing sick pay laws; minimum pay laws.

Want nominations for a “Building Committee”. To find out what member want
out of the new building.

Discussing a finance committee if building sale goes through.

HEALTH INSURANCE
H and W front – Getting out of Healthnet going to Blue Shield.
99% of coverage will be identical. Premium should be almost the same.

UCLA – Historical Project – Working with the Local Concerning the
767 (African-American Local) and Local 47 History.
Lots of documents found downstairs.
UCLA wants to digitize and make available the archive

SALE
Referendum: Close of sell vote is Feb 1st, 2016.
timeisnow47.com has info on what’s going on from their perspective.

———————————-
SALE QUESTIONS:

Meeting opened to questions from members about sale.

3 minutes per speaker.
MEMBER:
1) Last meeting had a straw poll on the postponement,
vast majority (about 95%) wanted to delay vote.
Why was it not delayed.
A: Board considered it and dismissed it.
Started talking about it in Feb 2015 in the overture.
(In officer reports)

2) BALLOT: Problem with wording – to sell building for 22 million
or best successful bidder.
A: Counsel wanted wording set that way.
(Important to state the amount)

MEMBER:
Do you intend to sell all the parcels (4) 817, 823, and two
Lillian way plots.
A) Selling it all. Language does not specify that it’s ALL of the site.

Opinion: If it’s just to sell one of the parcels it is not legally bidding.

MEMBER: 1) To tell people not to vote is a problem. If you don’t
have enough information, the answer should be no.

2) What is on the ballot is unclear. It could have been better
addressed if it wasn’t rushed through.

3) How can you set a budget for a build out when you don’t know
what the actual cost will be? Membership should have been
involved (not just notified) far earlier.

Answer: No precedent in Club 47 bylaws on how the sale should go.
Disagree that it’s the wrong time to do this.

MEMBER:
Sale was no surprise, but many members are shocked to hear about the sale,
since it was only mentioned in officer reports and offhand comments in the
minutes of board meetings.

MEMBER:
Comments: When I arrived in Hollywood I saw the Local 47 building and was
thrilled. This is what represents us. It’s a great building. Selling this building
is a mistake. It’s a place we can be proud of. We can have two orchestras
at the same time here.
New Building looks is a strip mall.

DIRECTOR: With the money from the sale we can hire more people to help
get us work. We don’t have the money to hire the folks we need and will be
expensive.

MEMBER: It would not cost a lot if we could get the small segment blocking
process out of the way. RMA drives the bus on contracts.

After much consideration, I cannot support the sale unless the local is
Restructured and the contracts are made competitive again by allowing buyouts
For low budget films, trailers, libraries and samples among others.

If all the dark dates were able to be done on a buyout contracts, there might
Not be a alleged need to sell.

The Local has trimmed around all the edges it can, but won’t head to the
heart of the problem. We’ve lost over 80% of our work because of
Contracts out of date with the world. Some hard core RMA don’t care
What happens to anyone else as long as their July checks are fine and
Are making sure the IEB does nothing to fix the problem.

MEMBER:
Balloting should be done by outside organization.

Q: What comes into the union and what goes out.
Answer: Pull in about 4 million dollars or so in dues every year.

DIRECTOR: Cannot have 2 orchestras at the same time.
Downstairs in no longer available.
Lots of talk of money: Statistic –
in last year we took in $108,000 less in dues.
Spend 408,000’s less. Laid off 3 people.
Froze Officers Salaries.

MEMBER: FMA Member comments:
What is the geographical center of all current local 47 members? Is it Burbank
What is the … of all ACTIVE Local 47 members.

A) 5,495 in ca.
563 outside ca
2,400 members live along the Burbank corridor.
403 life members live in Burbank corridor
742 on the westside: 281 would have a challenge getting to Burbank.
Over 50% of membership lives in the Burbank Corridor.

Giving more consideration to Active members?:
Talked about it. All have equal right to building, active or not.

Q: Given the electronic age, why is local of other trade unions a consideration.
A: It’s not a consideration. Time is now to sell – it’s a seller’s market.

Q: Why are we not looking at existing office building rather than
refurbishing a strip mall.
A. Would be MORE expensive to refit existing office
space than to retool a new (to us) Building.

PARKING
108 parking spots presently, proposed site has 160 parking
spaces. (Currently the Local has rented out our parking lot
for the next three months, so parking for members is a
problem during the day.)

Will be no challenge for parking at the new site. It will be a
spectacular space. Current owner is in his 90’s, on market for
2 years. (But apparently has sat empty for 7 years.)

Is the realtor the seller’s agent, the buyers agent?
A: No, they are different.

MEMBER: I have nothing against moving.
We were very careful to find a NY local for our building.
(mid-Town, not Downtown).
Locale should still be considered.

Q: Has there been talk of building a parking structure.
A: We don’t have the capitol to do it, and there is a height
restriction for building.

MEMBER:
Comment: Income and outflow – Money they have not
spent is in the building. Have you looked at getting a loan
on the building.

A: We’ve not talked about that. Why go into debt when
we can have a surplus.

DIRECTOR: Office buildings? Would cost more than
outfitting a separate building.

We’ve done research on what it needs. The needs cannot
be seen visually. Roof, Handicap accessibility. We don’t
want to lose the legacy of our history.

Have a growing concern is what we will do to protect the
future. Selling the building and having a surplus is
protecting the future. Hollywood no longer the entertainment
center.

TRUSTEE: Someone asked about how we can budget
without all the info. Have had several companies come
through and give us estimates. Union, Non-union,
Architectural company.

Sealed studio $350 dollars per square foot. We have
lots of info.

MEMBER: Do we actually need 30,000 square foot?
Smaller place could be better.
A: Now we have 40,000 square ft.

MEMBER: We had plenty of notice.
Club 47 met three times last year.

MEMBER: Go no direct info about sale.
Anyone who has questions or problems with it could
not ask questions and have those concern answered

MEMBER: We spent 1 million over last 10 years to
upgrade building. Why did we bother?
Building is paid for.

THE FIX IS IN TO DISENFRANCHISE THE MEMBERSHIP

Member makes motion: Postpose vote until the membership
has more information.

PARLIMENTARIAN:
Not appropriate because it’s not a CLUB 47 meeting.

——————

A REAL BOTTOMFEEDER MOVE.

MEMBER: At the October 5th meeting, members were told
they could not make a motion because they were not allowed
at Club 47 Meetings, which are far more restrictive on member
participation.

Last night the member was told they could not make a motion
Because it was a Local 47 meeting, and not a Club 47 meeting.

This incensed a number of members, who knew it was a game
to shut down dissent.

The fix is in: Unless it’s a Club 47 meeting, no motion to delay
can be presented.
They’ve tried to guarantee that no motion can be made until
after the deadline.

MEMBER: In all the years I’ve been a member (32 years) I’ve
NEVER been to or heard of a Club 47 membership meeting
until last October 5th.

CAN A MEMBER CALL FOR A SPECIAL OR REGULAR
CLUB 47 meeting?

PARLIMENTARIAN: Yes, if you get 10 members to sign
the request, And the request makes it clear what is to be
discussed and voted on.

“BINGO!” Exclaimed the member.
That’s exactly what we’ll do.

[EC: Isn’t it pathetic that the membership has to find a
way to do an end run around rules that are designed
to prevent the membership from having a say?]

——————-

Member: Campaign handled terribly. This will come
up at some point. 1996 Ludlow [Owner of Bridgestreet,
INC.] was sentenced to 3 years for defrauding union
of funding. This is the person who owns the company
running the ‘Time is Now’ campaign.

We have a crisis of trust, campaign needs to be crystal
clear, there cannot be a hint of corruption.

PRESIDENT: Ludlow owns Bridgestreet and has
redeemed himself in the Labor community.

We are the elected officers of the Local.
[This trope has come up again and again by directors
and the president, YOU elected us. [Fact is, most were
“elected” unopposed. Only the membership is to blame
for that.]

MEMBER:
Are there any plans to reach out to those who are not on
email for the survey?
A: Not yet.

DIRECTOR: Club 47 special circumstances brought up
by this sale. Some thing that should have been addressed
before, but wasn’t.

If we do concentrate on new building, there’s got to
be something to be proud of.

If we don’t figure out ways to get to new work,
moving is for naught. Trying to represent people
as best we can.

TRUSTEE: About not going straight at the problem.
We don’t have enough money as the local to organize
us as members. If we were to get a CFO for the entire
membership we could maybe get something done.

Need to hire people to represent us.

MEMBER: Trust issues are real.
Club and Local have same board. Did club pay for
$5,000 did mailing cots come out of Local or Club,
was referendum funded by club 47.
A: Funded by Club.

John said they started in Feb 2015, Only discussion
of real estate aspect, not specifics.

Members should vote to have more info.

MEMBER: Agrees with motion stopping the
motion. Any appeal should have been done
right away. Member of the musicians club and
local are the same. As an alternative, chair could
make a motion to suggest that the voting be postponed.

(nothing was done)

MEMBER:
Answer questions. Why didn’t we elect a body
before the process started?
A: The board is that entity.

MEMBER:
What long term plan were they thinking of when
they renovated the building.
A: Was renovated in 2005

DIRECTOR:
John only became president last January.
Will be doing phone banking.
Much better to start with new building to
give us more possibility’s.

MEMBER: Election board: People keep
bringing up that a separate
entity should do the counting. Election
board is trustworthy.
I was on it for 6 year.

MEMBER: What part of the property was
sold without the member’s permission. Part
of it was sold during Fleisher’s time.

A: Were not trying to pull a fast one. We
want what best for the membership.
Not just one section of membership
is responsible for work loss.

Task force decided buyouts were not a good idea,
they spent for 4 months on it.
(Many RMA members were on the Task Force)

MEMBER: Had a task force, got us Butkus.

VP REPORT

Went to SRLA Negotiations – with RMA leadership.
Was an eye opener. Spoke of musicians with total lack
of respect. We kept reminding them of how important
we are. Been working on that contract since 2004.
Was never signed then.

