…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unless the ballots are rescinded, reworked and re-mailed.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.]




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.




On Wednesday, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 at 12:10-12:40 pm
the Free Admission Glendale Noon Concerts 
will feature violinist Dimitry Olevsky and pianist Harout Senekeremian 
performing works Cesar Franck and Jan Sibelius
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.

Attached is are separate color jpeg photos of 
with their instriments.

Pianist HAROUT SENEKEREMIAN  is a resident of GLENDALE.

Concert venue information can be found below.
Thank you for your help promoting the Glendale Noon Concerts!
On November 18, 2015, we will celebrate our 8th Anniversary
of presenting free admission concerts 
every first and third Wednesday 
for Glendale and the Southland community.

Jacqueline Suzuki 
Curator, Glendale Noon Concerts
818 249 5108 home
818 236 1183 pager




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


Sunday 11/8/15
Lake Arrowhead, California – 2PM
Americana Veterans Village


You can read all previous offerings at:


  1. Miamon Miller says:

    I was on your mailing list but somehow mysteriously was unlisted. I haven’t received any mailings for about a month now so perhaps my question was already addressed.

    And here it is: 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) & 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.

Leave a Reply