I. THE SALE BALLOT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY (INTENTIONAL OR NOT)
\nII. MEMBER COMMENTARY – LOOPHOLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT
\nIII. MEMBER WRITES TO BOARD – GETS REPLY
\nIV. LOTS OF COMMENTS
\nIV. EVENTS<\/p>\n
…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
\n…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’
\nscoring musician
\n…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
\n…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician<\/p>\n
Name Withheld<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
I. THE SALE BALLOT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY (INTENTIONAL OR NOT).
\nIT HAS TO BE REVOKED, REWORKED AND RE-MAILED.<\/p>\n
Colleagues,<\/p>\n
if you’ve gotten your ballot for the building sale, DO NOT SIGN
\nAND RETURN IT.<\/p>\n
Why?<\/p>\n
Read what it says in DETAIL.<\/p>\n
Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles (“the Club”) be
\nauthorized to sell the Club’s real property. – located at 817 Vine Street,\u00a0
\nHollywood, CA 90038 – for not less than Twenty Two Million
\nDollars ($22,000,000) to the successful highest bidder?<\/p>\n
It is followed by a yes or no vote.<\/p>\n
So if you vote YES they can sell the building for anything
\nover 22 million.\u00a0if you vote no, they can sell it AS LONG
\nAS It’s Over 22 million OR it can be sold below 22 million,
\ndepending on how you read it.<\/p>\n
Either way they can use your vote to sell the building!<\/p>\n
The board may not have intended the mis-direction,
\nbut the wording leaves it wide open to be used as
\na yes vote.<\/p>\n
Perhaps not all members of the board realize this,
\nbut certainly the counsel and the president should
\nhave.<\/p>\n
The question should have been<\/p>\n
—————————-<\/p>\n
Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
\n(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real properties.
\n– located at 817 Vine\u00a0(and the parcels on Lillian Way)
\nVine Street, Hollywood, CA 90038.<\/p>\n
—————————-<\/p>\n
THAT would be honest. <\/p>\n
Any Board member who did not realize this potential
\nproblem should be asking some serious questions
\nof the president and the counsel.<\/p>\n
It might have been just careless writing and not thinking
\nit through, but the ballot cannot be trusted because of it.<\/p>\n
If you’ve been asked to make phone calls, know that
\nyou are taking part in a potentially mis-directed situation
\nunless the ballots are rescinded, reworked and re-mailed.<\/p>\n
This ballot does not provide a no vote, only a YES vote
\nunder different conditions.<\/p>\n
There have been so many questionable actions in this
\nprocess, could they at least get the question right?<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE<\/p>\n
——–<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTS:<\/p>\n
a. Do NOT return this first ballot at all, but retain it for
\n\u201cnon-vote verification\u201d of that ballot # (and make sure
\n\u201cEveryone\u201d knows those un-mailed ballots are being
\nretained, to be counted if \u201cnecessary\u201d)<\/p>\n
b. Members\u2019 Cc to FMA and The Committee, stating
\nthat they did not return their ballots due to lack of
\ninformation.<\/p>\n
Please let us know if you do not return your ballot.<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
II. MEMBER COMMENTARY – LOOPHOLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT<\/p>\n
LOOP HOLE LANGUAGE IN BALLOT REGARDING THE SALE OF CLUB 47’S BUILDING:<\/p>\n
How I see this decision, and why I will make a decision on how
\nto ensure my NO means NO: The way I see it is, I see that there
\nis a “loop hole language” in the ballot which I personally do
\nnot trust. I saw it the moment I opened my ballot.<\/p>\n
When this language was brought up at the meeting, The board
\nsaid the counsel gave it to them the reasons of “legal technicality”
\nas the explanation to this loop-hole language “… for not less
\nthan Twenty Million Dollars…”.<\/p>\n
However, whenever they have the counsel write in language,
\nthe executive board has a past practice during membership
\nmeetings of stopping people’s brains by throwing up this
\nwall called “legal technicalities”. It is like the very word
