Archive for November, 2015


Sunday, November 29th, 2015


…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



Have you gotten multiple calls encouraging you to vote yes
and send in your ballot?

If you’ve said you won’t vote until you have more information and are told,
“Notice of intent to sell the #47 property was posted in February 2015.”
Please keep in mind that…

There was no such notice in February. The Board for the Club voted 
…to initiate the process of selling the Local 47 property through mail
referendum.” on 2/17/2015. Very poorly worded motion, but apparently
that’s when it started. An entry in meeting minutes does not constitute
notice to members.

More rat spit from the local.

Furthermore, the local stopped printing meeting minutes in the Overture.
If you want to review the minutes you need to go to the members only
area of the website. So what it comes down to is that members had no
notice or confirmation about selling the properties until September of
this year.

There really is a pattern developing on all of this, and it goes way
beyond ambiguity.

“If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.”
Joseph Goebbels



Do you need more proof that the Ballot is a fiction? A fix? More proof that
regardless of whether you vote yes or no they can use it as a yes vote?

It’s easy to verify.

Here is the original question:

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?

If you remove the Address you get this:

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles (”the Club”) be
authorized to sell the Club’s real property for not less than Twenty Two Million
Dollars ($22,000,000) to the successful highest bidder?

See it?

EITHER a Yes or No answer can be used to sell the building, only the
price point changes.

Yes means yes, NO means yes. The membership is being played.

They don’t even have to open up the ballots, only count them en mass.

As we said before, the problem may not have been intentional, but the
Local has refused to fix the problem at every turn.

We also understand that 1000 more ballots had to be ordered. Did they
change the wording? Any bets?

Don’t be played, DON’T send in your ballot. If they wanted this to be
an honest referendum they could have made sure yes means yes, and
no means no, but they’re trying to hoodwink the membership and
guarantee their salaries for the next decade without having to be
accountable for the gutting of our Local’s (and national AFM Recording)
work by their genuflecting and cowering to the RMA.

The board has had every chance to recall and fix the ballot, but have
fought efforts to make them do so. If they wanted an honest choice,
they wouldn’t fight giving the membership one.

That should tell you everything you need to know.

A new twist…. We’ve gotten word from several members who’ve received
repeated calls urging them to vote for the sale, that they are now being told
by the caller that, “If we can sell the building, we can use some of the money
to sue companies to get more work.”

Anyone who’s been around knows that most or all of the work gotten
by lawsuits would go the the RMA chosen and do virtually nothing for
the rank and file.

NEW Buyout contracts for many things the AFM doesn’t allow is the answer.





Sunday, November 22nd, 2015


…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





Please find attached the Letter of Concern that was mailed
to various heritage, press, internal, and government agencies.
I have removed all the CCs so as not to put that on the public site.

Thanks for posting.


Re: Proposed sale of Musicians Union/Musicians Club building and
property – Vine Street and Lillian Way, Hollywood, CA 90038


This letter is being written to communicate to those interested parties of
clear opposition to the decision of the Executive Board of the Musicians
Club/Local 47 to sell the real estate property owned in Hollywood, CA.
Approval of the sale must be obtained from the membership by

Contrary to the proposal of the elected officials, there is deep concern
among the rank-and-file that

1) the membership strongly disagree with the sale of the union hall,
which is a Hollywood “mid-century” landmark and our historic home;


2) the membership has been systematically kept from engaging in
regular membership meetings where concrete action might be taken;


3) the timeline for the process of the sale of the properties has been
manipulated to frustrate any debate;


4) the Local 47 officers, who have been working towards the sale of this
real estate for six months before making the membership aware of the
proposal, are now using every tool at their disposal, including the official
newspaper, phone banks and staff personnel, to influence the outcome of
the vote on the issue.

Simply put, there is a consensus outside the administration by the few
who have been able to engage in discourse, that the elected officers are
seeking a quick fix to a long term problem, i.e. the decrease in revenue
to the local. Simply put, we are being hustled and muscled out of our
historic home without consideration of alternatives to being divested of a
wholly owned facility.

The Executive Board has controlled the timeline regarding communication
to the membership and made it impossible to have had any on-the
record dissent until after the ballots were sent out. The membership-at
large has had only what the administration has touted via a Special
Edition of the Overture. a brochure/flyer telling us what we might get if
we agree to sell.

The facts are as follows:

The property was found listed for sale as of July 7, 2015.

The required formal resolution to seek sale of the property by the
Musician’s Club was made August 11, 2015

Special Edition of the Overture promotional flyer/brochure was mailed
early September 2015. It contained an announcement of an
“informational meeting” on October 5th with the referendum ballots
to be sent October 9, 2015.

On October 2, 2015 an email notice was sent to members informing
us that no votes would be taken at the “informational meeting.”

The “informational meeting” identified as a Q and A was held October 5,
2015. We were reminded that no votes would be taken. There were
approximately 120 in attendance. A power point presentation was made
including that an offer of 24 Million dollars for our four parcels had been
received. A straw pole was held overwhelming indicating to the Executive
Board that more information was required and that the balloting should
be postponed.

The Local held two Q and A lunches the following two Tuesdays, October
12 and October 20. About 20 persons were at these luncheon events
including a quorum of the Executive Board and realtors. While, it was
acknowledged that the members in attendance did express valid
concerns, President Acosta told those present that the Executive Board
“sees no negatives” in the sale of the property.

Ballots were mailed several days before our quarterly General
Membership Meeting of October 26, 2015.

