SPECIAL MEETING REPORT, MONDAY, January 4th, 2016<\/p>\n
Member\u2019s requested meeting:
\nLocal to explain the financials.
\nQuorum reached (only nine needed for the CLUB meeting.)
\nOver 50 attended<\/p>\n
——————————<\/p>\n
The Salient Points of the meeting??<\/p>\n
1) If you send in comments about the sale before Tuesday
\nnight (TODAY!), they CAN get into the Overture going
\nout next week.<\/p>\n
2) The impression was given that you rescind your vote if
\nyou call the Local and have your ballot pulled. You can also
\nchange your vote by requesting a replacement ballot. They
\nwill count the NEWEST ballot.<\/p>\n
3) Many, many, members were grossly misinformed by
\nthe callers trying to get them to vote yes. In some cases,
\nwrongly telling members that the local is in $700,000
\nDEBT when it\u2019s a $700,000 deficit. The Local has
\nOver $900,000 in reserve.<\/p>\n
4) Other were given the impression that their pension
\ncould be affected if we don\u2019t sell. (It\u2019s not at all true.)<\/p>\n
5) While info was put on the website no financial
\n analysis was done, so people might not understand
\nwhat the numbers mean.<\/p>\n
———————<\/p>\n
John Acosta, Rick Baptist, Gary Lasley, Lewis Levy in front.
\nCalled to order at 7:29<\/p>\n
Re-iterated that it\u2019s a Club Meeting, under the umbrella of Local 47.
\nIf you\u2019re a member of one, you\u2019re a member of both.<\/p>\n
Club can adopt rules, Club plays the bills.<\/p>\n
Officer\/Director Roll taken\u2026<\/p>\n
Secretary reports on the call of the meeting.<\/p>\n
ISSUE I. Nullify ballots – deemed out of order
\nCounsel \u2013 Article 4 section 2 deemed it out of order.
\nOnce ballots are issued they cannot be rescinded.<\/p>\n
ISSUE II Postpose sale till membership has been fully informed.
\nItemized list of requested info.
\n-2015 operational budget
\n-2016 comprehensive balanced operational budget
\n-Cash flow statements for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (estimate)
\n-Capital Expenditures for 2016 without moving
\n-Current balance sheet
\n-Capital Expenditures for 2016 for Burbank property
\n-Sales commission rate for sale of the building
\n-An explanation on how the sale of the building will increase
\nwork for members
\n-A definition of “State of the Art”
\n-A business plan for spending money to make money.<\/p>\n
Most were already in the Overture.
\nAll info has been put up in a special place in the member\u2019s
\nsection of the website. Look there. —
\nMembers only section \u2013 scales and documents \u2013 musicians club
\nOR
\nTime is now 47 Website \u2013 questions and answers \u2013
\ndollars and cents \u2013 link from there.<\/p>\n
\u2013 Realtors spoke on the subject.
\nTotal Sales commission rate 3.5
\nWorking with other buyer, maximum 2.5 percent.
\nSale price approx. $24,000,000.<\/p>\n
Some discussion on the amount of the commission between
\nRealtor and member.<\/p>\n
Out of the commission, $100,000 would be donated back
\nto the Local 47 trust fund.<\/p>\n
Member asked: Any new locations to look at buying?
\nAnswer: Always looking \u2013 2 other potential properties.
\nBurbank and North Hollywood.<\/p>\n
Member: You don\u2019t sell without having something else to by.
\nRealtor: We have some protections. \u2013 then said seller of Alameda
\n is eccentric and 93 years old..<\/p>\n
Member: Any other offers on the Burbank building?
\nRealtor: No.<\/p>\n
Member: What about these safeguards (contingencies)
\nTerm of purchase are quite clear. Multiple offers on the 47 building.<\/p>\n
Member: What plans do other have for this site that we couldn\u2019t do?
\nReal: Have height restrictions. Any plans they have we don\u2019t know.
\nWe cannot refurbish the whole building and get it re-rented.<\/p>\n
Member: When you advise an organization as a buyer\/seller agent,
\nYou should have two different advisors or there is a built in
\nconflict of interest. We cannot judge the accuracy of the
\nadvice we\u2019re being given if there are not multiple sources.
\nReal: We only represent the seller. <\/p>\n
Member: Closing Costs \u2013 What are they?
\nPresident: $999,000 approximately.<\/p>\n
Members: What are the financial plans:
\nPresident: Sell at highest price possible, buy another
\nbuilding and re-service it for our needs. Use income
\nfrom the sale to pay bills and protect the core of the
\nmoney.<\/p>\n
Member: Are you representing the buyer?
\nRealtor: It\u2019s possible.<\/p>\n
Member: We\u2019re so central now, lots feel that the
\nvalue is not the only consideration.<\/p>\n
Lots will lose touch with the union.<\/p>\n
What other alternatives were investigated besides
\nbuilding? Former President Fleischer wanted to
\nlease out part of the parking to make money.
\nPresident: Looking at Glendale North Hollywood,
\nBurbank. Majority of members are along that corridor.
\n5400 in California more than 50% are in that area.