\n“legal” or “lawyer” is intended to shut off the brains of the
\nmembers and not ask further. For instance, what exactly
\nare these “legal technicalities”? They (elected officials)
\nfailed to say what these “legal technicalities” are.<\/p>\n
Was this deliberate?<\/p>\n
I take a close look at my ballot and see that my ballot
\ndoes not say “Does club 47 have permission by the
\nmembership to sell our property?” Then yes, or no.<\/p>\n
What I do see is, my ballot cited a qualification under
\nwhich Club 47 can not sell the building. My ballot
\nsays this qualification for being able to sell the building
\nis as long as it is not sold \u00a0“… For not less than
\nTwenty Million Dollars ($22,000,000.00) to the
\nsuccessful highest bidder.”<\/p>\n
Club 47\/elected officials fail to say on the ballot
\nwith this qualification under what terms that can
\nnot sell the building is that, they ALREADY have
\nbids for $24,000,000 and more.<\/p>\n
Could it be then, that the “legal technicality” cited
\nat the meeting is that the counsel has written in a
\ncontingency to be able to sell the building even
\nif the majority of votes are “no”?<\/p>\n
Think about it: they way this ballot is written says
\nthat what we are really voting on is not whether
\nthe building can be sold or not. We are voting to
\nmake sure it is not sold for less than $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
This legal technicality is not about the ballot, the way
\nI see it. This legal technicality seems to me that we are
\nbeing set up and Club 47\/elected officials (one in the
\nsame) have their loop hole legal technicality savior to
\ntell us the building will be sold even if we voted NO…<\/p>\n
How? Because, they have created the room to say to us
\nthat “the voters only voted that we could not sell the
\nbuilding if it was UNDER 22 million. Since we have a
\nbidder for $24,000,000, we then have permission by
\nthe membership to sell it. They voted on a price we
\ncan not sell it below, they voted only that we sell it
\nto the highest bidder above $22,000,000, not whether
\nor not we can sell the building.”<\/p>\n
The fact that there is a qualification under which they
\ncan not sell the building means we are not voting on
\nif the building can be sold or not. We are voting on
\nmaking sure it is not sold for under $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
Read carefully.<\/p>\n
Translation: the old switcheroo….<\/p>\n
The question in my mind has become, “Will my NO
\nreally mean NO? if not, what can I do to make sure
\nmy NO means NO?”<\/p>\n
With the way this language has been written, I doubt
\nmy NO means NO- because I will have only voted –
\nwhether I say yes or no – that the building can not
\nbe sold for under 22,000,000.<\/p>\n
Since I have seen no proof that my no means no, and
\nsince I know all too well how under handed and tricky
\ntitled officers and board members can be, to date-
\nthe only way I can see my No meaning NO is if I
\nsimply do NOT turn in my ballot:<\/p>\n
Club 47 needs to have to have certain number of
\nballots turned in to even go forward. Therefore, I
\nchoose to not contribute to helping Club 47\/elected
\nofficials reach the required number of votes and then
\nfinding the legal right to turn my NO into a YES
\nbecause the “legal technicality” was that our union
\ndues money went towards helping our elected officers
\nthwart my voice.<\/p>\n
Also, is it really Club 47’s intent to sell only a portion
\nof our property for no less than $22,000,000. It came
\nto everyone’s attention that the address they are asking
\npermission for does not include all the properties.
\nThey are having us vote on only one of their four
\nphysical addresses.<\/p>\n
If we are not voting on all the properties, they have no
\npermission to sell all four, since not everything was voted
\non \u2013 even if it sells for not less than $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
Again, my personal answer to myself to even that dilemma?
\nI won’t turn in my ballot to contribute to the necessary
\nrequired number of ballots. It is the only way I can think
\nto ensure my NO means NO.<\/p>\n
My thoughts and opinions only, and how I plan to proceed.