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, (LMRDA) provides

standards for union member participation in their governance.
Bill of Rights
(29 U.S.C. 411)
SEC. 101. (a)(1) EQUAL RIGHTS.– Every member of a labor organization
shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to
nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor
organization, to attend membership meetings and to participate in the
deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to
reasonable rules and regulations in such organization’s constitution and
These rights and privileges have also been held to include that the
membership have a “meaningful vote”. It appears that the administration
of the Local has made it impossible for alternative views to be shared
by the membership- at- large.

The mailing of the ballots prior to any on-the-record discourse was
followed by the immediate implementation of phone-banking to get
members to return their ballots and vote yes. The administration of Local
47 has not allowed for alternative voices to mount valid counter

Also, an independent internet blog, that has followed our internal union
issues for a decade and the ONLY SOURCE of unfiltered communication

(a place where members could post anonymously avoiding reprisal ) went
down only days after posting member comments in reaction to the initial
promotional mailing. Currently the website is up but the ability to send
updates to subscribers is not.

Additionally, we are concerned about the validity of the ballot process.
We are told that the mail-in ballots will be collected as they come in and
stored in our Secretary -Treasures office. Ballots are then to be counted
by our Local 47 Election Board and designees. Generally our Election
Board only counts those votes taken at membership meetings, not the
minimum 3000 plus ballots that will be needed to be counted for this
referendum. Given the magnitude of this referendum-a 24 Million dollar
transaction- certainly the voting membership deserve the services of a
professional election company. This is how we conduct our biennial
elections where no tangible assets are involved.

The Executive Board of the Musician’s Club is also the Executive Board
of Local 47, AFM. We were told that this is not unusual in the case of
a 501 (c) (2).

However, the Local used the Club as a shield to keep the membership
from taking control of this ill advised proposal. We believe that the
historical lack of virtually any corporate formalities by the Club and the
exchange of monies without interest between the two entities provides
the Attorney General power to disregard this artificial barrier.

Indeed, since 2008, the 990 Form filed by the Musician’s Club has
reported a large loan and subsequent larger added sum by Local 47
as a secured note owed to an unrelated third party. This is not the
case. It is an unsecured note owed to a related third party. Musicians
Club/ Local 47.

Between 2005 and 2009, nearly one million dollars was used to build
rehearsal rooms and refurbish our auditorium. Both of these projects
went far over the initial budget estimates. Why would the administration
have committed to such a large capital investment when it was clear that
revenue was on the decline? Was this a way to intentionally spend down
cash reserves in order to try and justify what they are doing now? On the
other hand, the administration made a million dollar building
improvement to upgrade the union hall for the benefit of future
generations. Absent gross negligence, this would not have been done if
the union was in financial trouble.

As stakeholders in this property, we have requested a halt of this
referendum until the rank-and-file has been given reasonable forum for
on-the-record input, including a substantial amount of time to consider
this momentous event, plus full disclosure of the administration’s efforts
toward the sale, and, if it comes to a vote, an independent agency to
verify and count the ballots.



As most of you know, another RA-RA sales pitch has gone
out from the Local spending our dues to push the building

And once again there are no dissenting voices included,
though dues money from all of us is being used to pay for it.

The misinformation has become laughable, so we thought
we’d provide you with some facts.

The recent mailing proudly lists the Building Committee as
Mike Barone, Michael Davis, Lisa Haley, Allen Fogle,
and Jon Papenbrook.

Only problem is there have been no meetings of the
building committee, so it’s not even active yet, the
folks names are being used in the sales pitch though.
We don’t even know if those on the committee actually
support the sale.


Qoute from the pitch –
“sell the aging Vine Street property so we are able
to move into new state of the art facilities.”

That NEW STATE OF THE ART building is 47
years old, has been sitting empty for 7 years, and
on the market for 2 years. And it is in a pretty
sorry state if you’ve taken a look.


The Local has ZERO debt. It has approx. $975,000 in CDs,
invested in multiple places. The Local has always had
enough money to pay CASH for all of the repairs or
improvements and even new buildings, i.e. the rehearsal

The Local has spent over a million dollars on the property
in the last few years. The rehearsal building was $530,000.
The auditorium remodel was $360,000. The remodeling on
behalf of the Federation west coast offices moving in was
around $100,000.

A new chiller for the bulk of the AC for the building was
$65,000. The Club “CLUB 47” generates income – $290,000
in 2014. The property tax gets paid, some money gets paid
to the local on the two loans for the rehearsal building and the
auditorium remodel, and barring any other major expenses for
the building, the rest gets turned over to the local. That is in
the club bylaws.

So the idea that the Local can not afford a new roof at this
point is really not true. They will likely end this year in the
black as they have laid off at least four employees in the last
few years, have not replaced our computer system admin,
Candi, who sadly passed away.

They have almost undoubtedly cut legal expenses- I think
in 2013 they spent well over $200,000 of the members
money on that- so the desire and rush to sell 817 Vine
has to be about something else.

Not because they can’t figure out a way to pay for the roof.
In late 2012 and the first half of 2013 they came up with
$460,000 to pay the federation back work dues that the Local
owed them. They will take in at least 4 million this year in
dues; they have shrunk the staff and have hopefully curbed
excess spending on lawyers- but they still want at least 10
million dollars….!


[Are they finally admitting that the VOTE is a fraud after all?]


2) I just got off the phone with employee ——- ——-
from 47 asking that if you received the ballot to mail it back.

They have the union employees on a phone bank again.

He referred to it as to sell the union and purchase
the property. Interesting.