Contract was signed at the end of the week. Took 12 years.

Two more rounds of discussions: In New York and
Los Angeles.

Went to PBS Negotiations – 15 heads of different
PBS areas, contract not changed since 2004. Ask
for 18 % raise to cover12 years, plus additional 3.5
percent over the next 3 years.

Will be another round in December.

Has been involved with 24 different negotiations for
this union. All successfully negotiated.

People across the table just don’t want to admit
they know how important music is.

MEMBER: Recording Nego. 1st National Contract
Ray Hair negotiated.

When negotiations happen in Los Angeles will be
first time its done here.

-Greek theater honored Nederlander for 30 years of shows.
Presented a plaque along with Arthur B. Rubinstein.
Iatsi presented plaque as well. It was a family feel.
Everybody cared.

SMG is taking over Greek Theater
Other board members helped with presentation.

Member requested to speak, was told they couldn’t
during officer reports.

SECRETARY REPORT

All sales letters received will be published.
Financials:
TAKEN IN: Approx. $2,700,000 dollars
Paid out: Approx. $2,132,000
Approx. $474,000 surplus

Are in the black for the 3rd quarter.

As Treasurer, as to building sale, financial life
goes up and down. It’ll be win/win, to have brand
new building with state of the art facilities.

With 10 millions to invest, can have a reliable
source of income for decades to come.

Once again we received some labor media awards:
For Linda Rapka –
for Local 47 Beat – 1st place for electronic newsletter,
2nd place in writing award for Linda Rapka.
3rd place in internet design for new website.

Gig Junction is hosting a meet and greet,
November 4th in auditorium at 7pm

PROMUSICDB.org
Cristy Crowl presentation on ProMusicDB.org –
to preserve everyone’s legacy and what we do.
Record info, players lists and suc

Can include all your pictures as well and populate
your page with them. Will be safe in perpetuity.
Can track calendar and events.
Easy interface to use must be associated with a
union or a PRO.

Been working on it for 3 years, will be released in
March at
NXNW 2016.

Creation was supported by Engineer Damon
Tedesco (Wrecking Crew) and AFM, LOCAL 47
among others.

Questions for PROMUSIC DB
Member: Live folks do a lot of this kind of thing.
1) When does it start? A: March 2016
2) IMDB is $150 a year. What’s the process to do
it on ProMusicDB?
Far easier than with IMDB
3) All music.com is the only place to go and they’re
slow and can take 3 years.
We need to be part of Data test

OLD (UNFINISHED) BUSINESS:

MEMBER: Would be investing 10 Millions, last time it was
11 millions. Why the Change,
A: We’re talking generalities. Don’t have exact numbers yet.

MEMBER: No one’s blaming this RMA but LOS ANGELES
has major influence on the contracts. Not a question of them
respecting us, it’s capitol and supply and demand, we need
to look at improving the contracts to get work back.

This union building CAN hold 2 full orchestras.

NEW BUSINESS:
Nominations for Building Committee: Board will confirm
tomorrow.
1) Lisa Haley
2) Mike Barron
3) John papenbrook
4) Randy Alcroft
5) Michael Davis
6) Paul Sternhagen
7) Alan Fogel
8) Charles Fernandez

Leanne Powers – Musician and New Marketing
Director for the Credit Union.
Some things to point out.
1) Credit Union and the Local are separate.
2) Paid by credit union not Local 47.
3) Worked in marketing for more than 20 years.
4) This position gives me the opportunity to help
musicians in the financial arena.
5) Loans for instruments
6) Establishing a credit history
7) Is a member owned co-opt
8) Mobile/Online banking – 12 employees.
9) We know our members.

MEMBER:
Comment on the overture – used to read it.
Then started going on line – tried to download it
on the phone. Now that’s it’s online, I don’t have
the time to read a whole overture

How much money is saved by not having the
monthly print edition.
A: Saving approx.. $40,000 a year. One of the only
locals that is still published monthly, along with New
York. Online is the new direction the world is going.
We’re striving to get everyone’s email address.
Still have a long way to go.

It’s a transition period but it does save us some money.

Meeting Adjourned at 10:15 PM.

I. LOCAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT! – OCTOBER 26
II. TUESDAY LUNCH MEETING REPORT
III. COMMENT ON THE SALE
IV. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

===================================

I. LOCAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT! – OCTOBER 26

Tomorrow night at 7:30, Local 47 will be having their general membership meeting.

No doubt there will be much discussion of the vote whether or not to sell the
building. If you don’t feel you know enough about the situation to knowledgeably vote,
this should be a perfect chance to learn more.

SEE YOU THERE!

===========================================

II. TUESDAY LUNCH MEETING REPORT

Disappointingly, while there were some different members there for “lunch
with the board” less than 10 decided to take part.

It was quite interesting even getting to the meeting. The entire parking
lot was closed off, front and back.

PARKING

As we learned later, the Local has taken to renting out the entire parking
lot to businesses (Studio, Construction and Production) for the next three
months. While that’s fine to make money for the Local, there were no spots
reserved for those musicians wanting to use the rehearsal rooms, especially
those with larger instruments, if the access to the lot is blocked. Otherwise,
they have to park on the street.

This really should be addressed.

WE GOT TROUBLE

The board and others really worked hard to paint the picture of the Local
in dire straights. They’ve frozen officer’s salaries, rented the parking lot,
rented every square inch of the building. Many members at the meeting
were not convinced of the need to sell the building, noting that the building
is owned outright.

There was much talk of upcoming needed repairs to the Local. Roof
replacement and that if we add an elevator the upstairs bathrooms need
to be brought up to code with ADA (Americans with Disabilities). It was
pointed out that as the building is as old as it is. many of those fixes
are NOT required, but voluntary, since we are grandfathered in.

Member Charles Fernandez pointed out his frustration with the Local
trimming around every edge they can without addressing the main problem,
refusing to address the “elephant in the room”. The problem is it doesn’t
matter how much you cut unless you restructure the Local and update
contracts to allow libraries, video games, sampling and of course buyout
options. There’s no point in selling the building to buy an new one unless
you do that. if you don’t you’re only delaying the inevitable demise of the
Local, owing to the loss of 80%+ of our recording work thanks to unworkable
contracts, as well as membership atrophy.

CONSPIRACY

In 1950 there were 13,000 or so members, now there are about 7,500.
If the local becomes insolvent, some believe that the building and assets
must be sold and the revenue split among the Club 47 members.

Unfortunately for those who believe this little conspiracy, it’s not true.
The bylaws make it clear that only if the membership in the Local falls
below 16 (sixteen- yep, that’s right, sixteen) can the Local be dissolved,
thus enabling the sale and dissemination of the profits.

If we lose the building, which is by no means guaranteed, a small
store front would have to be rented or bought to carry on the Local’s
business. NO group of members could suck up the profits.

Member Fernandez also pointed out that the sole group standing in the way,
blocking any progress in contracts in getting any work back were the
few hardcore RMA Leadership and their allies on the IEB who would just
as soon see everyone else starve rather than touch their precious July
residual checks.

It was pointed out that the contracts are national and cannot be changed
at the Local level, but it was in turn pointed out that the RMA holds
the leash of the IEB when it comes to recording, so any progress is
blocked from Los Angeles, and perhaps a bit by New York.

It comes down to this. Either the AFM shows the RMA the door, removing
them from controlling interest in recording contracts so we can make true
progress, the first real progress in 15-20 years, or admit that they (the
afm/local 47) do not have the cajones to stand up to the RMA, keep the
building we have till the money runs out, then get a storefront.

THE REST OF THE MEETING

Other than that, there was much talk of getting folks to vote, many
members not happy with the location and perhaps arranging a day
when members can come out to tour and see the potential new
building.

THE MEMBERSHIP…

…needs to be presented with a list of reasons FOR and AGAINST the sale,
so the rank and file can make an educated choice.

THE COMMITTEE

===================================

III. COMMENT ON THE SALE

RE: Realtor pledges to gift part of sales commission back to the union.

Outrageous!!! Wait a minute! The real estate agent IN CHARGE OF THE
SALE of our property attended the “informational” meeting at Local 47
and had the nerve – or was it stupidity? – to stand up and say that there
was already an offer of 24 million dollars on our home, AND that when
the sale goes through his company would give Local 47 a $100,000
donation, from the millions in commission that his company would earn.

DOESN’T THAT SOUND LIKE A KICKBACK FOR THE SALE OF OUR HOME
THAT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE ON THE MARKET YET!!! And if that’s the
PUBLIC “donation” that he’s bragging about, what kind of “donation” do
you think is going on BEHIND CLOSED DOORS??? And to whom??? Do
we really need to guess… This stinks.

[EC: TO be fair: the realtor’s profit from a sale is typically between
two and five percent, depending on how many realtors are involved.

So the fee earned IF the Local building is sold for 24 million will be
between $480,000 and $1,200,000, not millions.]

=================================

(more…)

I. WANNA TALK? HERE’S YOUR CHANCE,…. DON’T BLOW IT!
II. THE RECENT MEETING
III. COMMENT ON THE PROCEEDS
IV. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

===================================

I. WANNA TALK? HEAR’S YOUR CHANCE,…. DON’T BLOW IT!

Last Tuesday, members of the board and the realtors met with
members of the Local to discuss and answer members questions
about the potential building. Unfortunately, only nine members
took advantage of the opportunity.

Don’t let apathy reign.

THIS COMING TUESDAY members will have another chance to
discuss the proposed building and ask questions. Don’t miss
this chance. As a Local 47 Member it should be considered your
responsibility, if you are available, to come down and learn all
you can, as well as ask all you can.

VOTING DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 1ST, 2016

If you received the recent email, you know know that the
board has set a voting cut off date for February 1st for ballot
returns.