\nFor whatever it is worth. Local 47 had a history of
\ndisenfranchising its members, leaving them out of the
\nloop, pulling fast ones….<\/p>\n
For instance: Look at the write up done recently when
\npeople thought they were going into a discussion at the
\nunion meeting, but the “fast one” was it was a Club 47
\nsales pitch. It turned out to be a Club 47 meeting in
\nwhich members could not even make motions. Everyone
\nwho showed up to that meeting, in this regard, was
\ndisenfranchised, excluded from decisions on whether
\nto sell the building or not, not given enough information,
\nno motions by members could even be made. That was
\na fast-one. Everyone who was there felt that sting, and
\neveryone who read about it in the blog because they
\nwere unable to attend felt the sting of being
\ndisenfranchised equally so.<\/p>\n
And now? This ballot: a “legal technicality” that potentially
\nprotects Club 47 if\/when Local 47 members because the
\nballot was written to not IF the building can be sold, but
\nmaking sure they could sell the building so long as it was
\nnot sold for under $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
This act once again potentially can disenfranchise the
\nentire membership by a sale of the building – even if
\nthere was a majority NO vote – simply because people
\ndidn’t realize they were really voting on a qualification
\nfor what manner and cost the property could not be
\nsold below. Call me crazy, but all members votes should
\nactually have a real voice that is not contingent on a
\ndollar amount.<\/p>\n
Members who want to vote NO should not be forced
\nto say yes to a sale because of a loop-hole language
\nin the ballot that said “so long as it does not sell for
\nbelow $22,000,000 if they did not want to say “yes”
\nto any sale in the first place.<\/p>\n
Just my perspective.\u00a0<\/p>\n
===========================================<\/p>\n
III. MEMBER WRITES TO BOARD – GETS REPLY<\/p>\n
Recently, LOCAL 47 member Charles Fernandez wrote to the board
\nwith his ire up about the wording of the ballot, and what he sees as a fix
\nin the balloting. That in turn was answered by the board,..
\nand in turn a reply from Member Fernandez.<\/p>\n
Here is the exchange that took place.<\/p>\n
1) Member Fernandez’ Letter to the board:<\/p>\n
To the Offices and Board of Local 47,<\/p>\n
Evening all,<\/p>\n
I felt it important enough to write to all of you directly.
\nI have seldom before bothered\u00a0to write to the entire
\nboard, but I finally got around to opening the ballot and
\nwas\u00a0honestly gobsmacked by what I read.<\/p>\n
I can only think that some of you guys didn\u2019t know
\nthat this is what the ballot says\u2026.<\/p>\n
Read the sentence below carefully if you would be
\nso kind\u2026<\/p>\n
Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
\n(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real property.
\n– located at 817 Vine Street,\u00a0Hollywood, CA 90038 –
\nfor not less than Twenty Two Million Dollars ($22,000,000)
\nto the successful highest bidder?<\/p>\n
See the problem yet?<\/p>\n
It would be an honest ballot if the sentence said:<\/p>\n
Shall the officers of the Musician’s Club of Los Angeles
\n(“the Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real properties.