Not whether to vote to sell or not, just to sell the

If I understand correctly why do they feel 47 need to make
the call for “YES” or “NO” when they are counting
on receiving enough combined ballots to qualify to allow them to
sell one way or the other, if I understand this correctly.

If they don’t get enough yes or no ballots combined they
can’t do anything. Which I believe is the best response to
this problem.

By not mailing the ballot back it becomes a “mutt” subject.
And I do mean a mutt subject!

Hang on to your wallets. The next sound you hear is your
union at work liquidating your Club 47 dollars for their

They are using Club 47 as if it was theirs to do what they
please under the provisions of the Club.

[From a COMMITTEE member: I think this voter is correct,…
just don’t send back your ballot.

The Local just sent yet another mailer…postcard that has
several members photos on it saying.. “we all agree”…
yada yada.

Again, totally one sided mailing, not including dissenting voices.
Using our dues in a totally one-sided campaign.

So far, they obviously don’t have the ballots they need even
to make the referendum viable.

The administration does not have a Plan B to the failure of the sale
of Vine. A sale that would generate a large pot of money to continue
doing business as usual.

We, the membership can!]



Congratulations to those who got the union to have another meeting
regarding the sale of 47’s property. Although many of us are against
this for multiple reasons, it is hard to speak up in fear of future
repercussions from our union officers who are putting on the hard
sell on this and whom we all know do not treat everyone equally.

Maybe the union officers should be recused from this meeting
so the membership can speak freely.



does this move secure the future of the membership? The only
member revenues into the local are regular dues and work dues
paid under a CBA. I haven’t heard anything of substance that
tells us that the Local, (no matter where they re-locate) has a
concrete plan to raise this revenue.

Even with the promise of the significantly increased property
tax being paid by our inherited restaurants businesses…does
anyone think this is a good investment strategy?

How long will the left over money last? Oh…yes! We are told
the administration will invest the monies not sucked up by
a relocation to secure …whose future?

One of our colleagues said it best…” You can’t let them sell….
in 10 years there will be no music business…but the building
will be worth 50 million dollars!”


Did you get the new sales pitch postcard form the Local?
President Acosta talks about fixing financial imbalances.
Why doesn’t he get specific?

Contractors, players and clients agree. The RMA has destroyed
this locals and the afms finances. get them removed from
contract negotiation. Remove them form any role that can affect
our getting work back.




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



Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at Viva Cantina
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.



Every FIRST & THIRD WEDNESDAY at 12:10-12:40 pm

On Wednesday DECEMBER 2, 2015 at 12:10-12:40 pm
DON RADER – Trumpet
GARY SOLT – Guitar
Interesting interview with Don Rader:


(Please note!!) NEW LOCATION:
610 E. California Ave. (at Isabel)
Glendale CA 91206
818 244-7241
Map & venue info
More info email [email protected]
UPCOMING CONCERTS in the same series:
(every FIRST & THIRD WEDNESDAY at 12:10-12:40 pm;
programs subject to change)

DECEMBER 16, 2015
Catherine Del Russo -oboe
Mark Robson – piano

JANUARY 6, 2016
ALBERTO GINASTERA (Celebrating Ginastera’s Centenary!)
Pampeana No.1, Op.16 (1947)
Violin Sonata No.3 in D minor, op.108
Jacqueline Suzuki – violin
Rosa LoGiudice – piano

JANUARY 20, 2016
Michael Vlatkovich – trombone
Willian Roper – tuba





San Fernando Valley Symphony Orchestra
James Domine, Music Director, Presents in Concert
Saturday Evening, November 28, 2015, 7:30 PM
Janet & Ray Scherr Forum Theatre
Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza


MTAC Concerto Competition Winners:

Saint-Saens Cello Concerto in A minor (excerpts)
Aliya Hunter, cellist

Elgar Cello Concerto in E minor, 1st movement
Isaac Yun, cellist

Liszt Piano Concerto in E-flat major, 1st movement
Devon Valdez, pianist

Tickets are available on the website:
At the Theater Box Office
By calling (818) 347- 4807




Opening Concert
Openings and Breakthroughs

We open our 2015-16 Season Saturday., December 5, 2015, 8:00PM
Veterans Memorial Auditorium, 4117 Overland Ave. and Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90230. Free parking, entrances from Culver Blvd.

To mark our return to Culver City, we present our largest orchestra
of the season with Frank Fetta and a thrilling young musician,
Alexander Agate.

We are back after another “Best of the Westside 2015,”
The Argonaut, while in Marina del Rey.
A perfect musical start to the holiday season.

Each work on the concert was a breakthrough for the composer in
maturity-Prokofiev, artistically-Tchaikovsky, or led to greater

These breakthroughs led to openings and advancement in the
composers’ musical lives. LINK

This concert is under the direction Conductor/Music Director-Frank Fetta.

This performance is made possible in part by a
Grant from Los Angeles County Arts Commission.

PROGRAM, December 5, 2015

Openings and Breakthroughs

Engelbert Humperdink: Overture from “Hansel und Gretel” (1893)

Serge Prokofiev: Piano Concerto, No. 1 (1911-12)
Alexander Agate-Piano, Young Adult Division Winner,
Parness Concerto Competition-2014

Pyotr Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 4 (1878)

Admission Charge

$10: GEN ADMN. At Veterans Memorial Auditorium the evening
of the performance and on-line: TICKETS LINK

$5: 13-17 years of age and under.
Box Office the evening of the performance.

Free: Ages 6-12, when accompanied by an adult.

The Box Office opens at 7:00PM the evening of the concert.