ANOTHER REASON TO ATTEND: THE FUTURE

If the local does not receive the votes needed to sell the
building, some serious planning for the future of the Local
and how we can keep it must take place.

They need your ideas.

LUNCH WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS COMING
TUESDAY, 12:30-1:30 in the auditorium of Local.

Lunch is being provided by the Local.

————

AS TO LAST TUESDAY’S LUNCH MEETING

The one thing that was somewhat disturbing was that
most of those who spoke seemed to take for granted that
they’d get the votes to sell the building.

This is by no means a done deal.

What will be equally important is that there be a “Plan B”
and “Plan C” for what to do considering the Local’s finances
should the sale NOT be allowed.

Up the rents for the organizations using the 2nd floor?
Build a multilevel parking structure that can be rented to
nearby studios for additional revenue? Force the acceptance
of buyouts to increase dues to the Local?

MORE FORWARD THINKING

Additionally, there will need to be, new building or not,
plans for changing our contracts to make them more
competitive and bring us more in line with the world outside
the AFM. Certainly a lot of recording is going on in LA, it’s just
mostly in the shadows. The local sees zero from this.

Frankly, if we’d not lost 80%+ of our work here because of
technology and the lack of buyouts (Buyouts blocked by the
RMA and the entrenched unwillingness to think of anyone else),
we might not even need to consider selling the building.

It is the loss of dues, atrophy of the member ranks because of
the lack of support for the rank and file even remotely close to
the influence and cow-towing to the RMA in the past, and
horrendous relations with producers and potential clients thanks
to the arrogance of the elites and the conduct of Ray Hair that
have gotten us into this financial pickle.

DELAYING THE INEVITABLE

Further, If the sale does go through without revamping our
infrastructure and contracts, we will only be delaying the
inevitable demise of the Local by a few years.The only thing
the sale will guarantee, frankly, will be the paychecks of the
officers and employees till the sale surplus of 11 million runs out.

Change the future or just delay the inevitable, it’s up to all of us.

GET INVOLVED!

THE COMMITTEE

===================================

II. THE RECENT MEETING

Dear Editor,

The union has had less than 900k in the bank before and
still continued to operate. I don’t agree with your assertion
that the leadership would have had support for a sale “but for”
the blatant lack of transparency. There are many negatives
to the proposal.

In the Oct. 5 “informational meeting, “President Acosta gave
a presentation on what he perceives are compelling reasons
to rid ourselves of our iconic building in the heart of Hollywood.
Further, he tells us of all the bells and whistles we would be
getting at the Burbank facility. Having looked at the proposed
facility, (listed as one story), we will not have what we have
now that is used by working musicians…a functional auditorium
with a stage and a basement that can also hold a full orchestra
rehearsal.

In review of the minutes of the past year, it is very apparent
that the Board has focused only on a sale and purchase option.
At the very least, there should have been open meetings regarding
the  proposal where no doubt a discussion of restructuring
would have been raised.

The proposed property purchase is deeply flawed. Our running
overhead will be forever increased by the property taxes alone
without having dealt with the systemic issue that revenue is
raised by working musicians under union contracts.

If we were to approve a move to Burbank, two main causes of
concern are:
1) becoming the landlord over retail food establishments, think
property management and insurance liabilities, and
2) parking.

Even if, as we were told, the Burbank property can be rehabbed
for 3 million… and leave money in the bank, parking will be a
major issue.  Currently, we have a secured parking lot that we
do not share with the general public. We can pull right up to
either the auditorium or the rehearsal rooms and unload. When
we are at the local, we do not worry about our equipment or ourselves.

We were told the new location has plenty of street parking and
that we might use the parking at a local school….several blocks
away. We were also told that we might use the AAA parking. The
office manager at the AAA has no knowledge of any request and
referred me to Cushman and Wakefield ( a property services firm
that manages the AAA property). Did the realtors obtain any promises
for use of the AAA lot by us…if we purchase 1011 Alameda?

At the Oct. 5 meeting, President Acosta, citing past deficits, did
say that the Local was currently living within its means. Why would
we step off the cliff?

—————————————-

Congratulations on the Committee being right on target representing
the current on goings of local 47.

Musicians can’t take the union for granted because this is what
waste remains from not being involved with how the union is
really run. We all suffer in the end with no good choices presented.
And we only find out recently of the gloom and doom. How much
money goes to those folks to keep the union afloat?

Members would like to know who is advising and influencing the board.
All members should be made aware of this.

Not like the silent treatment SOP that got us here in the first place.

=================================

III. COMMENT ON THE PROCEEDS

If the building is sold, the money, after what has to be used to
set up new headquarters, should be held in a separate account
and none of it should be spent except as approved by vote of
the full membership. It should not be subsumed by the general
fund.

=================================

IV. EVENTS

DEAN AND RICHARD

DEAN AND RICHARD are now playing every third Friday
at Culver City Elks 7:30pm-10;30pm,
11160 Washington Pl.
Culver City, 90232
310-839-8891

————————————-

LA WINDS JAZZ KATS 584

NO COVER, NO MINIMUM.
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at Viva Cantina
7:30-10:00.
900 Riverside Drive, Burbank.

Free parking across the street at Pickwick Bowl.
Come hear your favorite charts played the way they
should be.

We are in the back room called the Trailside Room.

Come on down. Guaranteed to swing.

————————————

10/19/15

KIM RICHMOND CONCERT JAZZ ORCHESTRA AT TYPHOON

Just one show (8 PM) and we will premiere two new compositions
but also play some old favorites.
THIS IS AN EVENT YOU SHOULD NOT MISS.
Please come out and support our efforts.
WHAT: The KIM RICHMOND CONCERT JAZZ ORCHESTRA, 23 piece ensemble
WHEN: Monday, October 19, 8 PM (1 set, 90 minutes)
WHERE: Typhoon Restaurant & jazz venue,
3221 Donald Douglas Loop South
Santa Monica Airport
WHO: Woodwinds: Billy Kerr, Bob Crosby, Glen Berger, John Yaokum, Allen Savedoff
Trumpets Bob O’Donnell, Ron King, Jonathan Dane, Josh Aguilar
French horns: Brad Warnaar, Suzette Moriarty Fowler
Trombones: Scott Whitfield, Joey Sellers, Steve Tyler, Craig Gosnell, Bill Roper (tuba)
Rhythm: Tom Hynes, guitar; Daniel Szabo, keyboard; David Hughes, bass;
Ralph Razze, drums; Dave Johnson, mallet percussion; Scott Breadman, hand percussion
PARKING: Plentiful
ADMISSION: $10
FOOD: excellent, mostly Asian

————————————

10/25/15

Hi Flutists!

I’m giving a Body Mapping Workshop for Flutists: How to Improve
Your Sound and Reduce Tension on Sunday, October 25 from
3:00-6:00 pm in La Crescenta.

Some of you may know about body mapping and others not. It’s a way
to improve playing and avoid injury by finding out how your body is put
together and designed to move. It’s based on the concept that we have
a body map which is the perception (map or self-representation) in our
brain that tells us how we’re put together. If it’s accurate, then movement
is good, free, and efficient,  but when it’s not accurate, movement is not
good causing limitations, tension, pain and injury. Body Mapping is the
process of identifying your body maps and refining and correcting them
as needed.

It’s a very effective way to learn how to improve the quality your movement
to produce better sound and to prevent tension, pain and injury. In fact,
some musicians credit Body Mapping with saving their careers!

I was introduced to Body Mapping at a time when I was frustrated by not being
able to perform my best and was also feeling lots of tension and pain. It helped
me so much that I went on to train and became a Licensed Andover Educator in
2010. I’d love to be able to share with you the benefits of Body Mapping.

The class will be small with a maximum of eight participants. You can read more
about it on my website www.flutemuse.com and the Andover Educators website
www.bodymap.org. I’ve attached the flyer below.

Please contact me with any questions and to register for the class. Feel free to
forward the flyer to other flutists.

Thanks!

Ruth Kasckow
Flutist, Flute Teacher, Body Mapping Educator
Licensed Andover Educator www.bodymap.org
www.flutemuse.com
626 840 9716

————————————

11/7-8/15

LISA HALEY ADN THE ZYDECATS

Veterans Day Weekend Celebration
Saturday 11/7/15
Lake Arrowhead, California – 2PM
Americana Veterans Village
www.friends2veterans.com

and

Sunday 11/8/15
Lake Arrowhead, California – 2PM
Americana Veterans Village
www.friends2veterans.com

================================

You can read all previous offerings at:http://www.responsible47.com
UNTIL NEXT TIME,
THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47

I. FACING THE MUSIC
II.THE OPPOSED SPEAK OUT – 10 MILLION FOR A STRIP MALL?
III. THE POTENTIAL NEW BUILDING COMMENTS
IV. RECAP: A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY
V. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

===================================

I. FACING THE MUSIC
 
A few quick facts.
 
-The local has less than a million dollars left in the bank.
-They could have gotten the membership on their side with the sale
if they’d not chosen to be secretive and underhanded.

For example:
The membership should have been told IN JULY that the building was
going to be listed to get a sense of it’s worth.

-The board created suspicion by taking down the main listing a couple
of days after a member asked about why it was there.

-The board created major distrust by purposefully pulling a bait and
switch of the meeting on October 5th, taking what was definitely billed as
a Local 47 meeting and changing it to a “club 47 meeting”, restricting the
member input. The only evidence was the inside cover of the overture
which was conveniently sent out one day before the 5th. A really
underhanded, calculated and conniving move.

-Misdirection again and again and frankly, abhorrent conduct on the part
of the board and their mistreatment of the rights of the members to
know what is being done in their name.

NO CUT-OFF DATE
 
Additionally, they conveniently leave off any sort of cut-off date to
the balloting to sell the building, another ethically questionable
move further alienating the membership.
 
Only the board is responsible for the distain in which they are currently
held by a majority of the membership because of their underhanded
tactics. Their conduct will lead many to say, “If it’s what they want I’m
against it even if it IS good, because they cannot be trusted”.