\nAsked realtor to explain how 22 million is a lot of money.<\/p>\n
Realtor: Offer is at 24,000,000. Commercial realty is
\nabout what the market will bear. Put it out with no
\nprice, and started getting offers around $18 mil.<\/p>\n
Most of these buyers very sophisticated and very
\nknowledgeable. $24,000,000 is a pretty good price.<\/p>\n
President: What about renovations?
\nRealtor: Union has 6 month lease back option
\n(Generally for $1)
\nAfter the 6 month period there\u2019s a very reasonable
\nrate for renting.<\/p>\n
Should be able to build out building in 6 months.
\nAnything over the agreed timeframe the builder
\nis fined.<\/p>\n
Member: The previous member also asked what
\nOTHER alternatives to selling were seriously
\nlooked at.<\/p>\n
President: Under previous administration looked
\nat partnership with RED Studios to build parking
\nlot, but it was nixed. Also the possibility of a 99
\nyear lease. The sale is what they decided to go with.<\/p>\n
Member: What is a triple net.
\nRealtor: Person (Local 47) leasing back would still
\npay their own insurance, utilities and property tax
\ntill they move.<\/p>\n
Member: This is a landmark. Not gonna find another
\none anywhere. How about upgrading the building,
\nget an architect to design and re-do for the building.
\nThe building is paid off! No money is owed.<\/p>\n
President: Personally if we had the money to stay
\nand renovate we would. We don\u2019t have the money.
\nDon\u2019t want to leave the institution in debt. Grueling
\ndecision. Not done in haphazard way.<\/p>\n
Member: How about a campaign to raise money
\nfrom musicians, artists, composers to re-do the building.
\nPresident: If vote doesn\u2019t pass that is one idea we
\ncan look at. Have gotten many ideas. There\u2019s no
\nowner\u2019s manual on doing referendums, never been done before.
\nMeetings earlier might have helped.
\n(EC: Ya THINK?)<\/p>\n
Member: How many have gotten calls? (Question could
\nnot be understood) Aimless talking\u2026<\/p>\n
Member: We were told at the October 5th meeting
\nthat we were $900,000 in the black. But a person
\nhired to make phone calls named Erich has been
\ntelling members that we\u2019re $700,000 in debt.<\/p>\n
I personally don\u2019t believe we\u2019ve lost 1.6 million
\nin the space of two months.<\/p>\n
President: We have a $700,000 DEFICIT, not debt.<\/p>\n
Member: Were return calls made to those he talked to
\nmake sure the \u201cfaulty\u201d info is Corrected?<\/p>\n
President: I called them personally.<\/p>\n
One of the seniors spoken to was led to believe that
\nthey could lose their pension if we didn\u2019t sell the
\nbuilding. While they\u2019re not connects, the members
\nwere left with that impression. Yet another indirectly
\ndishonest approach.<\/p>\n
We all received the RA-RA postcard,\u2026 where was
\nthe Local\u2019s postcard from those who do NOT support
\nthe sale?<\/p>\n
President: The board decided if we did that it would
\nconfuse the membership as to where the Local stands
\non the sale.<\/p>\n
Member: Aren\u2019t you supposed to be IMPARTIAL?
\nPresident: We don\u2019t have to be.<\/p>\n
Member: If duplicate ballots are found, the most
\nrecent ballot is counted. <\/p>\n
Member: As for info, We sometimes get a minority
\n report\u2026 no such report has been given
\nMembers was told that the local $700,000
\nin debt and he knows it\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n
There was major dis-information put out, on both calls
\nhe was told WRONG information. During 4 weeks,
\nbetween calls, these employees kept giving WRONG info.<\/p>\n
Some members have reported that they\u2019ve received
\nballot envelopes without a ballot. Where are those
\nballots? <\/p>\n
President: Mail house made the mistake.<\/p>\n
Director: Building is NOT historic, member for over the 30
\nyears. Doesn\u2019t have historic landmark status. It\u2019s 7 miles
\nfrom here to the potential new building. 14 miles round
\ntrip is not worth giving up a 9 million dollar windfall.<\/p>\n
As far as tapping wealthy members? Good luck with that.
\nWe have musicians relief fund, but this should not be a
\nstrategy that we follow. Started talking about it a year ago.
\nApathy is a big problem.<\/p>\n
If we sell this and buy something else free and clear we\u2019ll
\nstill be free and clear.<\/p>\n
Member: Advocate for the sale. Looking in the future, huge
\nHollywood crime problem will only get worse. It might be
\na good time to get out. Wants to commend the leadership
\nin moving forward.<\/p>\n
Members: The building IS a historic site. Been reading
\nabout group buyers each handling a different aspect.
\nIt\u2019s tough to get the information.
\nAsset, Liability, profit or loss, expenses,.. etc.
\nJoint venture idea is pretty cool. Someone could
\nby the building and flip it, why not have us be involved.<\/p>\n
President: Perhaps using someone else\u2019s credit score,..
\nhow would that work?<\/p>\n
Board adopted the sale as an issue. Don\u2019t stop the
\ncounting of the ballots, let the people speak.<\/p>\n
Member: Ballots,..many for and many against?<\/p>\n
Member: At the beginning you said it was a club
\nmeeting. Also said there\u2019s a connection with the
\nLocal. The Club would not exist without the Local.