Members of SoCal Symphony Society receive two free tickets to the Dec.
5, 2015, Jan. 30, 2016 and Apr. 2, 2016, concerts, available at the box
office the evening of the concert. You can purchase your membership
now, through this e-mail, see below, at the concert, or on our website:


Your membership is part of the music making. Please support
Classical Music, CCSO and support your musical and social life.

Matthew Hetz, President and Executive Director
Culver City Symphony Orchestra
SoCal Symphony Society
[email protected]




Please Join in the Holiday Spirit with old and new friends.

Mingle and Sing-A-Long with the ASMAC Holiday Voices
(a 14 piece choral group directed by Sally Stevens & Ian Freebairn Smith)
and shop early for the holidays.

No-host cocktails, silent auction, raffle, gourmet buffet brunch, and entertainment.

Sunday, Dec. 6, 2015 – 11:30am.
ASMAC / LA Jazz Society Holiday Brunch
At Catalina’s Jazz Club – Hollywood

Guests $60 each
LAJS members $50 each (maximum 2)
ASMAC members $50 each (maximum 2)
Entertainment & Dessert only – check-in at 1pm – $20 each

For more information please call 818.994.4661


You can read all previous offerings at:


Sunday, November 15th, 2015


…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



One week and a day after the October 26th General Membership
Meeting, members presented the Local with the formal
request for a special Club 47 meeting to discuss and vote
on three different motions.

Here is what the request said:


As provided in Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Musicians’ Club of Los Angeles
(“CLUB 47”), this is a formal request for a special meeting
of CLUB 47 to discuss and vote on the three motions below:

1) Nullify the ballots previously sent in order to clarify and
complete the proper language before a new ballot with
the following question is sent:

Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real properties. –
located at 817/823 Vine and 812/830 Lillian Way, Hollywood,
CA 90038.

2) Postpone the sale of the property located at 817/823
Vine and 812/830 Lillian Way, Hollywood, CA 90038 until
such time that the membership has been fully informed,
through a special edition of the Overture, of all financials
involved, including but notlimited to:
(For Local 47 and Club 47, whichever applies)
-2015 operational budget
-2016 comprehensive balanced operational budget
-Cash flow statements for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (estimate)
-Capital Expenditures for 2016 without moving
-Current balance sheet
-Capital Expenditures for 2016 for Burbank property
-Sales commission rate for sale of the building
-An explanation on how the sale of the building will increase
work for members
-A definition of “State of the Art”
-A business plan for the sale of the building.

3) Require Local 47/Club 47 (Whichever Applies) to
include membership comments and arguments (pro
and con) regarding the proposed sale and relocation
of the Local. Communications received by the Local
and/or Club 47 to be posted upon receipt to Local 47’s
website and reprinted in the next quarterly publication
of the Overture.

In consideration of the schedules of the executive board,
we call for this meeting to take place at 1pm, Tuesday,
November 24 in studio room 6, or the auditorium if available,
of Local 47.

In addition to the notice requirements set forth in Article
V, Section 4 of the Club 47 Bylaws, we also call for notice
to go out to all members with email, in a print mailing and
announced in the online and next print edition (January,
2016) of the Overture.

Below you will find at the least 10 signatures required to
formally make this request….

There were plenty of signatures to submit the request.



On about Thursday, November 13th, the board respond
to those who’d signed the petition to get the special meeting.

The letter is as follows:

At its November 10th meeting the board of directors of the
Musicians’ Club of Los Angeles discussed the petition to hold
a Special meeting of the Club. According to the California
Corporation Code, the meeting must be held on a date that
is at least 35 days but no more than 90 days form the date the
request for a meeting was received. The request was received
on November 3rd, so the meeting must be held between
December 8, 2015 and February 1, 2016.
Based on the officers schedules and the availability of the
auditorium, the Board decided on Monday January 4, 2016
at 7:30 PM in p.m. in the auditorium as the time and place the
meeting will take place.

The meeting is called to discuss the potential sale of the property
at 817 Vine Street and other topic may be introduced. Also,
please be advised that Motion #1 on the petition will be ruled
pit opt order and will not be considered at the meeting. If you
have any questions please call the Secretary/Treasurer’s office
at 323-993-3159.

Sincerely on behalf of the Local 47 Executive Board in their
capacity as Board of Directors of the Musicians’ club of Los Angeles.



There was no such restriction of subject matter mentioned by the
parliamentarian when he explained that in the request for a special
meeting, only the subjects to be covered need to be listed in
detail and there needed to be at least 10 signatures attached.

So they’re saying they won’t talk about the ballots…. Why is that?
Is the fix in and they don’t want it blown?

The meeting time restriction mentioned in the Local’s letter is
from Section 601,(2)(c) of the Corporation Code. This takes us
less than a month from the ballot deadline.

If they’re able to get away with this, it works out very well for them.


They can continue to use the duplicitous ballots as they wish,
assigning no votes to yes votes, and if it works in their favor,
delay the sale, which will basically give them more time to
get the votes they need. They and the counsel thought this out
in great detail to thwart any attempt to slow down the sale or
hold anyone accountable for the underhanded way this process
has been handled.

There is at least one thing that, sadly, had been made clear.
Since the board voted to not allow the ballot to be considered,
it’s clear, at least to us, that the entirety of the board is complicit
in the misrepresentation of the ballots structure.

In fact, it couldn’t be more disingenuous a process.

In Member Fernandez’ reply to the board, (From the last edition of the
blog) he asked straight out, “Can voting no on the ballot be used as a
yes vote”.

He never received an answer, which means, unless they choose to
clarify it, we have our answer.