And we frankly can’t blame them for feeling that way.

THE ROOT
 
 But what got us in this situation? The 80-85% loss of work? The
shambles of our relations with Video Game and other producers?
The tanking of work dues? The loss of work to every corner of
the world?

Technology has played a role to be sure, but the major reason we all
know. If you don’t know by now, you simply have not been paying
attention.

PAY ATTENTION!

Selling the building and buying another one without wholesale
changes to the contracts, power structure and personnel will simply
delay the inevitable collapse of the viability of Local 47.

THE COMMITTEE

=================================

II. THE OPPOSED SPEAK OUT – 10 MILLION FOR A STRIP MALL?

Well, the membership attending the ‘informational meeting’ of October 5,
was overwhelmingly opposed to a ballot being sent in four days from the
meeting…because too many members expressed there was little in-depth
information on which to base a vote. The president’s presentation didn’t
help.

The Board says there is an offer for 24 Million. The Local 47/Club 47 has
located a new location in Burbank for 10 Million. The main property has
been vacant for years and we will have restaurants for tenants. REALLY!?
Also, they informed us of arrangements for some free rent and lease-back
after the sale.

The proposed new location is a strip-mall. Even if properly renovated,
it cannot compare with what we have. Why would a union of professional
musicians choose to become less visible and lose their historically
significant home on Vine Street in the heart of Hollywood?

We were told, after expenses of the sale, purchase, and renovations,
Club 47 can give 11 Million to Local 47 to avoid Capital Gains Taxes.
This is just a bandaid on a systemic problem.

Our property taxes will reflect an increase based on the purchase price.
Do the math…we now pay less than $44,000. per year for our Vine Street
home. Under Prop. 13, what is that 1%  even without added tax levies
(schools, yada, yada) on 10 Million? Why would we guarantee an increase
in our overhead without a clear plan to increase our income?!

The presentation was about “Securing Our Future.” Without embracing
change in the global business model, the only future we will be securing
is the salaries of our elected officers. We have had to adjust our lives to
the new reality of professional music. We have had to learn to live within
our means. The membership has the power to see to it our union does
the same.

Perhaps the best observation of the evening was… “OMG you have got
to stop the sale of the building…in 10 years there will be no music
business, but the property will be worth 50 Million!”

The voting process was also an issue. We were told members will have
a barcode attached. If a member has not returned their ballot, the
Union will (by phone tree) urge you to vote. No cut off date was
determined. However, the spokesperson for the Election Board
said, that when 50% +1 was  achieved…the vote would close.

Does this seem right? What if the majority of the membership say
no, but are not the first 50% +1 to return their ballots?

Frankly there was a significant number that
1) Did not know they were members of the Musician’s Club or
2) Did not know that the Local 47 Board of Directors are the same
as the Board of Directors of the Club 47.

Kudos to Greg Huckins….the meeting of October 5 was not clearly
identified as a Club 47 meeting. The membership expecting to participate
as members of Local 47 (under the Local 47 by-laws) were disenfranchised
in violation of the Union Member Bill of Rights under Title 1 of the LMRDA.  

Enjoy your lunch. 
Sent from my iPad

=====================================

III. THE POTENTIAL NEW BUILDING

Not sure if you are aware but the sale of 47 realtor is not just Hilton & Hyland
but Darius Campo of Rhodes Realty (apparently is a team of 3 realtors) who
is a Violinist at Local 47 and RMA member.

This I have confirmed from multiple colleagues that he has told and seems
like he stands to make a 6 figure commission from the sale. Seems a little
bit of a conflict of interest, but perhaps they have been transparent about it,
I am not completely up to date. 

I am a recently retired member, don’t have a horse in the race, but would
nonetheless like to be kept anonymous.

——————————

I was distressed but not surprised to see that the new “building”
is nothing but a tacky strip mall! A building made to house five or
six businesses. As ugly and characterless as any mini-mall I’ve
ever seen.

The AAA building next door had a full parking lot when I went by
on Friday and the overflow obviously went to “our” proposed lot.

With “our” building empty and three eating places: Subway,
Japanese food and Little Caesar’s, the parking lot was 3/4’s
full, so where’s all this parking they’re talking about?

This building is a joke and I cannot help but wonder who stands
to profit from this deal. It certainly isn’t the membership.

Drive by and take a look for yourself:
1011 Alameda in Burbank.

————————————

If you go to colliers.com/p-usa100948 you will see a good pic of the building
they propose to buy, and stats.  Needless to say, we didn’t think the building
looked that good. It states 125 parking spaces (which need to be shared with
the three restaurants). If the building is upgraded in the front façade then the
restaurants will also need to be upgraded. NOTE THE PRICE $9,985,500 –
couldn’t this have been bargained down instead of up?

The following is the letter:

We drove past 1011 W Alameda following the meeting this evening. We were
surprised to say the least. This building is not suited to be presented as an
AFM Local 47 building. It does not meet the criteria and class for such a
building representing the musicians of Los Angeles. I could see the likes of 
all the past famous musicians, singers, composers and arrangers rolling
in their graves. This building has no character and even if character were
added to the façade I doubt if a few feet away, sharing the 125 parking
spaces in front, Little Ceasars Pizza, a Japanese restaurant and a Subway
add any decorum.

The building is listed at $9,985,500.00. Couldn’t our union have bargained?
Even if could obtained it for less monies, it would still be a shame to call this
our union. What is the board thinking of? What is in it for them that they
would stoop so low. This is an embarrassment to all union members.

—————————–

The quote of $130 sq ft to renovate this former CVS pharmacy strip
mall is laughable. We need to see that broken down and in writing
before moving an inch forward on this.

My sense is that the board is looking at this unrealistically, with
over expectations on the sale price, under expectations on the purchase
price (that building is listed at $10m, not “5-8million”) and grossly
underestimated refurbishment costs.

—————————–
“You must stop this sale.  In 10 years there won’t be any more
business but the building will be worth 50 million!”

——————————

The sale of the building, given the disastrously-run state of our
union, makes sense to me. What DOESN’T make sense to me is
the way they’ve gone about it. All done in secret, not allowing
comments, and not giving information other than a sales and
marketing pitch.

They just aren’t trustworthy.

Are they also running their own secret email server in the
basement?

—————————————–

Makes no sense at all.
we can only hope things get better. . .

======================================

IV. RECAP: A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY

It was always a rumor we heard since moving here that if the building were sold the
monies were supposed to be divided up between all the members of club 47, i.e.
members of Local 47.

In truth, according to our sources at the local, that is only true if the Local itself
is dissolved, not if the building is sold.

1972 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

Here is everything that is mentioned in the 1972 bylaws of Club 47 concerning
liquidation of Club Property:

—–

ARTICLE XI – DISSOLUTION

Section 1
This corporation cannot be dissolved as long as it has sixteen (16) members
or more, and then only by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of existing members.

Section 2
In case of Dissolution, any property or funds of this corporation (Club 47)
shall be given unconditionally to the Musicians’ Union, Local 47, American Federation
of Musicians, of Los Angeles, California.

—–

We do not know if the bylaws were adjusted between 1972 and 1992, but there are many
more details in the Bylaws amended in 1992.

According to our sources, the bylaws were amended in 1992 because of a conflict
between the bylaws and Franchise Tax Board rules.

—–

1992 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 2: Subject to Section 1, of Article IV, above, only the membership of this
corporation (Club 47) shall have the authority to authorize or approve the sale,
transfer or hypothecation of that real property, located at 817 North Vine St.,
Hollywood, California (Hereinafter “the property”), to which the Musician’s Club
currently holds title. Such authorization shall be obtained or granted only through
a mail referendum vote in which all members in good standing of the corporation
shall be entitled to vote.

Provided, however, that any such referendum to authorize the sale, transfer or
hypothecation of the property shall only be effective and binding upon the Corporation
should (1) 50% + 1 of the members on good standing of this corporation vote and (2)
of those 50% + 1 voting, a majority thereof vote in favor of approving, authorizing
or affirming any such proposed sale, transfer or hypothecation of the real property.

Provided, further, that only the Board of Directors of the Corporation, upon a duly
adopted resolution, may call for any such referendum through which the members
of this Corporation will be requested to approve and/or authorize the sale, transfer
or hypothecation o the real property.

Provided, further that notwithstanding Article XIV, Section 1, this Article IV, Section 2,
may only be amended if (1) 50% + 1 of the members in this Corporation cast a ballot
on the question of amending this Article IV, Section 2, and ; (2) of those 50% + 1
members who cast a ballot, a majority thereof vote to amend this Article IV, Section 2.

—–

That is the sum and total of the verbiage concerning the sale of the property in
the Club 47 bylaws, amended in 1992.

—–

Whatever comment you send to us, please make sure you send it to the Overture as
well, and specifically demand it’s printing in the next edition.

We deserve a much more far reaching and balanced discussion before our building goes
up for sale.

THE COMMITTEE

=========================================

(more…)

UNION MEETING 9/5/15

Oh What an Interesting Meeeeeeeting…

Before the meeting, in discussion with a couple of Local 47 members,
one told us: You watch, they’re going to try to call this a “Club 47”
meeting and not a “Local 47” meeting”.

“Why?” we asked. The words “Club 47” didn’t appear on the post card
that was sent nor the four page special “Overture” (Official Publication
of Local 47), though references to Local 47 were blatant and prominent.

The only use of the words “Club 47” were on the inside cover of the
printed Overture, where few would see it,… and the electronic version
of the Overture (With the only direct reference to “Club 47”) came out
just YESTERDAY, one day before the meeting.
As Comedian Billy Connelly would say, “How Convenient!”
Yep, they knew exactly what they were doing.

“In any case, what difference does it make?” we said.

“A big difference”, he explained, “Because, the members have far
fewer rights to speak at a Club 47 meeting. The board controls it
completely, and you cannot make motions”. “Just wait, he said.”

