12\/23\/16<\/p>\n
HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE COMMITTEE!!<\/p>\n
I. A CONCERNED MEMBER’S LETTER TO THE IEB – FROM MAY 2016<\/p>\n
II. MEMBER COMMENT – BUILDING SALE<\/p>\n
III. EVENTS
\n…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
\n…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’\u2028scoring 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
<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I. A CONCERNED MEMBER”S LETTER TO THE IEB – LAST MAY<\/p>\n
COLLEAGUES, The letter below serves as an excellent summary
\nof the local’s conduct though out the entire building sale debacle.
\nWe thank the member who took the time and effort to document
\nthis conduct. It also shows how the AFM was in the tank for this
\nsale as well.<\/p>\n
May 15, 2016<\/p>\n
from:
\nMEMBER<\/p>\n
Ray Hair, President and AFM International Executive Board
\nc\/o Sam Folio, Secretary Treasurer
\nAmerican Federation of Musicians
\n1501 Broadway, Ste. 600
\nNew York, NY\u00a0 10036<\/p>\n
RE: Flawed Referendum Local 47\/ Club 47
\nResponse to Ray Hair Letter of April 25, 2016
\n* Denotes Enclosures<\/p>\n
Dear President Ray Hair and IEB,<\/p>\n
The LMRDA requires that union members have a<\/p>\n
right to a \u201cmeaningful vote\u201d. We believe that there<\/p>\n
is clear and convincing proof that the referendum put<\/p>\n
forward by the Musicians’ Club \/Local 47 did not provide<\/p>\n
the membership with a \u201cmeaningful vote\u201d. In fact, the<\/p>\n
Board of Directors put forward a carefully orchestrated<\/p>\n
campaign that insured the administration total control<\/p>\n
of the narrative promoting the sale of our Vine Street<\/p>\n
property, fully exploiting our communications resources<\/p>\n
for a one sided argument.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
No opposition was ever reported to the membership at large<\/p>\n
following the October 5, 2015 \u201cinformational meeting\u201d where<\/p>\n
it was clear the membership in the room was \u201cnot on board.”<\/p>\n
The membership overwhelmingly voted to delay voting.<\/p>\n
Your letter of response says there is a \u201clack of factual details specific enough for the Federation to act upon them.”<\/p>\n
Here are only some specifics:<\/p>\n
1) objection to the ballot language,<\/p>\n
2) reply from Local 47 on ballot language clarification request,<\/p>\n
3)\u00a0 non-disclosure of member concerns voiced in meetings and omitted in official publications,<\/p>\n
4) refusal to use an agency to perform the ballot process.<\/p>\n
Additionally, please add to your consideration the enclosed communications from Robert Hirschman, Esq. (a local 47<\/p>\n
union member in good standing) that adequately summarizes<\/p>\n
the position of many of the members. The response from<\/p>\n
Local 47 counsel is also included.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Also due scrutiny, a conflict of interest in the hiring of Erick<\/p>\n
Cruz from the same promotional company hired to promote<\/p>\n
the sale of the building as Local 47 \u201ccampaign manager.”<\/p>\n
Why was this person hired when Local 47 told us they were<\/p>\n
“watching every penny?” Also,\u00a0 there was a conveniently<\/p>\n
\u201ccoincidental shut down\u201d of the Committee for a Responsible<\/p>\n
47 blog just days after the initial mailing of the August 28, 2015,<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Time is Now\u201d flyer.<\/p>\n
All of the above are addressed below as a response to your<\/p>\n
letter of April 25, 2016.<\/p>\n
Ballot Language Issue<\/p>\n
The Fall Overture (print edition sent to all members) recited<\/p>\n
that the referendum question to be decided is:<\/p>\n
” Shall the Musicians ‘Club of Los Angeles, by and through<\/p>\n
its officers and governing board, be authorized to sell its<\/p>\n
real property located at 817 Vine Street, Hollywood, CA 90038?”<\/p>\n
The actual question was very much different. In fact, so different<\/p>\n
that several members requested clarification of what a “yes”<\/p>\n
vote or a “no” vote actually meant. Simply put, the question<\/p>\n
could be construed to be asking about authorization regarding<\/p>\n
the threshold price required for the sale.<\/p>\n