As members of this Local you should be disgusted and angry
at the conduct and deplorable treatment of the membership
by the representatives at the Local.

Please plan to be at this meeting, January 4th at the Local at
7:30 pm. Someone’s got some s’plaining to do.




Drove by the proposed future [Potential] property tonight.
I counted (twice) the total parking places- I got 78 spots,
including handicapped and the spots in front of the
restaurant building.

Seems like John mentioned at least 150 at the last meeting.
I could not find a secondary lot- seems like a mystery-
when I counted spots at 47 a few years back, I got 112.

Also, my research shows the Burbank property was built in
1968. That makes the building, ironically, 47 years old.
So why do the the officers keep calling it a brand new building?
It’s been empty for seven years, on the market for two.

People have been asking me how to vote – I have been asking
them this question: do you trust the union (officers) with
10 or 11 million dollars of our money? So far the answer
has been- no…. 

Every time.

I should amend the question to: do you trust the union
with 24 million dollars of our money?
I have been out to the “new” building twice. There are no 150
spaces, unless you count the parking that belongs to AAA or
the shopping center across the street.



I went on Google earth, it looks like there is an additional
lot in the back accessible from an alley in the rear of the
property. Looks like 44 spaces. That would total 125.
About 13 spaces more than the current property.

Ironically, 44 spaces is the same size as the lot we sold
to Renmar Studios years ago at 802 and 806 Lillian Way
(I think those are the correct addresses). Okay, I hope
everyone is doing something more fascinating than
researching parking spots on this nice Sunday eve…..



Remarkable issues here. I’m very satisfied to look
your post. Thanks a lot and I am having a look forward
to contact you.


Please tell us more about this RMA lawsuit.

[EC: We believe the person who wrote the comment is
referring to the lawsuits against the studios for
the benefit of the RMALA members still working.

It doesn’t change the fact that they are fighting to
the last drop of OUR Blood.

As we’ve said before, the Local is not getting to the crux
of the problem of our finances. We’ve lost over 80% of
our recording work because of the continued acquiescence
of our local and the AFM to the wishes of the RMA and the
willingness of a small handful of musicians in the RMA
to see everyone else suffer to protect their July checks.

How hard is it for them to understand that even if buyouts
started tomorrow it would have no effect on the work they’ve
already done!

Here’s what we need to do:
BUYOUT Trailer Contract.
BUYOUT Library Contract.
BUYOUT Sample Contract.
BUYOUT Video Game Contract.
BUYOUT Low Budget Film contract.

There are sessions in town everyday that are dark, A whole lot
of them. If they could be brought in under a buyout agreement
the dues they generate could do much to solving a problem
that is entirely solvable, and entirely created by a combination
of technology and the greed of a few, but that solution cannot
take place until those thwarting progress are out of the way.]


I was just about to vote on the “should we sell the building referendum”
when I realized there was the possibility that two measures had been
combined into one.  In other words, you could vote “no” on the
initiative as phrased and it could possibly be construed that you
were voting for selling the building but at a price below 22 million.

In other words, you weren’t necessarily voting against the sale, you
just didn’t want a minimum. I’d prefer the ballot have two questions:
should we sell the building (yes or no) and if the majority vote of the
membership is to sell the building, shall the minimum bid be 22
million (yes or no).

Takes away the ambiguity and this is too vital an issue to have any
room for misinterpretation.

[EC: We couldn’t agree more, and is the crux of the problem we’ve
been talking about.]


Where do you go after getting a creative writing degree?

[EC: Depends on the section you’re referring to.
Over the last number of years we’ve had so many contributors
that the COMMITTEE has had to write very little. And when we
do the COMMITTEE moniker is included.]


how appropriate it is for the Local to use it’s resources to effect this
referendum and a YES vote. I wonder if the members realize how
much of their dues money is going to fund the campaign to convince
them to sell their property- and how our employees are working the


There is certainly a great deal to know about this subject.

I really like all the points you’ve made.

My take on the “Time is NOW” campaign is that the 47 board
wants our MONEY. They have publicly stated that the Alameda
property may not be their final choice – after members termed
the Alameda building a “strip mall”. Now I hear they are looking
at North Hollywood.

The state of the art recording studio is probably a dream of the
past, after members asked: how much?. A new building committee
was named after members showed some lack of trust of the board
– club 47 or regular 47, depending on what hat they are wearing
at that particular meeting.

Historical fact- the 1950 building committee for our present building
had 43 members- that would be NOT ACCEPTABLE for the present
board. The entire plan to sell seems centered on “Let’s get the
18, no 22; wait 24 MILLION dollars and then we will rationalize
why the members need a new location.”

The entire affair is driven by 12 people, elected by fewer than
400 members on the last election. And since the board spent
over 700 grand more than they took in in the last 2 years, giving
them access to millions just feels CRAZY.

I think the Time Now is to really ask why they need so much money,
it’s not about a building.

[EC: Small point – But the next time one of the board members
says. “You elected us”, please remind them that most of them
ran unopposed.]



Sunday, November 8th, 2015


…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



Hey Committee,

After speaking with an employee at the musicians union
local 47, I learn that John Acosta has asked this
employee to cold call their union member friends
in a phone tree manner. He told this person to chat
for a minute then urge them to vote “yes” on the

During business hours from the union by the way.
He is their boss telling them to do this.
Tough position to be in as an employee.
This all looks very unethical to me.

Name withheld



What is L47 covering up by not being transparent?

Is the Union a separate entity and members are not provided
with all the information on how unions function independently
to membership?

