Greetings LOCAL 47 Colleagues!,

On Friday March 3,2006 a meeting took place in President
Espinosa’s office concerning the firing of Barbara Markay.

Below is a report by Lisa Haley from that meeting. Local 47
members Charles Fernandez and former Vice-president David
Schubach were also in attendance along with other members of
the FMA.

Following her report, we will have observations from another

Thank you for reading and BE AT THE APRIL 24th MEETING!



Dear esteemed fellow Union members:

At the Friday, March 3, 2006 meeting between Freelance Musicians
Assn-L.A. members and Local #47 officers, the following letter
was put forward by the FMA:

– a letter of request was presented to President Hal, Vince
Trombetta, and board member Leslie Lashinsky, asking the

– Barbara Markay and Errol Henry to be reinstated with back
pay, pending an inquiry as to whether our Local followed its own
policies on the dismissals.
– our Promotions Dept to be given a bona-fide office, and
restored to its former activities
– our Network Referral office to be left in its present location
– all future issues regarding Promotions Dept or Network
Referral to be put to a vote by a quorum at a general membership meeting.
– our officers to make a report setting forth evidence of what
surveys were done to support the need for re-structure of the
Promotions Dept.
– our officers to present evidence of what duties Barbara
Markay was unable or unwilling to do when asked, and where
her “skill-set” was lacking, which allegedly was the basis for her

President Hal agreed to answer our requests in one (1) week.
That week ended Friday, March 10.
– The FMA has received no response from Hal or any officer.



The following (numbered) points were put forth by President Hal at our meeting:

1.) The Special meeting on 6.28.04 (with a quorum) at which the
Network office was voted to be restored to its original location,
was, in the eyes of the officers, “not valid”. They “allowed” the
Network to be restored to appease those attending, but our vote
was not “official”. (This was news to us all.)

FMA QUESTION: If that vote was not official, why was that fact
not made public immediately, so that at the next General
Meeting we could have called in all members to vote on the issue
officially? Why wait until now?

The officers had NO ANSWER.

2.) Promotions Dept employee Barbara Markay could not be allowed
to continue giving valuable career advice, even with her ‘air-tight’
disclaimer that she was not offering legal counsel, because our
Local “could get sued”.

FMA QUESTION: how long had Barbara been giving this excellent
career advice?

Officers ANSWER: eight years.

FMA QUESTION: How many times has our Local been informed by
any member, in any way, of any dissatisfaction during that time?
Had the Local ever been served with any lawsuit as a result?

Officers ANSWER: Never. The officers conceded that the chances
of a lawsuit were negligible, and the point moot.

3.) Local #47 officers could not state one way or the other whether
Barbara Markay was in fact still a Business Rep when she was
fired. (#47 Bylaws require that Business Reps be given a hearing. No hearing was ever held.)

FMA QUESTION: Is this not a direct violation of Local #47 Bylaws?
Who was responsible for researching Barbara’s status, duties,
efficiency, and value to our union?

Officers ANSWER: “General Manager” Doug Caine.

– On 2.23.06, Doug claimed in a written statement delivered to
the FMA that he committed “months of examining every
parameter I could find, including tangibles and intangibles. I
measured everything I could.” and that he was bent on
“improving the services we were trying to deliver but which
Barbara could not or would not.”

– Why did he not uncover the fact that Barbara was a Business
Rep? (It is plainly printed near the front of several of our
Membership Directories, indicated in the scan of the 2002
Directory which has been emailed to several members.)

– Why was NOT ONE Local #47 member, benefiting from our
Promotions Dept, questioned during this extensive “examination”
regarding Barbara’s value? (please see our previous email titled
“Barbara Markay Testimonials” for examples of the response
Doug would have received had he been at all diligent.)

– Why did no one do a productivity review, an efficiency study, or
contact Barbara in any way, requesting info or reports on the
resources she provides., etc?

– What were the services Barbara “could not or would not” do?

The officers had NO ANSWER.

4.) Local #47 officers stated that Network Referral Rep Errol
“refused” to carry out two directives given him by Doug Caine,
and was immediately fired by President Hal.