“Shall the officers of the Musicians’ Club of Los Angeles,<\/p>\n
(the “Club”) be authorized to sell the Club’s real property-<\/p>\n
located at 817 Vine Street, Hollywood CA 90038-for not less<\/p>\n
than Twenty Two Million dollars (22,000,000.00) to the<\/p>\n
successful highest bidder?”<\/p>\n
I have enclosed the correspondence from myself to the Local.<\/p>\n
In their response, you can plainly see the callous disrespect<\/p>\n
and hostility exhibited toward the members when we dare<\/p>\n
to question what may be the most important issue we have<\/p>\n
ever voted on..\u00a0 Is this the type of “service to the membership”<\/p>\n
that we somehow deserved for asking a legitimate question?<\/p>\n
In addition, Local 47 Member Darius Campo, (one of the<\/p>\n
realtors who is working for the Local on the sale and had<\/p>\n
access to the names of those members who had not yet voted.<\/p>\n
We were told he was working the phone tree and that is how<\/p>\n
he knew who to target his email blast), included in his blast<\/p>\n
a ballot clarification because he also knew it was an issue.<\/p>\n
It appears that the email blast was accomplished with the<\/p>\n
help of the Local 47 webmaster.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Additionally, repeated requests for ballot language clarification<\/p>\n
were made by Attorney Hirschman. Attached you will be able<\/p>\n
to see just how even Mr. Hirschman’s request was not answered<\/p>\n
by Local counsel.<\/p>\n
Finally, at the January 25, 2016 Membership meeting a<\/p>\n
direct question was put to the Chair regarding the ballot<\/p>\n
language. Counselor Levy took the question and said, “It<\/p>\n
means whatever the drafter intends it to mean”. The response<\/p>\n
from Counselor Levy was less than satisfactory and left those<\/p>\n
of us invested in this question frustrated.\u00a0 It appeared very clear<\/p>\n
that the administration intended to keep all its interpretive<\/p>\n
options open.<\/p>\n
Non-Disclosure of Member Concerns in Official<\/p>\n
Communications\/Inadequate Minutes<\/p>\n
The membership-at-large did not have the benefit of discourse<\/p>\n
regarding this referendum. Those members who opposed the<\/p>\n
referendum (as it was presented) did not have their views put<\/p>\n
“on the record “from those meetings for the membership as a<\/p>\n
whole to consider. Although the minutes record who spoke<\/p>\n
they do not indicate if the speaker was or was not in favor of<\/p>\n
the referendum and why. Why not? The Minutes from<\/p>\n
“Informational Meeting” of October 4, 2015 and Minutes of<\/p>\n
General Membership Meeting of October 26, 2015, are available<\/p>\n
for viewing on the Local 47 Website.<\/p>\n
The administration held two “informational lunches.” No<\/p>\n
official minutes were taken at these “Informational Lunches”<\/p>\n
October 12, 20, 2015. They were attended by members of the<\/p>\n
Executive Board, the realtors and only a handful of members<\/p>\n
who were largely in opposition of the referendum.<\/p>\n
These members asked questions and voiced their concerns.<\/p>\n
Some had prepared and read statements regarding the referendum-none of which was ever shared or disseminated<\/p>\n
to the membership-at-large. How could we have expected<\/p>\n
otherwise? President Acosta said that in “hindsight” he should<\/p>\n
have gotten the sentiment of the membership…but now, “we<\/p>\n
are committed to the process of the referendum”. Also, that ”<\/p>\n
the Board does not see any negatives regarding the issue of<\/p>\n
The Time is Now.” It is reflective of the adage, “Better to beg<\/p>\n
for forgiveness than to ask for permission.”<\/p>\n
Members’ Request for Special Club Meeting\/ Unreasonable Delay by Executive Board<\/p>\n
At the beginning of November 2015, members petitioned the<\/p>\n
Club 47 under the Club by-laws for a Special Meeting regarding<\/p>\n
the referendum.<\/p>\n
That meeting was not granted until January 4, 2016.\u00a0 This was<\/p>\n
less than a month before ballots were due in.\u00a0 We believe this<\/p>\n
was a deliberate delay allowing the referendum process to<\/p>\n
move forward without “on the record” discourse of the<\/p>\n
membership in opposition. The administration had at least two<\/p>\n