\n– located at 817 Vine Street\u00a0and Lillian Street, Hollywood,
\nCA 90038<\/p>\n
Then a yes or no vote would matter.<\/p>\n
By adding \u00a0– for not less than Twenty Two Million Dollars
\n($22,000,000) to the successful highest bidder,\u2026 the ballot
\nis saying that either a yes OR\u00a0no vote can be used to sell the
\nbuilding, just under different terms.<\/p>\n
If you vote Yes, they can sell the building for not less that
\n22 million If you vote No, the building can be sold without
\nit having to be over 22 million, OR it could be interpreted
\nto mean that it can be sold for any amount OVER 22\u00a0
\nmillion (We already have a bid for 24 million.)<\/p>\n
If any of you did not realize this, you should (I should think)
\nhave some serious\u00a0questions to ask of John Acosta and Levy
\nLevy at least (Since it was Mr. Levy’s\u00a0Idea that the number be
\nincluded, according to John Acosta) and I dearly hope\u00a0you do.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Some of you should be very pissed and feel manipulated.<\/p>\n
If you DID know this, shame on you. You need to realize
\nthe only honest\u00a0thing to do is rescind\/nullify the ballots
\nthat have gone out, fix the wording\u00a0and re-mail them so
\nan honest vote can be taken.<\/p>\n
All parcels need to be listed, not just 817 Vine.<\/p>\n
To put it plainly, this ballot is a fraud. The question is, is
\nit a willful fraud or was it inadvertent. \u00a0<\/p>\n
So really folks,<\/p>\n
-You put the Building up for sale in July without informing
\nthe membership. (Two days after I asked an officer about
\nit it was taken down)<\/p>\n
-On the October 5th meeting you pull a bait and switch on
\nwhich organization\u00a0is meeting to shut down motions.<\/p>\n
-You pull the same thing from the opposite direction at
\nthe meeting last Monday?\u00a0And then this wording?<\/p>\n
I trust I might hear from a couple of you that you had no
\nidea this was going on,..I hope I do, but this is some real
\nkarma dumping you\u2019re doing here.<\/p>\n
Someone should be held accountable and I\u2019d say an
\napology is due the membership\u00a0for the deception,
\nintentional or not.<\/p>\n
Please cancel the balloting, and do the right thing.<\/p>\n
Thanks<\/p>\n
Charles Fernandez<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
2) Board reply to member Fernandez:<\/p>\n
Dear Brother Fernandez:
\nWe are responding to your email of Wednesday
\nOctober 28th. First, let\u2019s be clear about one thing:
\nthe Bylaws of the Club govern the referendum
\nprocess and the Club is strictly following those
\nrequirements as well as any other(s) placed on
\nthe Club by external law.<\/p>\n
Next, the ballot is neither ambiguous nor did the Club\u2019s
\nDirectors try to make it so. The question placed to the
\nmembership and the authorization sought thereby is very
\nclear: permission to sell the Musicians Club\u2019s real property
\n(i.e., 817 Vine: the \u201cProperty\u201d) for not less than $22 million.
\n We cannot see what is confusing, confounding or
\nconspiratorial about such a straight-forward ballot question.<\/p>\n
Moreover, your insinuations about the motives of the Club\u2019s
\nDirectors is not only uncalled for, but belied by the actual facts.
\nFirst, the Bylaws of the Club expressly provide that if there is a
\n\u201cno\u201d vote or an insufficient amount of ballots returned, the Club,
\nand its officers, is\/are deprived of any legal authority to sell the
\nProperty, no matter the price. In other words, your musings
\nabout a \u201cno\u201d vote really being a \u201cyes\u201d vote for some other
\ntransaction is entirely false and finds no support in the Club\u2019s
\nBylaws, the law or the record.<\/p>\n
Second, all of the materials circulated by the Club – with regard
\nto the referendum \u2013 clearly and unmistakably detail and discuss
\na sales transaction where the price shall be $22 million or more.