Boy was he right. The first words out of the President’s mouth after
the pledge, once the meeting was called to order, were that it was a
“CLUB 47” meeting. They hadn’t even got out of the introductory
remarks and a bait and switch was pulled to shut down the membership
participation by way of motions. The chairman was called on it by a
member bigtime, but it made no difference, they simply ignored him.
Everyone there, however, took note of the willful deception. It would
not be the last of the evening.

In fact, the membership had been disenfranchised by the action, to
keep participation to a minimum in some ways. And certainly not
the best way to get the membership to trust an already very murky
subject.

Below you will find a synopsis of the meeting with the more
important comments framed by “**”

——————————

Meeting called by President Acosta at 7:31.
Pledge recited.

Roll call taken.

The Chairman tried to introduce the meeting s a “club” meeting,
which would limit the members participation.

Member: “It is not a meeting of the club, nothing about club
47 was on any of the mailings”. Members at Club meetings
have far fewer rights than at a Local meeting.
“Yes is was”, said the President.

Counsel says the same right for members in either type of meeting.
Meeting will proceed with Robert’s rules.

EXPLAINING THE VOTING
•Board Member- All members in good standing are eligible.
Inactive life members cannot vote nor can suspended members•

Local has rented PO Box to accept ballots, board member will
pick up ballots from the box.

*Need over 3200 ballots to have a legit vote. Need 50% plus 1 for
the vote to be legitimate, of that 50% Plus 1, 50% plus one must vote
to sell.*

Ballots will have bar code to verify identity. Locked box will be
kept in a locked cabinet in the Secretary’s Office.

On a weekly basis election board will gather and store ballots
without being opened.

If 50% of ballots are not reached the ballots will not be opened.
The Local cannot decide to change the bylaws to 50% plus one of
those who vote. It is federal law.

•Election Board will be counting ballots, not an outside company.•
There can be witnesses to the counting. Anyone who wants to
observe can. Counsel requests requesting to observe.

Member: All members of Local 47 are members of the club. Club
owns the real estate. Is there conflict of interest in officers sitting
on both boards?

Answer: Club has been set up so the board mirrors both organizations.
It’s always been that way.

Theory is if the Local is sued, the building is protected by the Club’s
ownership of the building. Also, AFM cannot take the Local.

How does the membership benefit from the sale? Member benefit by the
new building being bought and the use of it by members.

Member: When will the ballots be back in?
Answer: hopefully middle of December.

Member: How did you arrive at the decision to sell the building?
Who is the realtor, etc.
Asked to wait till after the president’s presentation.
[EC: Realtor is Hilton and Hyland]

•Member: Local has not set up a specific cut off date for the voting.
The board could wait till they DO have enough, since they will not
CLOSE the voting. Will keep it open till they get the votes.

Member: Create cutoff date. (EC: This sentiment was repeated several
times throughout the night, but since no motions could be made, it
could not be fixed. How convenient.)*

PRESENTATION BY PRESIDENT
1950 – 14,000 members, 52 Employees
2015 – 7,000 members, 22 Employees

In the 50’s the whole building was used
Now less than 50%, of the building is rented.

$ 761,000 deficit in 2014, though Local is in the black now.

2015 – Voluntary wage freeze for the Officers, cut salaries and expenses.

Building looks crappy – $80,000 to spruce it up.
Electrical is at capacity using $50,000
Roof needs to be replaced – $200,000 needed.
Elevator would cost $200,000.

Reserves are low, less than 1mil in bank.
One major lawsuit can break us.

Shows rendering of new building

WHY BURBANK?
Concentration around 134 Freeway, majority of members are in that area.
Increased services
Rewards program
Sound treated rooms.
Credit union on 1st floor
ADA Compliant (Handicap accessible)
Modern office space.
State of the Art Recording Studio
Ecofriendly Construction
Location near studios and sister unions.

130 parking spaces.

WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE MONEY?
Money goes into bank account.
24 million sale price
5-8 million to buy new building
3 to renovate the building
Leaving
11 million in bank
Currently the local has $975, 806.

After sale $11,975.806

From $186,366 to $891.790 annual earnings

QUESTION AND ANSWER
Member: Capitol Gains? Don’t we have to pay that?
Counsel: Not required to pay Cap Gains as long it’s reinvested or put
into another non-profit organization.

Member: What’s the breakdown to the use of the money.
Answer: Trustees would continue to oversee it, but an investment
manager will be brought in.
There’s no plan for where that money can go before we vote…
Once the money is transferred a plan would be created.

TRUSTEE: When you vote you vote for 3 trustees, 6 directors and officers.
History of the investments of this local are CD’s. We’d stagger the dates
of the cd’s. As of now we’re lucky to get 1 percent on those investments.
If we get them money they will invest as wisely as we can.

Talks up the sale.

Member: Sale has to be done. Bid is from a company called 5 points. Realtor
team is at the meeting. Some years ago, Red Studios offered to build new
union building. They were approached again and passed.

Member:
1) Is a big deal. It’s a boat load of money that comes in. I’d prefer to see IN WRITING a prospectus of what will be done. A Legal document
that shows all of our protections against the misuse of this money.
All laid out.

2) Good idea to clean up this election process.

Counsel: Officers of the local are financially responsible for misuse. Prohibited
by Musicians Club; Laws in California; Federal Labor Law; Prosecution by the
DOL if there is misconduct.

Member: Full court press to get the sale. What was the process to get you here?
Been in discussion for years. More acutely in the last year. Board was unanimous
to pursue a sale.

Member: Thanks the board. What is ecofriendly? Lots of the companies are
attached to the utility companies. Much more beneficial to BUY solar panels,
not rent. Other group was in same situation. Arranged with County to have
their forensic accountants to be involved to guarantee transparency. To
watch out for scams.

Member: Loves the idea. But will not vote for it unless we know what the
renovation will cost.

Answer: Cost was estimated to be 3 million dollars, 11million in profit is
after the renovation.

Member: Have any members been asked what they want in the new
rehearsal rooms? Because this place sucks. Need more members.

Member: Question of confidence in the leadership. Not so worried
about corruption, more concerned with cluelessness, follow through
on proposals, project management.

We do not have a great record on oversight. CONVINCE ME!

Member: Elephant in the room, unions way of doing business is not working.
If we sell building, and we have all this money, they’ll be even more
disconnected from the needs of the members. When model stops working,
the proceeds are sold and the profits go to that union. Are we best served
as members through the sale of this building?

Member: Just 12 folks are making these decisions for all the members. Never
came up when I was involved. Local has a history of deficit spending. Taken
in 24 million over 6 years, but spent 26 million. $290,000 last year. Building
brings in enough money to pay our bills. It’ a lot of trust,.. don’t have enough
trust to vote for the sale.

Member: Two issues – Transparency and Trust. Never had a board of
directors entrusted with 11 million dollars. We have to protect that investment
for a worst case scenario.
Transparency: Engage the members. Member must believe.
One meeting doesn’t cut it. have more meetings. We had three on non-union recording.

Member: In favor of sale. There have been many conversations. Everything will
be decided by the membership. [EC: Except the listing of the building last July and the finding of the new building.]

Member: Many things are wrong with the picture. Has been worked on for a couple
of months now (since July). No deadline set. Set a deadline. What’s the hurry?
RESOURCEFULNESS: No one has asked us what we want? No Survey.

Governance should come from the members, not thrown at the members.

Member: Property Tax? What will that be?
Realtor’s team answered – 1.25 percent of purchase price.
Income is 130-135 thousand from 3 surrounding restaurants.
No cap gains taxes.

Member: What is property tax hit on new building? What’s the
hit here? Tenants come and go, cannot count on them being there.
Answer: One of the restaurants has a 10 year lease.

Ballots are coming out too soon, we don’t have the info we need.

Member: At the local in Phoenix, money problems, partnered with
ballet company and created a Bingo night. Indian gaming came in the
whole thing left the bingo game high and dry,..
Local was looking at insolvency.

We need to explore. Not just look to a pot of money.

Member: Verify salary freeze – YES, Officer’s salaries are frozen.
Members were not told that the building was being listed, nor that
A building search was already happening.

The mailing, the board paid $5,000 of our dues money to a pr firm to
design, And an additional 5-6 thousand to mail, had no balance at all.
Was a total sales pitch. The Overture that came out today didn’t have
ANY letters to the editor, Nothing from the members on the sale.

Said there should be a Motion to have voting cut off date of March 1st,
2016. According to the Secretary, they’d not received any comments
from members about the sale.

Member: In the budget are you including – realtor fee? It comes off the
24 million. Budget: Cannot estimate till the members say what they want.

OFFICER: Realtor has schooled the board on the cost of a renovation.
* Address of proposed new building – 1011 Alameda in Burbank*

A block away from Team music. Insistent on having totally union labor.
$120 per square foot to renovate, building is over 30,000. One-story building.
Can make it what we want. Surrounding ourselves with the best team out there.
Go by and check it out! Parking is 50 spots for employees, 120 in the front.
AAA and School will provide extra spaces on the weekend.

The realtor is a member of Local 47 member. Him being a musician is an asset.

Realtor donating back $100,000 of their fee. $50,000 to the relief fund and $50,000 to music performance trust fund.

Member: We don’t know enough. One information meeting is not enough. It’s just not enough. We live by feelings, we can’t live that way about real estate.

One property suggestion? Really? Need more. Ballot should be delayed by 60
days while we find out where the skeletons are buried.

Member: Who gets the commission, and is that a conflict of interest?
The procedure is tying the membership’s hands.

•Member: “What’s the sense of the room?. Of the folks who are here who wants a delay?” President won’t let a vote take place.

The president is eventually forced to allow a show of hands.
Vast majority of those in attendance support a delay in the referendum (Over 95%)*

Member: Thought it would be a debate,.. not a one sided presentation.
Want to hear both sides.

Member: 4 or 5 bids, highest of which one is 24 millions.
The PROJECTION is not accurate. We’re being asked to vote on a projection.
I see a lack of trust, didn’t give enough info, not allowing motions, only a show
of hands.