full months of total control of the message to its members.<\/p>\n
Letters to the Editor January Print Edition of\u00a0 Overture<\/p>\n
Starting in\u00a0 2015 the Overture is only printed and mailed to<\/p>\n
the membership on a quarterly basis. The membership (if they<\/p>\n
are able) have access only to an on-line version of our monthly<\/p>\n
publication.\u00a0 President Acosta finally and reluctantly agreed<\/p>\n
to print all Letter’s to the Editor regarding the referendum<\/p>\n
in the January 2016 print edition. Again, this proves consistent<\/p>\n
behavior by the administration to insure for themselves months<\/p>\n
of\u00a0 “no visible opposition” reaching membership-at-large\u00a0 by<\/p>\n
official communications. The referendum started in October<\/p>\n
2015 and ended February 1, 2016.<\/p>\n
Refusal to Provide Resources for Opposing Views<\/p>\n
At the October 26, 2015 General Membership Meeting, President<\/p>\n
Acosta was asked directly by a member if resources could be<\/p>\n
made available so that the opposition could\u00a0 share legitimate<\/p>\n
concerns with the membership-at-large, i.e. the nearly 6000<\/p>\n
members who were not present for any discussions regarding<\/p>\n
the referendum.\u00a0 This request was completely refused. President<\/p>\n
Acosta said, “no”. The position of the Union was they are not<\/p>\n
legally required to provide resources.<\/p>\n
Counsel Levy, in one of his letters to Mr. Hirschman, suggested<\/p>\n
that opposition voices could have taken out an ad in the Overture<\/p>\n
– As if somehow doing so would have been a\u00a0 viable means of<\/p>\n
reaching the membership-at-large. If the on-line version of the<\/p>\n
Overture was sufficient to reach the membership it would not<\/p>\n
have been necessary for the Union to spend money for postage on<\/p>\n
five special mailings promoting the referendum.<\/p>\n
Disparity of Resources<\/p>\n
In addition to the five special mailings, the Local generated<\/p>\n
numerous emails and targeted phone calls to\u00a0 those that had not<\/p>\n
returned their ballots. The President proudly announced that<\/p>\n
they had made 20,000 phone calls. How does the membership<\/p>\n
wishing to challenge the administration’s myopic one note<\/p>\n
samba compete?\u00a0 It should also be noted that members who<\/p>\n
signed the petition for the Special Club Meeting were not<\/p>\n
contacted by phone following the filing of that petition. It appears<\/p>\n
there was also a “do not call”\u00a0 list.
\nRefusal to Use Outside Agency
\nRepeated requests for use of an outside agency were rejected<\/p>\n
by the administration.\u00a0 President Acosta defended that decision<\/p>\n
by saying, “there is no manual (playbook) for the referendum.”<\/p>\n
Yet, he made written assurances that the referendum would meet<\/p>\n
DOL Standards.<\/p>\n
The Election Board Was Not In Charge of the Ballot Process<\/p>\n
The Election Board was relegated to only count the ballots. We<\/p>\n
were told that the Election Board would be in charge once the<\/p>\n
ballots were returned.<\/p>\n
Sometime on or about November 2015, the Union ordered an
\nadditional 1000 ballots.\u00a0 At the General Membership meeting of<\/p>\n
January 25, 2016, a member asked about these ballots. Even<\/p>\n
though the Chair of the Election Board was at that meeting, he<\/p>\n
did not address the question from the member.\u00a0 Sec.-Treas.<\/p>\n
Lasley took the question and said,\u00a0 “well, it was around a 1000. ”<\/p>\n
Why did he not give us an exact number? \u00a0 We were told the<\/p>\n
“extra” ballots were for replacements to those members who<\/p>\n
either “lost” their ballot or wanted to change their vote. The<\/p>\n
Election Board was not responsible for sending replacement<\/p>\n
ballots. All requests went through the Secretary-Treasure’s office and Erick Cruz.<\/p>\n
On November 3, 2015, I was in the main office at Local 47 and<\/p>\n
a great many number of returned ballots were left sitting on the<\/p>\n
receptionists desk. My notes from that day reveal that while the<\/p>\n
receptionist was at his desk when I checked in, he was not when I<\/p>\n
left.\u00a0 These ballots were left unattended and were not in the<\/p>\n
custody of the Election Board.