\nDon\u2019t try to separate the two.
\n-Is no owners manual?,\u2026 but there are guiding principals,\u2026
\nin a nutshell, 70 (Experience) 20 (Connection) 10 <\/p>\n
-Questions: Re: Revoking the ballot. Board decided it
\nwas out of order. From a reading of the bylaws.
\nOn that issue is there also a financial analysis on the site?
\nPresident: Nope just the info.
\n2221 Ballots have come in: <\/p>\n
Member: Commend the board. I don\u2019t believe everything
\nis a conspiracy.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t know if it\u2019s a good idea, but what\u2019s important is
\nwhat\u2019s in the best interest of the union. There are always
\nbetter ways to do things.<\/p>\n
Not a good idea to try to manipulate an argument for
\nyour agenda. All of the concerns are legit, but keep the
\nargument on the real questions not conspiracy.<\/p>\n
Member: Members that didn\u2019t get a ballot,.. is there a
\nnumber of the ballot? Is there no chance of \u201cextra\u201d
\nballots appearing in the number.<\/p>\n
All ballots have numbers on it, the number of the old
\nballot is replaced with new ballot.<\/p>\n
ISSUE III. All comments must be printed and special edition
\nOf overture sent out.
\nSpecial overture $6,000. 4- page. Is a major expense.
\nPostage is included in that price.<\/p>\n
Is it worth sending out a special edition.
\nSecretary recommends no.
\nMember: RA \u2013RA postcard. Postcard is $1,800
\nMembers: How can the cost be the same\u201d one is 4
\ncolor and one was black and white.<\/p>\n
Color card went to member who\u2019d not voted yet.,
\nBlack and white went to all.<\/p>\n
Members: I taught MBA and Law School, You can
\nreach out to folks to donate money. Silicon Valley,
\nSilicon Beach. It\u2019s a historical building, I\u2019m from
\nEngland $5,000 spent to FULLY inform members
\nof both sides of issue. It\u2019s the right thing to doi..<\/p>\n
Director: Special Issue \u2013 Bad Idea
\nHave a possibility of building a new future. We
\nfelt it was important to sell the building. No one
\nspoke about it till now. Money in the bank,..
\nnew leadership. Very proud to be a member
\nof the community. We\u2019re professional musicians.<\/p>\n
MEMBER:
\nWhile there were mentions concerning selling
\nsince January, nothing was formally presented
\ntill August. Only in passing.<\/p>\n
Since we now know that many, many people
\nwere given blatantly wrong info, some would
\ncall them lies, mis-truths, it is more than
\nappropriate to set the record straight, or else
\npeople can and will, and should say they
\nwere misled into voting for it. There has been
\nblatant and apparently wide spread misdirection
\nand misinformation.<\/p>\n
Member: No officers have tried to mislead us,
\nbut that\u2019s what people think. Union should
\nmake a clear statement to the entire membership
\nthe difference between 700,000 debt and 700,000 deficit.<\/p>\n
Member: Question \u2013 If we get the new facilities,
\nwe\u2019ll duplicate the auditorium at the new location?
\nPractice rooms? Will there be input allowed in the
\ndetails of the build out. Should have 300 seat hall. <\/p>\n
President. \u2013 There\u2019s a building committee:
\nMike Papenbrook, Lisa Haley, Mike Davis, plus two more.<\/p>\n
Member: Special edition would be a good thing.<\/p>\n
Member: If it\u2019s $6,000 to send the edition, where does
\nthe money come from
\nPres: Local would pay for it.<\/p>\n
President: Have section of next print overture with portions
\nof presentation and re-printing letters. <\/p>\n
Member: Property tax here $45,000
\nIn new place $125,000 (more than covered
\nby rents from restaurants.)
\nWith a decent economy, can get 2-3 percent
\nOn investments.<\/p>\n
Closed debate:
\nI abstention. \u2013 <\/p>\n
Vote whether to put out special edition of the overture.
\nYes means print special edition
\nNo means no special edition. Pres would try to make
\nsure the needed info would go out in the next print Overture.
\nBe in mailboxes end of next week.
\nMotion Fails \u2013 no special edition.<\/p>\n
Member: Will there not be any debate in the mailing?
\nNone was asked for. If you have more thoughts get
\nthem in in the next 24 hours \u2013 By Tuesday afternoon
\nMember: If you vote yes. Special edition would go
\nout as soon as possible. It would be a couple of weeks.<\/p>\n
Vote fails by a major margin:
\nPresident promises to put info in next Overture.<\/p>\n
Meeting Adjourned After 9pm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SPECIAL MEETING REPORT, MONDAY, January 4th, 2016 Member\u2019s requested meeting: Local to explain the financials. Quorum reached (only nine needed for the CLUB meeting.) Over 50 attended —————————— The Salient Points of the meeting?? 1) If you send in comments about the sale before Tuesday night (TODAY!), they CAN get into the Overture going out […]<\/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-143","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\/143","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=143"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=143"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=143"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=143"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}