Want to know about rehearsal rooms. Get the info out and you might build
more trust.

Do not have an open-ended ballot, need a cut off date.
If we weren’t hurting, would we be asking to sell?
Officer: Absolutely. We’ve done our due diligence.

Member: Have you gotten a 2nd opinion?
Answer: We had four different real estate firms.
You still need to get more options.

Member: Is there an expiration date on the 24 mil offer?
Answer: No.
Was hoping presentation had more info, pictures of the neighborhood, SOMETHING. Should have had the meeting 6 months ago.

Member: I’m a realtor. Can understand this confusion. I’ve sold commercial, cathedrals.
1) Interest rates go up, sellers market will dry up.
2) Realtor has a good reputation
3) In my opinion, if you can sell for 24 mil, and buy for 10 and renovate for 3 million, move ahead now.
4) All these people are honorable.

•Member: Have total respect for all involved, but also lots of concerns. You’ve
spent months working on this when you SHOULD be working to improve our
work situation. Also, the contractor who did the auditorium rehab was non-
union. Why are we consulting the same company that used non-union on the auditorium?•
Answer: All companies give both union and non-union quotes.
Zip codes were used to chose a location? But how many of them are active musicians?
Need to do more research on locations.

Member: Am worried about the recording studio. WHY MAKE A STUDIO? $250,000 – $500,000 for board and nothing else…. Need more info and hard numbers.

Board Member: Whole board was put in by your votes. Everything is coming into place, time is now is valid. The Burbank building is our little gold mine. Prices for renovation could escalate. Send your proposals to the board. Timing is everything, and this is the time. The moment is valid.

Board Member: You elected us,… go forward. Four sets of realtors, talked to attorneys.
You want a budget… but we’ll present more at the next meeting. If you think starting voting 5 days is to soon, you might be right. Go ahead and let’s do it.

Member: In my retirement I had to look at a middle set of numbers, low sets of numbers and high sets of numbers. We need more and more info if you want an informed opinion.

Member: If there was not a height restriction here it could sell for far more.

Member: Musicians Club is in the black, can you separate it out.
Answer: Yes.
Club borrowed $584,000 from the Local for Rehearsal Rooms
and auditorium. How can you say we’re fine with a 584 thousand unsecured
loan on the books?
We need outside agency to do the counting.

Officer: 50-100,000 a year goes back to Local to pay back the loan.

Board Member: Have before us a unique opportunity. It’s about the relationship
of our musicians, finding new opportunities. Been a lot of effort and thought
put into trying to move this forward. It’s hard to see 14,000 members in 1950
but only 7,000 now.

We should have a building we have pride in. There are 1000’s of members that
are not here.

*Lease back option?: Realtor: We were told what you wanted to ask the buyers
to have a free lease back option for six months to give us time to renovate the
new building. If longer than 6 months, a small rent of $50,000 per month will
be asked for. There is a real estate attorney involved.•

Member: Don’t want an open ended ballot. Set a deadline 4 months. Count the
ballots, if they have the numbers have the vote. If not give it up.

Member: Deadline should be 4 to 6 months.

Member: Should set deadline to March 1st, 2016

Member: We need to get comfortable with the idea of leaving and selling.

Adjourned at 9:57

WE’RE BACK! SPECIAL COMMENT – share with all members
I. WHAT’S THE DEAL – BUILDING ALREADY LISTED!
II. MORE MEMBER COMMENTARIES – BUILDING SALE
III. LETTER SENT FROM THE FMA
IV. RECAP: A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY
V. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

==================================

SPECIAL COMMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE:

It seems the COMMITTEE haters have been working overtime, A few someones’
didn’t seem to want negative comments about the possible sale of the Local
47 building to get out to the membership. In the past 3 weeks there
has been a flurry of complaints trying to get the COMMITTEE site shut down, and
for a short while they succeeded, which is why the mailing is late. Mailings will return
in the next couple of days.

These recent actions, unfortunately make us even more suspicious of the building
sale attempt. Why does the Local, or someone at the Local, seem to want to
keep any negative comments from the membership? Who stands to make the
windfall here?

For those who don’t want to find out what the membership really thinks or wants
to stay ignorant of what’s going on, there’s a remove button on every mailing we
send. Please use it if that is the case, but don’t stay on the list then send complaints
trying to get it shut down and keep information from the membership. That is
simply pathetic and as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Please be there for the meeting on October 5th. Make sure the Local hears your voice.

===================================

I. WHAT’S THE DEAL?

Some days after it came to light that members knew of the listing, the main listing
of the Local 47 building being for sale was removed from the web, but a smaller
version of the listing is still available.

Also, note that it was listed in July! How could they do that without permission
from the membership?

Rather presumptuous.

Page 1: The date Listed is 07/07/15.  The address is 823 Vine Street.  Photo
of the building. Price upon request.
Page 2: APN Numbers

823 Vine 5533-030-026
817 Vine 5533030-022
830 Lillian Way 5533-030-007
812 Lillian Way 5533-030-010

Find the listing here (as of Sunday night, October 4th at 10:12 PM):
http://hyland301.rssing.com/chan-50425563/all_p1.html

————————————–

II. MORE BUILDING SALE COMMENTS

The Committee’s take on the proposed building sale I find to be
spot on. One should be dubious of any idea that has no specifics
and no research. My recommendation is to follow the money.
That will tell you the real reason for selling the property.

————————————–

Whitewash

Our union administration is putting the hard sell on getting rid of
our home for many years.

I’m not buying it.

Is the union administration really giving a fair hearing to the pluses
and minuses of this money grab ?

It’s all “our future” … in a trailer park.

What happened to the idea of putting up a parking structure and
renting it to the nearby studios that so want that space for parking.

Once we lose this centrally located area in the heart of Hollywood
it’s gone for good.

Burbank is just not centrally located.

Because of their antagonistic attitude towards our employers,
composers and agents, the work dues have dried up to the point
where they need to buy themselves a few more years for their
failed tactics. What happens after that ? What can we sell next ?

Several meetings ago our current rehearsal rooms were described
as state-of-the-art.

I suppose if you like rehearsing in a non-sound proofed trailer park
that might seem the case. Go take a look for yourself. Is that what
we have to look forward to while a few pocket the monies in this
transaction.

Our union leaders need to take a hard look at why we’re in this
situation and correct it and not buy us out of the situation that
they’ve gotten them into.

Transparency is not exactly our union’s strong suit.

This sale is going to fill the pockets of a few people, by the way
who is the realtor that’s handling this deal and are they handling
both the sale and the buying of the other property ?

Who gets the contract to bring in the portable house trailers
and smear some stucco on them so it appears like we have a building.

Don’t let the current administration continue it’s RMA led money
loosing policies by buying them a few more years and selling our
history in the process.

Will the rank-and-file have to pay for a room (trailer) for the RMA,
a group that does not represent the majority of us.

Sorry, I’m just not buying it.

You can see all comments on this post here:

WE’RE BACK! / THE DEAL / BUILDING / CLUB 47 / ANALYSIS / COMMENTS / EVENTS

[EC: JUST FYI, The Local is not in debt, They reportedly have
about $900,000 in the bank at this time.

Also, the 18 Million Dollar appraisal was gotten in 2008,
7 years ago, so it’s probably far more now.]

————————————————

I have heard that legally the members of Local 47 do not own the building
in Hollywood, so who does? And back when it was purchased, did members 
funds pay for it? Does anyone know who is listed as owner on the title deed
to the Local 47 building? If we don’t collectively own it, why are we voting to
determine whether it should be sold or not if we don’t legally have the
power to decide that?

[EC: These are all excellent questions for Monday night.

From what we know, the building is owned by Club 47, of which we are all
members. The club was created, for among other reasons, to keep the AFM
from taking the building should they want to take over the Local. We sense
an RMA role in that.

We too want to know who’s name is on the title.]

==========================================

III. LETTER SENT TO FMA MEMBERS

Dear Local #47 Members and FMA:
 
Subject: You decide: WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PROFIT FROM THE SALE
OF OUR LOCAL #47 BUILDING?!

Please read!! Be informed!!
 
As you most likely know, our Officers are holding a “Special Meeting”
to discuss:
“Selling our Local #47 property,” on this coming
Monday, Oct 5, 2015
6:30PM
Local #47 Auditorium

We are calling on ALL LOCAL #47 MEMBERS TO PLEASE ATTEND,
and BRING WITH YOU THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS:

1) Your signed Local #47 Membership application, no matter how old it is!!
Please look back thru your files and dig it out
2) Your accompanying signed Membership in “The Musicians Club,”
Which you also signed the “day of joining” Local #47.
 
Why:
-The “Musicians Club” was a legal instrument created in 1972, To prevent
the AFM Federation office from taking over our Local #47 offices.

Details:
This was during a turbulent time. Sadly, our then-sitting #47 President
was accused of illegally skimming monies from the Health & Welfare
fund for other uses. (a Federal offense.).
-“Certain Local #47 members” ascertained that the AFM could have
legally taken ownership of our Local #47 building.
-To prevent this, the “Musicians Club” was created.

THE MUSICIANS CLUB:
-Each “Musicians Club” member is also a Member of Local #47
-Each “Musicians Club” member is a “Co-Owner” of the property.
-Now, 40 years later, this “Musicians Club” legal document has
“Serious legal repercussions”
-regarding JOINT OWNERSHIP IN THE PROFITS FROM SALE OF OUR BUILDING!