Once officials are elected does that change there status, still
working on behalf of the musicians except they are now
“THE UNION” working for the union first before the musicians?

Are we not being presented with the facts and are lead to
believe the union is something that is not?

Are we rallying around this entity expecting that are dues are
really representing us while the union independently does
what is wants provided counsel is part of the equation?

Would the  L47 president like to address this issue so the
remaining 7000 members know where we all stand?

All as union dues paying members have placed are profession
on the expectation of what we are being lead to believe that
the local may not represent what they have lead us to believe?

Come out of the shadows and set the membership straight
or maybe we should all think about the real value of L47?

We have been mislead for so many years only to be
confronted with this seemingly short notice that the
union building is doomed by the incapacity for the
board to do its job. They have no problem spending
money and receiving salaries in the past 20 years but
failed to maintain a cash flow to sustain the union.
They saw the work slow down. What did they do to
create new income in addition to work dues?

They have kept most of the 7000 in the Dark and
barely informed to offer suggestions to sustain the local.

The ones who were given the inside information had
planned almost 20 years ago to sell the union. This
event is no surprise. This have given them the impetus
to do so.

Special interests want their hands on the balance of
the money after the sale. Voting yes allows them to
access it. Then, just say BYE BYE folks!

Who are they kidding?

[EC: There has been much talk from members demanding
that the money from the sale, if it happens, will be
overseen and controlled, not allowing it to be squandered
or spirited away. With the scrutiny the Local is experiencing,
We’d be surprised if someone tried it.]




The Local recently hired BRIDGESTREET INC., a consulting company in LA,
to help them with the campaign to sell the property. They paid $5,000
to the firm, owned by Martin Ludlow.

I am forwarding a bit of info about Ludlow in two emails that were sent
me. Bridgestreet Inc has a rather small footprint on the web, so I dug up
some stuff on Ludlow, a former city councilman.

Also a certain violinistperforming at the Greek with “The Symphony in the
Glen” told me the contractor announced that three 47 board members
were there and would stay till the break so they could speak about the
“Time is Now” campaign to members of the orch.

I guess Acosta is mobilizing the troops.

The hiring of Ludlow is pretty questionable once you read the
article below, especially the part where he throws the union
person under the bus to avoid jail time.



Ex-Councilman Gets 5 Years’ Probation
June 06, 2006|Patrick McGreevy | Times Staff Writer

A federal judge sentenced former Los Angeles City Councilman
Martin Ludlow on Monday to five years’ probation and 2,000
hours of community service, and ordered him to return $36,400
diverted from a school employees union to his 2003 election campaign.

The sentence by U.S. District Judge Manuel Real followed Ludlow’s
recent guilty plea to a charge of conspiring to embezzle union funds.
In hopes of avoiding jail, Ludlow agreed to cooperate with authorities
in the federal prosecution of Janett Humphries, the former head of
Service Employees International Union Local 99, who is accused
of working with Ludlow to divert the funds.

The sentence also bars Ludlow from serving in a leadership position
with a union for 13 years.

Ludlow, who resigned from the council last summer to serve as executive
secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor,
has been cooperative in an ongoing investigation of union finances,
said Assistant U.S. Atty. Craig H. Missakian.

“I think it’s a fair sentence given the fact that Mr. Ludlow stepped
up early and did the right thing and took complete responsibility,”
Missakian said.

In addition to the federal sentence, Ludlow previously was fined
$105,000 by the Los Angeles Ethics Commission for violating city
campaign finance laws. He recently also was sentenced to three years’
probation and ordered to pay $45,000 in fines and penalties by a state
court for violating state laws in the scheme.

Outside the courthouse, the former councilman said he was putting
his life back on track.

“I’m looking very much forward to getting this behind me and my
family, and continuing to be a positive person in the community
and a contributing member of society,” Ludlow said.

[EC: This certainly won’t help to dissuade the suspicions many
members have of the whole “sell the building” deal and who stands
to profit.

If members of the board are going around to sell orchestras on the
sale, it’s more important than ever that members send the link
for the committee to every member they know. Please help spread
the word. The members need to know the Pros AND Cons.]


IV. NASHVILLE’S MUSIC ROW taps into the Force of video game scores

Oct 26, 2015, 2:41pm CDT
Eleanor Kennedy Staff Reporter Nashville Business Journal
Bizspace Spotlight
Sponsor Listing
Property Spotlight: Fifth Third Center
See All Bizspace Properties

You know what they say: There’s more to Nashville than just country.
That’s definitely true when it comes to the scores being recorded at
Ocean Way Nashville Recording Studios and other local spots,
providing the backing for EA Games’ titles like “Dragon Age:
Inquisition,” “Madden 16,” “FIFA 16” and more.

“I left Nashville very reluctantly in 2000 to move to Los Angeles,”
said Steve Schnur, president of music with EA Games and a proponent
of the move to Nashville game scoring. “I was the last guy who
needed any convincing about the musicianship” in Nashville.

In recent years, the video game industry has earned notice about
its high-quality visuals and narratives. But while industry leaders
were bragging about being “bigger than the film industry,”
Schnur said, games still sounded “like the toy industry.”

So EA started using live orchestras on many of its games and,
about two years ago, as other groups headed out of the country
for Eastern European musical ensembles, Schnur turned to Nashville.
“Everything that we have recorded with a live orchestra over the last
two years, with one exception … was recorded here,” Schnur said.

That one exception is a pretty big one: Music for the upcoming
“Star Wars Battlefront” game was recorded in London, in keeping
with the franchise’s storied musical history. But you can still hear
Nashville musicians on the trailer for the game, debuting in
November, Schnur said.