\nReferendum Ballot Count
\nI was an observer for the ballot counting on February 2, 2016.<\/p>\n
From my notes taken in real time during the process, you can<\/p>\n
read that it was only after my insistence that the Return to Sender<\/p>\n
ballots were produced and counted.\u00a0 Having been locked in a<\/p>\n
cabinet across from the receptionists desk , an office staffer had<\/p>\n
to be called back to the building “after hours” to open the cabinet.<\/p>\n
Vice-President Rick Baptist and a member of the\u00a0 Election Board<\/p>\n
retrieved these ballots so that they could be included in the ballot<\/p>\n
count. Since the administration had ordered an extra 1000<\/p>\n
ballots, I wanted to see just how many might have been used to<\/p>\n
replace those ballots. The total number of\u00a0 Return to Sender mail<\/p>\n
envelopes was 168.<\/p>\n
Astoundingly, in the middle of the ballot count, the entire process<\/p>\n
had to be moved from the auditorium to a conference room. It so<\/p>\n
happened that an orchestra rehearsal had been scheduled to use<\/p>\n
the auditorium!\u00a0 How could this have happened?\u00a0 How do you<\/p>\n
double book when you have planned this “major event” months<\/p>\n
in advance?<\/p>\n
The Tally Was Incomplete Due to the Failure to Count the Unused Ballots<\/p>\n
Title IV of the LMRDA establishes election procedures that must
\nbe followed by all unions covered by the act. “All ballots, including
\nused, unused, and challenged ballots, envelopes used to return
\nmarked ballots, tally sheets and related election documents,
\nmust be kept for one year.”<\/p>\n
Once the materials were boxed, taped, and signed, the Election
\nBoard, President Acosta, and myself, walked the boxes to the
\nbasement of Local 47 for storage. At that time Pres. Acosta
\ncounted the boxes and\u00a0 announced that the” ballots will be
\nkept for one year.”<\/p>\n
Subsequently realizing that the unused ballots were not in the
\ncount, I contacted each member of the Election Board . I have
\nnot received any response and do not believe that these ballots
\nwere ever accounted for.\u00a0 This is significant because while the
\nvote may look overwhelmingly in favor of approval of the sale,
\nthe threshold of 50% +1 to even count the referendum was met
\nby only a very few ballots. We were told at the October 5, 2015
\n“informational meeting”\u00a0 3210 ballots would need to be returned
\nto count the vote. At the January 25, 2016 meeting the number
\nrequired was reported as 3030. The actual tally from February,
\n2, 2016 ballot count was reported as 3260.<\/p>\n
Jay Rosen Resigned from the Election Board<\/p>\n
At the 47 Executive Board\u00a0 Meeting of February 16, 2016, President Acosta introduced Jay Rosen to give an Election Board report.\u00a0 Jay Rosen,\u00a0 in an apparent surprise move, resigned as a member of the Election Board. He read a written statement that was not put into the minutes of that meeting. My observer notes are in addition to his written statement. He said, “The process disturbs me… more than one thing.” “That ballots were heavily weighted to one side…if they were close, it could have been a problem.” Jay’s final comment was, “Hopefully, the referendum will not be repeated.”<\/p>\n
With nothing more for the Election Board to do until a new Election Board was elected, why did Jay Rosen choose to resign at this time?<\/p>\n
Campaign Manager Hired from Promotional Company<\/p>\n
Beginning in October of 2015, the Local hired Erick Cruz who had
\nbeen working the prior two years for the very promotional company that the union hired to promote the sale of Vine Street. His Linkedin page says Local 47 Campaign Manager.<\/p>\n
Our Election Board Chair identified Erick Cruz as the party that “has been tabulating the ballot numbers and members to whom those number are associated gave us a list of all members that had more than one return ballot envelope that was in the scanned database and what those numbers were.”<\/p>\n