FMA QUESTION: What were the directives?

The officers had NO ANSWER.

(However, the FMA later received Errol’s answer:

– Doug instructed him to mail out (at Union expense) the yearly
reminders to members to resubmit their information for the
Network office.

– Errol pointed out that, in past mailings, only a very small
percentage of members replied to mailings; the majority
responded to phone calls and email by Errol. He did not refuse
to do mailings, but only proposed that the Local save postage
and utilize these alternatives first.

– Doug stated that the (yet unseen) new website would create an
“avalanche” of work for members.

– Errol pointed out that our FMA website, ,
established in 2004, already serves this purpose, but has not
resulted in much increase in jobs for members. On the other
hand, the Network Referral Office had a record year for 2005,
and had indeed increased jobs for its members every year.
As Errol is not in charge of this future Local #47 website, he was
not ‘refusing’ it; only stating an obvious fact.

In neither case did Errol refuse to comply; only to suggest a
better use of Union funds based on past evidence. For this he
was fired.



– Was Barbara Markay indeed a Business Rep when she was fired?
If so, Local #47 Bylaws have been violated. What should be done?

– When Errol was hired, the criterion for employee of the Network
Referral Office was that the employee NOT be a member of Local
#47, or a musician, in order to avoid temptation to show favoritism. Since this job has now gone to a #47 Union member, were the previous restrictions illegal? Should OCHA and EEOC be notified of discrimination in hiring practices?

– Is there not a protocol to be followed to create a new official
office such as a “General Manager” position within a Local? Was
this protocol followed?

– It was alluded in the above meeting that the specialized services
afforded Freelance Musicians by the Promotions Dept are no
longer a valid use of Union monies because the ratio of expense
to return via dues is currently lower than that of Recording and
Symphonic contracts. As a result, a higher-paid, specialized
employee has been fired, and those services have now been
turned over to an existing, inexperienced employee. However,
testimonials show the value of this employee, our Network
Referral Office had a record year, and membership of Freelance
Musicians is on the increase. Does this not go against the
premise of Union Brotherhood?

– With the disintegration of the most valued services of our Local,
many FMA members are now considering leaving the Union. What
reasons can we give them to stay?


Lisa Haley
FMA member


Here’s a note from Charles Fernandez, who was also at the meeting.

Concerning the June special meeting vote about the location of Referral
service office being called “not-valid”, the only one making that argument
was Doug Caine. His reasoning was that, because the “description” of the
meeting was for discussion and not VOTING, no vote at that meeting was
valid. The President then admitted himself that he allowed the meeting, a
legit meeting. No parliamentarian or lawyer familiar with labor law I talked
to thought that the reasoning for the vote being invalid was anything but
ridiculous. They found it absurd that such an argument would even be

The fact is the Officers of the Local plainly broke the By-laws of the Local by going against a specific “voted on” mandate of the membership. Did the board know? At least some of the board was kept in the dark about Barbara’s firing till after the fact, were they kept in the dark here as well??

Charles Fernandez


Fellow Local 47 Colleagues,

Yesterday, most of those who registered with the referral service got an
E-MAIL asking them to update their info and offering FREE HEAD SHOTS.
One of the reasons Errol was fired was because he was supposedly insubordinate in disagreeing with Doug Caine. Doug Caine wanted to do a mailing. Errol
dared to tell him mailings don’t work, e-mails and phone calls
work and are far, far more cost effective.

They partly fired Errol Henry for daring to tell Doug Caine his mailing idea makes
no sense and that e-mails were better. Then after firing him,
So then, why was he fired?

We’ve also learned that another idea being pushed for the referral
service was a website. The GOPRO website was set up for just
that reason and hasn’t to this point been very effective.

Still, Errol was included on NONE of those website meetings.
The HEAD of the department not informed or included? Why?

If nothing else, this should be a great argument for a Local not being
able to go two years without a general membership meeting,
considering what has been done to our local and the services to
our live and freelance members in the two years they’ve been unaccountable.


Till next time,


Leave a Reply