And it’s not just Schnur and EA making use of Nashville’s musician
base. Scores for “The Last Witch Hunter” (the new Vin Diesel movie
released this weekend) and “Call of Duty: Black Ops 3” (another
video game) and many more have been recorded along Nashville’s
famed Music Row. ( You can see more local credits here.)

Schnur, who has since returned to living in Nashville, said he sees
local scoring as a growing boon for Nashville’s economy, as it brings
a portion of the multi-billion dollar video game industry here.

Plus, he added, “I also believe that it’s going to put the musician
middle class back to work.”




As of October 19, 2015, Local 369 has been placed under
temporary trusteeship by the International Executive Board
of the American Federation of Musicians (IEB). The primary
objective of the trusteeship is to correct the defective election
process currently underway in the Local.

During a trusteeship, the functions of all the Local’s elected
officers are terminated and pass to the Trustee. AFM
International President Raymond Hair has appointed AFM
Presidential Assistant Ken Shirk to serve as Trustee until new
elections are completed and the newly-elected officers are
sworn into office. The principal officers and executive board
members have been relieved of their posts.

The Trustee’s first official action entailed voiding the current
election process and calling for new nominations for officers
for the 2016-2017 term. This action was necessary to correct
a serious procedural error wherein the Local 369 Election
Committee improperly certified former President Frank Leone’s
eligibility as a candidate for re-election as Local 369 President.

In accordance with Local 369’s bylaws, specifically Article IV.
Sections B and C, and Article VII, Section G, Leone was not
eligible to be a candidate for office for the coming term as a
result of having been found guilty by the AFM International
Executive Board in July, 2015 of violating four AFM and Local
369 bylaws by failing to obtain member ratification of the
current Circus Circus contract prior to signing it.

Under Local 369 Bylaws, a member found guilty of violating Local
or AFM bylaws is not eligible to run for or hold office for two years.
Knowing in advance that the election was defective and subject to
a challenge with a rerun election as the certain remedy, the IEB
determined that a trusteeship with an immediate reboot of the
election process was in the best interests and welfare of the
membership, rather than subjecting it to an entire rerun election
process after the fact.

Trustee Shirk has appointed Keith Nelson to serve as Assistant
Trustee to handle the day to day administrative affairs of Local 369.

Diane Ecker remains as Administrative Assistant and Dawn McCoy
remains as Accountant.



Comment sent to the board of Local 47:

Attention Executive Board(s) of The Musicians Club of Los
Angeles and Local 47 AFM,

At the October 5th meeting the membership was informed
by an Election Board member about the ballot process. After
the meeting several members engaged Election Board member
Stephen Green in a conversation regarding the issue of the sale
of the building. His advice was verbatim, “If your not for the
sale of the building, don’t send your ballot back.”  This stunned
those present because in the meeting, the Election Board r
epresentative from the podium announced that a phone tree
would be established to “gently” urge members to return their

This highlights the suspicion that whether you vote yes or no,
it still authorizes the Musician’s Club officers to sell the building.
The ballots will not even need to be opened. This troubling
matter needs to be clarified by the Local. Are we being intentionally

As the current wording stands, the ballot language could be
interpreted to only be authorizing the THRESHOLD AMOUNTS for
the sale and not the actual permission to sell.

Please reply and clarify the issue. Please print it in the Overture as well.

Member Local 47/Club 47

Cc. To all eligible voters. Overture.


I got a call from someone at the local, not only reminding me
to vote but telling me to vote yes. Reminding us to vote is fine,
but if the opposition is not allowed to make the same calls,
they should not be telling you how to vote.


Dear Committee:

I suggest that a motion be made by the membership
where as all elected officials (The Executive Board and
the Titled Officers) have their pay cut by 50% if the
sale of this building goes through. Ah heck, even if
it doesn’t. If we need money, they need to take the
cut before we take the real estate cut through
Club 47.


Among Other Issues, It Is An Incomplete Ballot:

Club 47 doesn’t even have all the union address’s listed
on this ballot to begin with. If they follow through with
their clear verbal intent sell the other parcels in
addition to this one, they do not have anyone’s vote
on that.

In the absence of our vote on any remaining parcels
beyond the only mentioned one on the ballot, Club
47 does not have the memberships consent. It will
be contested should they sell other lots not
mentioned on the ballot. Club 47 has sold off parcels
in the past. Club 47 is not allowed to sell parcels
we have not even voted on. There is only one parcel
mentioned on this ballot.

“Implied or verbal” is not written language.
Unwritten language certainly is not able to
be voted on by the membership.



It has me thinking! It is time to have members form a
slate and, as an entire slate (including titled officer
replacements) run against this current administration.

After the show we have seen to date, a new administration
should not be difficult to achieve at the next election.

There will be a hell of a clean-up from a different and
new administration taking over this one, a clean up
which I would wish on absolutely no one.

But this administration brought us here. They have
brought us here through ignoring us every time
they get the chance. They seem willing to take us
down even further. This observation is based on how
many times they just turn on members, force or
manipulate members hands to their own will, or
give them a patronizing ear to make the FEEL heard 
– but just roll their eyes behind our backs.

Actions speak louder than words.

I would not wish the Local 47 clean-up on anyone new
coming in as a new elected official. Three-year-olds
usually don’t clean up their own messes. The adults
usually have to go in and do that for them. When one
or two people run at an election, they can’t make a difference.
They get sucked into the vortex and never come out the
same. There must be a cool-aid they drink that causes
them to hear rhetoric of standing by the administration
instead of standing by their fellow musicians.