\nIn not a single verbal statement or written document has the Club
\nor its officers stated, or even implied in the most remote way,
\nanything to the contrary.<\/p>\n
Simply put, you have completely misconstrued the referendum
\nprocess, conveyed that misconception to untold numbers of
\nLocal 47\/Club members and, in so doing, have clearly attempted
\nto besmirch the motives of the Club\u2019s officers. Unless you have
\nsome actual proof to back your claims, they need to be immediately
\nretracted, with an apology to all concerned.<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
3) Member Fernandez’ reply to the board:<\/p>\n
Hey Gary,<\/p>\n
Please forward this to the board, if you would.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The statement on the ballot as it stands can in fact
\nbe construed (depending on your point of view) to
\nenable a NO vote to be used as a yes vote for a
\nparticular price. Regardless of intent, this is the result.<\/p>\n
The ballots have to be reworked, the boards previous
\nactions (some of which were outlined in my previous
\nemail), have left the membership with a record low
\ntrust factor for the Local. At every step there have
\nbeen suspicious actions on your part.<\/p>\n
The problem with the wording was brought to my
\nattention by several people, and once I saw it it
\njumped out at me immediately.<\/p>\n
Do yourself a favor, make the intent of the ballot
\nfoolproof, remove the sale amount and make it,
\n“Does the board of Local 47\/Club 47 have the
\nauthority to sell the properties on Vine and Lillian Way.”<\/p>\n
YES OR NO. there is no possible way to have that
\nmisconstrued.<\/p>\n
Most of you, or perhaps even all of you didn\u2019t not
\nforesee this complication, but it is there and it will\u00a0
\npersist until addressed directly.<\/p>\n
DOES A NO VOTE MEAN THAT THE CLUB CANNOT SELL
\nTHE PROPERTY, Yes or no.<\/p>\n
Thanks<\/p>\n
Charles Fernandez<\/p>\n
…..More as the situation develops.<\/p>\n
=======================================<\/p>\n
IV. LOTS OF COMMENTS<\/p>\n
When I asked about the presentation of DETAILS
\nabout the costs, [Of the sale and refurbishment of
\nthe potential new building] etc. President Acosta
\nsaid they’ve been discussing it since february
\n– still no details.<\/p>\n
Just vote no. That’s a no brainer
\n—————–<\/p>\n
There is a reason our municipal ballot information says…
\nA no vote on this means xxxx
\na yes vote on this means xxxx
\nLook no farther than “it depends on what your definition
\nof \u00a0is..is.”<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court has had a recent ruling on the what the
\nlanguage of some legislation really meant.
\nNo need for member Fernandez to apologize to anyone…<\/p>\n
—————–<\/p>\n
Since the next publication of the Overture will not
\nbe until January, all letters to the editor that have
\nbeen sent in opposition to the sale will not be seen
\nby the membership. This appears to have been
\ncarefully orchestrated. The Executive Board has
\ncontrolled the timeline.<\/p>\n
The latest email blast from the local regarding the
\nagenda did not list a discussion of the sale. Guess
\nthis will be brought up under new business…unless
\nwe can move it up. I have seen people leave
\nthe room on cue to avoid a quorum.<\/p>\n
Make no mistake… these folks want to maintain
\nthe status quo for themselves. We have take a
\ncollective cut and so should they.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Absent other facts to date, it appears that Local
\n47 wants to use Club 47 as a cookie jar with no
\nplausible plan to refill it.<\/p>\n
Thanks for all your efforts.<\/p>\n
[The letters should be printed in the online
\nversion of the overture, which comes out
\nevery month. <\/p>\n
We shall see.]<\/p>\n
—————<\/p>\n
A few days ago I got a call from someone at Local
\n47 ostensibly to ask me if I knew about the vote re
\nthe sale of the building. <\/p>\n
This person at first said they are trying to reach all
\nthe union members to make sure they know about
\nthe vote, and would I be interested in volunteering
\nto call some of the other members.<\/p>\n
I asked if that was usual, to call about voting, because
\nin the past, I’ve only gotten emails and mailings. In
\nthe course of answering, he said that in order to sell
\nthe building, the vote \u00a0requires 50% plus 1 to vote
\n“yes”, and this was why it was so important to reach
\nthe members… Not to make sure enough knew about
\nthe vote, but to make sure enough people voted “yes”.<\/p>\n