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
-The original intent of the “Musicians Club” was to prevent the AFM
from taking over our building.
-However, in 1992, some of those same “Certain Local #47 members”
began to plan to sell the building.
-They realized that each “Member in good standing” of Local #47 stood
to share EQUALLY the profits.
-These “Certain members” arbitrarily CHANGED THE TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP
in the “Musicians Club.”
-Legally, each Member in good standing is a Co-owner of the property.
Legally, according to Real Estate Law, whenever terms of ownership are
changed, those desiring to make that change MUST NOTIFY ALL CO-
OWNERS in writing, and –

1) Be able to prove notification to all Co-owners, (usually by signed
CERTIFIED LETTER;)
2) Be able to prove that all Co-owners were given an opportunity to
vote as to how ownership was to be changed.
3) Provide the results IN WRITING of the change.
 
However, in the case of the Local #47 building:

1) The only “Notice” given to the Co-owners was a 1992 document,
AFTER THE FACT, stating the “arbitrary changes,” and sent by regular
US Mail.
2) THIS WAS ILLEGAL UNDER REAL ESTATE LAW!
3) Fellow members, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OUR BUILDING REAL ESTATE.

Please do the following:

1) If at all possible, come early to this meeting,
2. Hopefully armed with your “Musicians Club” document!
3. If you are a licensed Real Estate Attorney, please come
prepared to speak during Member comments:
-State the law as applying to this circumstance!
-Be aware that “Certain members” will attempt to prevent
any comment, “end discussion,” and “jump to a vote!”

Announcements are innocently stating that discussion will include:
-Selling our building
-“Reinvesting” some of the sale monies in a new building, and using
the balance for “Providing for future expenses”

While this is a worthy discussion,
-We must insist on FULL DISCLOSURE of our legal options under Real
Estate Law!
-Not simply allow the “Certain members” to dictate the outcome.
 
Please be there!
Please speak up!
 
Regards,
Lisa Haley
President,
Freelance Musicians Assn

[EC: A couple of small points:
1) We have been told repeatedly that
there will be NO VOTES taken at the meeting.
2) Unless they’ve pulled a fast one (or a curve), ALL
members in good standing, outside of inactive life
members and suspended members, are eligible
to vote in the referendum.]

 
======================================

IV. RECAP: A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY

It was always a rumor we heard since moving here that if the building were sold the
monies were supposed to be divided up between all the members of club 47, i.e.
members of Local 47.

In truth, according to our sources at the local, that is only true if the Local itself
is dissolved, not if the building is sold.

1972 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

Here is everything that is mentioned in the 1972 bylaws of Club 47 concerning
liquidation of Club Property:

—–

ARTICLE XI – DISSOLUTION

Section 1
This corporation cannot be dissolved as long as it has sixteen (16) members
or more, and then only by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of existing members.

Section 2
In case of Dissolution, any property or funds of this corporation (Club 47)
shall be given unconditionally to the Musicians’ Union, Local 47, American Federation
of Musicians, of Los Angeles, California.

—–

We do not know if the bylaws were adjusted between 1972 and 1992, but there are many
more details in the Bylaws amended in 1992.

According to our sources, the bylaws were amended in 1992 because of a conflict
between the bylaws and Franchise Tax Board rules.

—–

1992 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 2: Subject to Section 1, of Article IV, above, only the membership of this
corporation (Club 47) shall have the authority to authorize or approve the sale,
transfer or hypothecation of that real property, located at 817 North Vine St.,
Hollywood, California (Hereinafter “the property”), to which the Musician’s Club
currently holds title. Such authorization shall be obtained or granted only through
a mail referendum vote in which all members in good standing of the corporation
shall be entitled to vote.

Provided, however, that any such referendum to authorize the sale, transfer or
hypothecation of the property shall only be effective and binding upon the Corporation
should (1) 50% + 1 of the members on good standing of this corporation vote and (2)
of those 50% + 1 voting, a majority thereof vote in favor of approving, authorizing
or affirming any such proposed sale, transfer or hypothecation of the real property.

Provided, further, that only the Board of Directors of the Corporation, upon a duly
adopted resolution, may call for any such referendum through which the members
of this Corporation will be requested to approve and/or authorize the sale, transfer
or hypothecation o the real property.

Provided, further that notwithstanding Article XIV, Section 1, this Article IV, Section 2,
may only be amended if (1) 50% + 1 of the members in this Corporation cast a ballot
on the question of amending this Article IV, Section 2, and ; (2) of those 50% + 1
members who cast a ballot, a majority thereof vote to amend this Article IV, Section 2.

—–

That is the sum and total of the verbiage concerning the sale of the property in
the Club 47 bylaws, amended in 1992.

—–

We want to know more.
1) Who is the realtor for the Local?
2) Are they affiliated with the Local in any way shape or form? (They shouldn’t be.)
If the building sells for 18 million the realtor stands to make between 2% and 2.5% of the
sales price ($320,000 to 410,000 dollars) or even more if the percent has to be split
between two realtors.
3) Shouldn’t an independent arbiter tally the membership votes on this matter?
4) What specifically will the general membership get out of the sale?… and the huge profit
to be enjoyed by the local? (Free rehearsal rooms?; Free dues for members for some length
of time?)

What questions do you have? Are you pro or con.

Whatever comment you send to us, please make sure you send it to the Overture as
well, and specifically demand it’s printing in the next edition.

We deserve a much more far reaching and balanced discussion before our building goes
up for sale.

The recent attempt to shut down the committee mailings speaks volumes about agendas.

THE COMMITTEE

=========================================

VI. EVENTS

DEAN AND RICHARD

DEAN AND RICHARD are now playing every third Friday
at Culver City Elks 7:30pm-10;30pm,
11160 Washington Pl.
Culver City, 90232
310-839-8891

————————————-

LA WINDS JAZZ KATS 584

NO COVER, NO MINIMUM.
Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at Viva Cantina
7:30-10:00.
900 Riverside Drive, Burbank.

Free parking across the street at Pickwick Bowl.
Come hear your favorite charts played the way they
should be.

We are in the back room called the Trailside Room.

Come on down. Guaranteed to swing.

9/29/15
September 30
TBA

The “Corbin Lounge”
19616 Ventura Boulevard, Tarzana

Free Admission/ONE Drink Minimum
Persons under 21 years of age not admitted

—————

11/8/15
LISA HALEY AND THE ZYDECATS
SUN 11.8.15 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA – 2PM
AMERICANA VETERANS FESTIVAL at Lake Arrowhead Village

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MORE UPCOMING SHOWS
NOVEMBER
HUGE BUNCH more 2015 & 2016 Shows In the Works –
Everywhere! Canada, Europe, and Asia –
Come out and dance!!
CAJUN PROVERB OF THE MONTH: – “Go after what you love in life.
Don’t take no for an answer – just take the next small step!”

================================

You can read all previous offerings at:http://www.responsible47.com
UNTIL NEXT TIME,
THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47

WE’RE BACK! SPECIAL COMMENT – share with all members
I. WHAT’S THE DEAL – BUILDING ALREADY LISTED!
II. MEMBER COMMENTARIES – BUILDING SALE
III. A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY
IV. ANSWER TO CRITICAL ANALYSIS
V. COMMENTS
VI. EVENTS

…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
scoring musician
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician

Name Withheld

==================================

SPECIAL COMMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE:

It seems the COMMITTEE haters have been working overtime, A few someones’
didn’t seem to want negative comments about the possible sale of the Local
47 building to get out to the membership. In the past 3 weeks there
has been a flurry of complaints trying to get the COMMITTEE site shut down, and
for a short while they succeeded, which is why the mailing is late. Mailings will return
in the next couple of days.

These recent actions, unfortunately make us even more suspicious of the building
sale attempt. Why does the Local, or someone at the Local, seem to want to
keep any negative comments from the membership? Who stands to make the
windfall here?

For those who don’t want to find out what the membership really thinks or wants
to stay ignorant of what’s going on, there’s a remove button on every mailing we
send. Please use it if that is the case, but don’t stay on the list then send complaints
trying to get it shut down and keep information from the membership. That is
simply pathetic and as intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Please be there for the meeting on October 5th. Make sure the Local hears your voice.

===================================

I. WHAT’S THE DEAL?

We’re supposed to vote, yet the building is already listed?!

823 Vine St, Hollywood, CA, 90038 | Hilton & Hyland
www.hiltonhyland.com/real-estate/823-vine-st-hollywood-ca…/25346216
Jul 7, 2015 – For Sale · For Lease · International Listings · Featured Listings ·
New Listings · Recently …
823 Vine St, Hollywood, CA 90038 Price on request …
Home to the Musicians Club of Los Angeles and AFM Local 47,
and Ideally located …
The property occupies 4 separate APN numbers, 1.7 acres of land, a 48,496 …

Our source at the Local tells us they needed to list the building to get bids.
However, another source at the local tells us that they get regular offers to
buy the Local every year, from area studios that want to expand.

What if we vote no?  Any sale is contingent on the express
approval of the Musician’s Club stakeholders.

We’re also getting reports of employees being told to talk up the sale of
the building, whether they support it or not,… many don’t.

————————————–

II. BUILDING SALE COMMENTS

The pamphlet sent by the President gave his point of view only. The idea
of eligibility is absurd. If a member is in good standing he/she is eligible
to vote on this issue. There can only be one reason to demand “eligibility”
and that is to keep members from voting. The pamphlet gave no details
about how to become eligible indicating that October 1st was the cutoff
date for one to be eligible to vote. There was no information on how to
become eligible. It said that this information would be available on
the computer on the same day of the cutoff to apply for eligibility.

What does this mean?

We paid for the pamphlet which did not include other views. Now, we cannot
extend the date of eligibility and voting. The meeting is after this one-day
of eligibility. It will be too late for the Union paper to come out (after
the meeting) with different points of view.

It is a trick. We need more time.

When an “officer” was asked if he agreed with selling the building he said,
“we are all behind it.” We are told money will be more than enough to
cover moving. This is not clear. How much? Where is the prospectus?
We are being instructed to vote (if eligible) without knowing the circumstances.

There is no guarantee that there will be money saved. It is just a promise.
Politicians make promises. Will we give our building to a President as a gift?
A President and Board that is just passing through – who got less than
400 votes. Now they are hoping for a similar complacency from the members.