It will take an entire slate running as a team against this
administration at the next election. Adults need to come
in there and start cleaning house. Hasn’t this monkey
business gone on long enough?

Their dark hour of how low they have shown they
will stoop is now.

Never forget this ballot. It sums it up, everything
you have felt over the past months.


Dear Committee,
Please tell us more about this RMA lawsuit. Did I miss something?

This inference sounded important because it suddenly sounded
as if there is a bigger picture to this story and another
unspoken possibility why the building needs so urgently
to be sold.

If there is even a hint of this possibility that a lawsuit is part
of the reasoning, then that could mean that the Executive
Board is using their “dual hats” of Club 47 to get by with
something they never could otherwise in order to take care
of Executive Board business.

Something seems wrong with that picture. I can’t quite put
my finger on it. Is that legal for an executive board to say,
“We need more money. Lets put on our Club 47 hats, and
use union time and funds to get money from a sale of the
building. When we have the money, we go back to being
the Executive Board and spend the money as we wish,
because that is our job.”

What is wrong with that picture that popped into my
brain when I read that RMA lawsuit inference??

Please, if someone can, kindly recap for me what I
may have missed on a RMA lawsuit implied in your
most recent blog.


As I recall BYLAWS are limited to the bylaws on the books when it
comes to L47 union matters.

Anything that falls outside the bylaws the local attorney, at his
legal supervision and assisting the board in those matters, can
change and approve

Just about anything that isn’t contained in the bylaws as long
as he has the legal capacity for them to change or add anything
that does not directly affect the standing bylaws.

The language to this vote on the sale may have very well been
intentional as long as the counsel is tied to this you can expect

This would be to his favor anyway.

Something else to consider could there be a conflict of interest
between the counsel approving language or for that matter
anything to do with the sale because he is representing the AFM
(RMALA) in a legal case and what he receives in addition to the
legal firm in Washington DC is money due him whether or not
they win  he still gets paid.

Where is that money coming from??? And how long will that
case last and who will spring for those dollars.




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



Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at Viva Cantina
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.



ASMAC Luncheon with Roger Kellaway
@ Catalina’s Jazz Club
Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2015 @ 11:30am
RSVP Now !!!

Roger Kellaway’s discography runs to more than two hundred and fifty albums. He’s worked with everyone from Elvis to Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie to Yo-Yo Ma, Joni Mitchell to Mancini and Quincy Jones to Michael Tilson Thomas.
Kellaway is not only a major pianist, he is a composer of protean ability, writing in the music fields of jazz, classical and “pop”, also scoring for films and television. His acclaimed “Cello Quartet”albums are described by some as “crossover”, “chamber jazz” and by others as the beginning of “New Age” music. They were the first in an eclectic array of projects beginning in the 1960’s. Roger’s commissions include a ballet for George Balanchine and the New York City Ballet, orchestral pieces for the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the National Symphony, the New American Orchestra and a concerto, “Songs of Ascent,” commissioned by the New York Philharmonic, Zubin Mehta, conductor. He wrote a variety of chamber works for Carnegie Hall performances and served as musical director for Stephane Grappelli’s 80th Birthday Tribute, which included Yo-Yo Ma’s first entry into Jazz. Later, Stephane, Yo-Yo and Roger traveled to Paris together. Kellaway played on and wrote all the arrangements for their album, “Anything Goes”.

He became musical director for Bobby Darin and in 1968 arranged (and conducted) Darin’s album of songs from the film “Dr. Doolittle”. Writing songs and arrangements is a passion that sometimes expands into producing, as was the case for the Carmen McRae album, “I Am Music”. The relationship had started with Roger’s song “I Have The Feeling I’ve Been Here Before”, written especially for her, with a lyric by the legendary team Alan & Marilyn Bergman. Kellaway’s most prized television credit is, “Remembering You”, the closing theme for the ground-breaking, “All in the Family”. Composed in 1970, it is still being heard on TV around the world. In 1988, Kellaway was honored with a Grammy Award for his music on the album “Memos From Paradise” for Eddie Daniels. He has written (and conducted) twenty-nine film scores including Barbara Streisand’s “A Star is Born”, for which he received an Academy Award nomination.

The “Eclectic Maestro” continues recording and performing concerts across the U.S. and Europe, also writing for film, theatrical productions and commissioned works. He resides in Ojai, California with his wife (of 49 years) Jorjana.
Join us on November 18th…. and bring your questions!
Catalina’s Jazz Club
6725 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Wed, Nov. 18th – 11:30am – 2:00pm
Members/Students – $30.00
Non-Member/Guests – $40.00

Program Only
(Check-In at 12:30) – $10.00
Valet Parking: $4.00  
Enter on McCadden behind Catalina’s





On Wednesday, NOVEMBER 18, 2015 at 12:10-12:40 pm

the Free Admission Glendale Noon Concerts
will feature Glendale pianist Harout Senekeremian
performing an all-Scriabin program
at the Sanctuary of

Glendale City Church,
610 E. California Ave. (at Isabel), Glendale, CA 91206.

For more information, email [email protected]
or call (818) 244-7241.


You can read all previous offerings at:


Sunday, November 1st, 2015


…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




if you’ve gotten your ballot for the building sale, DO NOT SIGN


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

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?




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

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




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. 



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.


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

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.

THE PROPERTY, Yes or no.


Charles Fernandez

…..More as the situation develops.



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

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


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

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

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

[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

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

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


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

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.]