—————<\/p>\n
I am glad a member brought this up- what he did say but
\nwas pretty clear regarding the hiring Ludlow’s company
\n[BRIDGESTREET INC.] (: bad judgement on their part.<\/p>\n
As to the EB taking a leadership role on the building
\nsale process- less than 400 people elected them-
\nhardly a mandate- I think that is why they needed help
\nin selling the idea to at least half of the 3211
\nmembers that must return valid ballots.<\/p>\n
I am pretty sure they royally mucked up the actual
\nballot, by not mentioning all 4 properties- or a better
\nwording like- the common property known as 817 VINE
\nstreet-<\/p>\n
—————–<\/p>\n
At last night’s meeting, John Acosta once again said
\nwords to the effect of, if you don’t feel you know
\nenough about the sale, don’t vote. He tried correcting
\nhimself later, but he’d said the same at the October 5th
\nmeeting.<\/p>\n
I think if members have not been sufficiently informed,
\nthey should vote no.<\/p>\n
——————-<\/p>\n
During all this information that has been presented for
\nthe selling of the property something stood out about
\nthe 1 million L47 still has in its accounts.<\/p>\n
What got my attention when it was mentioned that the
\nmillion wouldn’t be enough if there was a law suit?????<\/p>\n
How many law suits do we have?????<\/p>\n
What came to mind was the outstanding law suits
\nagainst the big four represented by none other than
\nLewis Levy.<\/p>\n
So is it necessary to sell because the RMALA got us
\ninto these law suits and the building has to be sold
\nso the RMALA.<\/p>\n
Can continue on their quest to reap their money
\n(rightfully theirs) but at a time when the local is in
\ndire straights??? Is this why it is urgent to sell???
\nIs this how they will handle future money???<\/p>\n
This could be a ploy to get the money out of the union
\nby selling the building and then have access to who
\nknows what they have planned.<\/p>\n
This is based on information provided so a conclusion
\nof RMALA’s behavior who still feel they own the local.<\/p>\n
If the RMALA wins the lawsuit it would be a feather in
\ntheir cap and would strengthen there support further.<\/p>\n
Speculation, but John A. is the only one, being president,
\nthat has the most information then anyone else of the
\nelected officials. It is his turn now.<\/p>\n
To add to this are they a bunch of idiots to sell 47
\nthey will blow through that money in no time with
\nabsolutely no alternative solutions to bring in more
\ncapital.<\/p>\n
A strip mall?????????\u00a0\u00a0Sophisticated and classy. Very
\nprofessional.<\/p>\n
[EC: The logical question to ask would be who is funding the
\nlawsuits, The Local or the national. This is however, an
\nexcellent question.]<\/p>\n
—————————<\/p>\n
Why not pull a L47 move and try to declare the
\nbuilding a historical landmark? L47 tried that
\nwith Sony without their permission or request.
\nIf someone does that, it will tie the building
\nup and it can’t be sold, or even listed possibly.<\/p>\n
—————————<\/p>\n
Something smells that they all knew. How else
\nwould you get that wording without L. Levy being
\nthe one who worded it for the officials to endorse???
\nThis is not something the Board have the capacity
\nto do.<\/p>\n
This is a fast one and does not reflect intention,
\nthey should all resign!!!<\/p>\n
And the RMALA is behind this which are setting the
\ndirection.<\/p>\n
Just as though we became aware that all the upgrades
\nwere for the purpose of selling the building in the
\nfirst place years ago.<\/p>\n
The RMALA was in control then and still is now. The
\nwhole bunch all who enrich their lives from money
\nthat comes into the union will cash in when the building
\nis sold.<\/p>\n
This confirms to me they are trying to get at the cash,
\nselling the building is the only way to free up money
\nthat they don’t have now.<\/p>\n
—————————-<\/p>\n
They will try ANYTHING! <\/p>\n
—————————–<\/p>\n
I read it several times Sunday night and I saw the
\n“head’s I win; tails you lose” message. Ugh.<\/p>\n
—————————–<\/p>\n
What is going to happen to the guys who need a
\nrehearsal space for big band and chamber concert
\npractices if they don\u2019t have a place to do so. And
\nto sell this iconic landmark building so that they
\ncan profit from their hideous practices already is
\na sham and a mockery. This town is really f***ed up.<\/p>\n
——————————<\/p>\n
Oh no. I didn’t understand it that way but now I see
\nwhat you mean. It is very confusing and unclear.