The reason to have a large number of members on the Board is to get
different ideas and points of view. They all agree with the President.

Some points to consider:
-Vote “no” if an issue is not clear. It is up to the presenter of an issue to
make it clear.
-Why would we vote in favor of officers who gave themselves a large raise
when the scales were not increased? They just took it without deserving it.
-Why is the President propagandizing us into selling our building? What is
the price? Where is the prospectus?
-Why is the President so ardent to take our building away from us?
-The only slim possibility that we can stop the President and his followers
from taking control of our possession (our building) is to become eligible;
otherwise he has us in a corner. We have not been informed how to do that.
– Keep what you have. It is a good building for our needs and, if kept, will be
ours long after the President and his followers are forgotten. Perhaps this
will teach us to have several candidates running for office to vote; as well as,
to have term limits for the Board members.

Some additional things to think about:
-Why must a member in good standing have to “become” eligible to vote
on keeping or selling his/her property? Why is this not explained?
-Why isn’t time being given to consider and discuss this issue before voting?
Why are we being rushed?

——————————–

MORE ON THE BUILDING SALE

The possible sale of the building is a feeble attempt to sell off our assets in a
failing business model environment – a true sign of a failing business. It’s move
to raise capitol by the sale of what isn’t nailed down.

I say take out an equity loan, put the money into revitalizing local 47 for whatever
it needs in the physical sense. In the marketing and business sense, take some
of the equity money and hire a team of Harvard MBA grads to be the “face” of our
local and Federation and have them learn our recording and live contracts and
negotiating business then send them out to get the people on the other side
of the table to “like us” in order for them to start hiring us again.

Also get those MBA folks to figure out what needs to change with our existing
recording contracts in order to entice new clients and past resistant clients
to hire us again…but at least get them to get “the other side” to start talking
to us again – the answers to runaway recording are complex but not unsolvable…

I’m sick of seeing LA based composers taking “selfies” in front of the Abbey
Road Studio door step.

—————————————–

Why is the election board counting the Votes. If this is going to be counted
by hand why do we not have a separate recognized body to administer the
count. This vote is to important for inside counting or go back to old reliable
which just be unreliable.

We need a separate intervening body to do the count. We won’t get a second
chance.

So far the union has already decided to sell because there is no mention of
an alternative being offered?

If union minds are made up to sell, have the votes already been counted
before the election?????

[EC: Frankly, In our view there are several folks on the election board
who we consider above reproach. We’ve gone back and forth on this, but
our feeling is having the election committee count the votes is a safer bet
than an outside company that might not recognize the games our election
board would, and those with integrity on the election board have the back
bone to keep the others in line if necessary.]

==========================================

III. A LITTLE CLUB 47 HISTORY

It was always a rumor we heard since moving here that if the building were sold the
monies were supposed to be divided up between all the members of club 47, i.e.
members of Local 47.

In truth, according to our sources at the local, that is only true if the Local itself
is dissolved, not if the building is sold.

1972 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

Here is everything that is mentioned in the 1972 bylaws of Club 47 concerning
liquidation of Club Property:

—–

ARTICLE XI – DISSOLUTION

Section 1
This corporation cannot be dissolved as long as it has sixteen (16) members
or more, and then only by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of existing members.

Section 2
In case of Dissolution, any property or funds of this corporation (Club 47)
shall be given unconditionally to the Musicians’ Union, Local 47, American Federation
of Musicians, of Los Angeles, California.

—–

We do not know if the bylaws were adjusted between 1972 and 1992, but there are many
more details in the Bylaws amended in 1992.

According to our sources, the bylaws were amended in 1992 because of a conflict
between the bylaws and Franchise Tax Board rules.

—–

1992 CLUB 47 BYLAWS

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 2: Subject to Section 1, of Article IV, above, only the membership of this
corporation (Club 47) shall have the authority to authorize or approve the sale,
transfer or hypothecation of that real property, located at 817 North Vine St.,
Hollywood, California (Hereinafter “the property”), to which the Musician’s Club
currently holds title. Such authorization shall be obtained or granted only through
a mail referendum vote in which all members in good standing of the corporation
shall be entitled to vote.

Provided, however, that any such referendum to authorize the sale, transfer or
hypothecation of the property shall only be effective and binding upon the Corporation
should (1) 50% + 1 of the members on good standing of this corporation vote and (2)
of those 50% + 1 voting, a majority thereof vote in favor of approving, authorizing
or affirming any such proposed sale, transfer or hypothecation of the real property.

Provided, further, that only the Board of Directors of the Corporation, upon a duly
adopted resolution, may call for any such referendum through which the members
of this Corporation will be requested to approve and/or authorize the sale, transfer
or hypothecation o the real property.

Provided, further that notwithstanding Article XIV, Section 1, this Article IV, Section 2,
may only be amended if (1) 50% + 1 of the members in this Corporation cast a ballot
on the question of amending this Article IV, Section 2, and ; (2) of those 50% + 1
members who cast a ballot, a majority thereof vote to amend this Article IV, Section 2.

—–

That is the sum and total of the verbiage concerning the sale of the property in
the Club 47 bylaws, amended in 1992.

—–

THE COMMITTEE’S TAKE

We find it disturbing and rather intellectually dishonest that the local put out basically
a RA-RA let’s sell mailing to every member without including dissenting voices.
These voices should have been included or at least printed in the next overture.

And now we find out it’s already listed for sale?

As you can read from these pages, there are many members not happy with this
situation, but these will only be seen by those who are online.

To us there are far too many unanswered questions;
The basic info we’ve gotten is this:
1) They expect to sell the property for Approx. 18 million
2) Some 8 or 9 million will be used to buy new facilities
3) That will leave Local 47 solvent for the foreseeable future.

We want to know more however.
1) Who is the realtor for the Local?
2) Are they affiliated with the Local in any way shape or form? (They shouldn’t be.)
If the building sells for 18 million the realtor stands to make between 2% and 2.5% of the
sales price ($320,000 to 410,000 dollars) or even more if the percent has to be split
between two realtors.
3) Shouldn’t an independent arbiter tally the membership votes on this matter?
4) What specifically will the general membership get out of the sale?… and the huge profit
to be enjoyed by the local? (Free rehearsal rooms?; Free dues for members for some length
of time?)
5) Can the sale of our building be tied to either a reduction in the officers’ salary or
prevention of automatic salary increased until or unless the fortunes of the Rank and
File members appreciably improve? Certainly, NO OTHER EMPLOYEES should be laid off
unless and until Officer’s salaries have been reduced.

What questions do you have? Are you pro or con.

Whatever comment you send to us, please make sure you send it to the Overture as
well, and specifically demand it’s printing in the next edition.

We deserve a much more far reaching and balanced discussion before our building goes
up for sale.

The recent attempt to shut down the committee mailings speaks volumes about agendas.

THE COMMITTEE

=====================================

IV. ANSWER TO CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Response to: Critical Analysis

Assumptions and unsupported Facts: Yada, Yada, Yada….
The only one who needs to receive facts is the State’s Attorney.

Many musicians made changes for the better others aim was for
their own personal financial gains that embodied self absorbed
diluted personalities. They were the ones who chose to stand
in the way of professional musicians using the union’s elected
officials authority to cut down musicians while employing the
union to hide behind there deeds.

This is not apathy. What you have chosen to grandstand shows
a great degree of naiveté of Democracy and the Federal Government
and it’s ineffectiveness in the L47 confine.

Many of the Presidents behaved to suit a relative few misaligning
Democracy from within 47 making sure to keep others out. Just
following orders.

If you really believe the union represents all professional musicians
and that Democracy has been administered then a rude awakening
awaits to the realities of how L47 has operated for at least the last
thirty years. Lets call it deceit and deception.

Could all this Democracy be a culmination of reasons why they are
now forced to sell the building???? Lets see how this one plays out.
Everyone will be watching. Lets see how far people will attempt to
go to bend and misalign your Democracy.

Name Withheld

============================

V. COMMENTS

“In so many societies the elite made decisions that were good for
themselves in the short run and ruined themselves and the societies
in the long run.”

Sound familiar?

=========================================
(more…)

I. OCTOBER 22nd SPECIAL ELECTION FOR SECRETARY TREASURER
DAVID SCHUBACH FOR SECRETARY-TREASURER!
II. BOARD CUTS ENTIRE ADVERTISING BUDGET FOR SELECT SERVICES
III. HEARD ABOUT THE RMA MEETINGS
IV. COMMENTS

Greetings Colleagues,

DON’T FORGET THE OCTOBER 22nd MEETING!

We have an update on the Local 47 “Scuttling” email. As you’ll remember,
the Local sent out an email on September 26th saying they had scuttled the
NES session. We now have confirmation that President Espinosa was sent an
email by the publisher of Film Music Magazine on Saturday, September 22nd
at 6:41p.m., informing him that the session did indeed happen, and asking for
his comment. This notice was also sent to John Acosta, Electronic Media
Services Director and the president of the RMA.

(more…)

I. VP VINCE TROMBETTA’S RECENT OVERTURE COLUMN
II. NEW AFM VIDEO GAME CONTRACT
III. REGARDING THE RECENT SIMPSON’S WALKOUT COSTING LA MUSICIANS TEN SESSIONS
IV. PASADENA POPS PICKETING THIS PAST WEEKEND
V. A MESSAGE TO PMG MEMBERS
VI. ASMAC MASTERCLASS WITH RUSS GARCIA
VII. READER’S COMMENTS

I. VP VINCE TROMBETTA’S RECENT OVERTURE COLUMN

Did you read Vice-President Vince Trombetta’s latest Overture article?

Vice-President Vince Trombetta used the pages of our Local’s newspaper, the
Overture, to launch thinly-veiled attacks not only on a Local 47 delegate to
the national convention, but also fellow members who cared enough about the
future of our federation that they spent their own money to attend the convention
for a week to witness the democratic process at work.

GOOSE IS COOKED

(more…)