\nUnfortunately I already sent the vote back to 47.
\nI don’t think that was done intentionally but it is
\nclear a big mistake that needs to be fixed.<\/p>\n
——————————-<\/p>\n
The moment I saw this I knew it was BS.<\/p>\n
Sad to say I belonged to a church that sold a
\nparsonage that was meant for a youth pastor…..
\nwe figured it would be to pay off the church’s
\nbills to be debt free………but after the pastor
\ndid that, he gave himself and his family a raise
\nand upped his retirement package and left us
\nwithout a home for a youth pastor and they
\nget paid so poorly. He pirated the money if
\nyou ask me.<\/p>\n
This had the same stench!!!!<\/p>\n
They are up to no good and are looking for ways
\nto line their greedy pockets.<\/p>\n
I haven’t been following this as close as I should
\nbe – but will there no longer be an affordable
\nrehearsal place if they sell it????<\/p>\n
[EC: If they are able to sell the building, they
\nsay there will be rehearsal rooms.]<\/p>\n
————————————<\/p>\n
The two separate topics are this:<\/p>\n
If elected officials\/Club 47 wanted to inquire
\nif they can sell the building and then, \u00a0after that,
\ninquire how low they can sell it for (if they got the
\n“yes” Votes they needed to the separate question
\nif they can sell the building), those are two separate
\nquestions that need to be made into two separate
\nballots.<\/p>\n
Club 47 combined both questions into one ballot
\nquestion and made a NO vote turn into a YES vote
\nregardless how a person feels about the building
\nbeing sold.<\/p>\n
The first ballot should be “do we have permission
\nto sell the building?” Yes or No.<\/p>\n
If the answer in a vote comes back “yes”, the next
\nballot should be the language in this ballot regarding
\nthe minimum amount of $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
But they all are m**** f****, clearly intent on
\ndisenfranchising members – this time, the entire
\nmembership. Not just a little insignificant group
\nno one cared about.<\/p>\n
Darius Campos has a conflict of interest. Of course
\nhe says this is a great idea: look at what he stands
\nto make in commission, even if he is donating some
\nback to any relief fund. Having him, as a union
\nmember, tell members this is a good idea, that is a
\nconflict of interest.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Again. Oh for f*** sake! 47 just brings out my potty
\nmouth! <\/p>\n
————————————————–<\/p>\n
Do you think the RMALA is behind the sale of the bldg to
\nshut up all the folks that keep saying they are the cause
\nof the recording loss and lost wages and work dues to the
\nlocal – in other words – “Let’s shut up the rank and file non
\nRMALA members with a fat bank account so the local
\ndoesn’t have to worry about collecting work dues from
\nfront end work” – so they can ride the wave down to the
\nbottom and not have the local go under……<\/p>\n
[EC: There are no doubt many aspects of this sale that are
\nunclear and many members have told us that they think
\nthere’s another shoe that will drop at some point.<\/p>\n
Additionally, Most do not feel their is a great deal of
\npremeditation in the wording of the ballot, they just
\nthink whomever wrote just didn’t know any better and
\nthe wording is simply careless. Our stance is that there
\nare no doubt those on the board acting in good faith,
\neven they did not see the working problem coming,
\nbut some did, whether intentional or not, the balloting
\nis faulty and must be retracted. and replaced by an iron
\nclad question that cannot be misinterpreted.]<\/p>\n
———————————————<\/p>\n
If they wanted to inquire about how low they can sell
\nthe building for AND inquire in addition \u00a0how low they
\ncan sell it for, that should be in two different ballots.
\nThose are two questions they combined into one…
\nMaking it a trick question!<\/p>\n
This is NOT a ballot asking for permission to sell the
\nbuilding.<\/p>\n
This is a ballot telling us they already have a bidder,
\nand they are asking us permission to sell – so long
\nas the bidder does not lower his bid below $22,000,000.<\/p>\n
Oh for f*** sake.<\/p>\n
—————————–<\/p>\n
Musicians I have been speaking with liked getting
\nthe blog delivered to them every week.<\/p>\n
Was the list eliminated of all concern when the site
\nwent down?<\/p>\n
I believe the afm had used their influence to cause its demise.<\/p>\n
The Local tried to get it shut down over 5 years ago but
\nwasn’t able to. He even acknowledge this at that time.<\/p>\n
[EC: We’re working on getting the mailing back. Please
\nstay tuned.]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
=================================<\/p>\n
V. EVENTS<\/p>\n
DEAN AND RICHARD<\/p>\n
DEAN AND RICHARD are now playing every third Friday
\nat Culver City Elks 7:30pm-10;30pm,
\n11160 Washington Pl.
\nCulver City, 90232
\n310-839-8891<\/p>\n
————————————-<\/p>\n
LA WINDS JAZZ KATS 584<\/p>\n
NO COVER, NO MINIMUM.
\nEvery 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at Viva Cantina
\n7:30-10:00.
\n900 Riverside Drive, Burbank.<\/p>\n
Free parking across the street at Pickwick Bowl.
\nCome hear your favorite charts played the way they
\nshould be. <\/p>\n
We are in the back room called the Trailside Room. <\/p>\n
Come on down. Guaranteed to swing.<\/p>\n
————————————<\/p>\n
11\/4\/15<\/p>\n
GLENDALE NOON CONCERTS<\/p>\n
NEXT:
\nOn Wednesday, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 at 12:10-12:40 pm
\nthe Free Admission Glendale Noon Concerts\u00a0
\nwill feature violinist Dimitry Olevsky and pianist Harout Senekeremian\u00a0
\nperforming works Cesar Franck and Jan Sibelius
\nat the Sanctuary of Glendale City Church,
\n610 E. California Ave. (at Isabel), Glendale, CA 91206.
\nFor more information, email glendalesda@gmail.com
\nor call (818) 244-7241.<\/p>\n
Attached is are separate color jpeg photos of\u00a0
\nviolinist DIMITRY OLEVSKY\u00a0
\n& pianist HAROUT SENEKEREMIAN\u00a0
\nwith their instriments.<\/p>\n
EDITORS: PLEASE NOTE\u00a0
\nPianist HAROUT SENEKEREMIAN \u00a0is a resident of GLENDALE.
\nhttp:\/\/www.haroutsenekeremian.com
\nhttp:\/\/www.dimitryolevsky.com<\/p>\n
Concert venue information can be found below.
\n\u00a0
\nThank you for your help promoting the Glendale Noon Concerts!
\nOn November 18, 2015, we will celebrate our 8th Anniversary
\nof presenting free admission concerts\u00a0
\nevery first and third Wednesday\u00a0
\nfor Glendale and the Southland community.<\/p>\n
Sincerely,
\nJacqueline Suzuki\u00a0
\nCurator, Glendale Noon Concerts
\n818 249 5108 home
\n818 236 1183 pager<\/p>\n
———————————————–<\/p>\n
11\/7-8\/15<\/p>\n
LISA HALEY ADN THE ZYDECATS<\/p>\n
Veterans Day Weekend Celebration
\nSaturday 11\/7\/15
\nLake Arrowhead, California – 2PM
\nAmericana Veterans Village
\nwww.friends2veterans.com<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
Sunday 11\/8\/15
\nLake Arrowhead, California – 2PM
\nAmericana Veterans Village
\nwww.friends2veterans.com<\/p>\n
================================<\/p>\n
You can read all previous offerings at:http:\/\/www.responsible47.com
\nUNTIL NEXT TIME,
\nTHE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I. THE SALE BALLOT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY (INTENTIONAL OR NOT) II. MEMBER COMMENTARY – LOOPHOLE LANGUAGE IN THE BALLOT III. MEMBER WRITES TO BOARD – GETS REPLY IV. LOTS OF COMMENTS IV. EVENTS …Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer …The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-committee-newsletters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}