Subsequent to the Referendum, I asked President Acosta about
\nMr.Cruz, (a clear partisan) and why he should been able to have his hands all over our ballots? ( In the words of an employee.)\u00a0 President Acosta replied that Erick had to know who had or had not returned their ballots so “we could stop harassing them with phone calls.” There can be no confidence in the process when even the appearance of impropriety is ignored.\u00a0 Erick Cruz was retained with the job title of “Organizer”.<\/p>\n
It in important to note here, that at an open meeting, it was Erick
\nCruz who got up and\u00a0 responded to my inquiry regarding the
\nunsecured ballots I had seen on the receptionists desk. Then,
\non the day of the referendum count, I engaged Erick Cruz in the
\nhallway and asked him if he was part of the Election Board and
\nhe said no.\u00a0 I also asked him how he knew how the ballots were
\nhandled? He said he had “seen how it was done.” This conversation took place within earshot of Executive Board Member, Judy Chilnick. Immediately, Ms. Chilnick summoned Local 47 Counsel Levy.\u00a0 Mr. Levy interrupted me and removed Mr. Cruz from our conversation. Several weeks later, I asked Judy why? I told her that Mr. Levy and Mr. Cruz are technically employees of the Union Membership and she had no right to interfere.\u00a0 Her response was, “I didn’t want Erick to be alone.”\u00a0 I then asked her if there was something to hide? She turned around and literally hustled away.<\/p>\n
Shut Down of Committee for a Responsible 47 Blog<\/p>\n
Probably the most scrutiny should be applied to the loss of a blog
\nsite that has been an integral part of the memberships ability to
\nopenly and freely communicate. The blog is where anonymously
\nposting opposition to union policy will not result or lead to the
\ndeath knell of ones’ career.<\/p>\n
Only days after the initial mailing of “The Time is Now” flyer,
\nposts in opposition to the sale of Vine Street showed up on the
\n“blog”. Within days of\u00a0 the Committee weekly emailing the “blog”
\nwas “spammed off.”\u00a0 It took many weeks and much financial
\nexpense to get out any posts because doing so required the
\nneed to retire a website and rebuild a mailing list.\u00a0 Counsel
\nLevy makes a specious argument that somehow the “blog” is
\na “viable and consistent alternate channel of communication
\nfor the membership “implying the “blog” absolved the Union
\nfrom its responsibility to insure the membership had a
\n“meaningful vote.”<\/p>\n
At a most crucial time for membership discourse, the “blog”
\njust disappeared.\u00a0 Following the downing of the “blog”, the
\nonly way\u00a0to read a post was to search the web for it because
\npostings no\u00a0longer automatically went into the subscribers
\ninbox. Contrary\u00a0to Counsel Levy’s argument, there was no parity.<\/p>\n
At the Oct. 26, 2015 General Membership meeting a member
\ndirectly asked President Acosta the following. “Do you know
\nif anyone in this room was responsible for the “blog” being
\nshut down?\u00a0 President\u00a0Acosta responded. “Ask the author,
\ndoes he have any proof?” President Acosta did not even
\nfeign surprise or concern at the\u00a0implication that anyone
\nconnected with the union would be involved.<\/p>\n
Additionally, on November 17, 2015, I had a conversation with
\nVice-President Rick Baptist in his office where the issue of the
\nabsence of visible opposition to the referendum came up. In
\nspecifically mentioning the loss of the blog, Mr. Baptist said,
\n” It did not come from the titled officers…but you know who
\ndid.” I did not quiz him on who?…However, the union does
\nhave a “webmaster.” Might this “webmaster” have had
\nsomething to do with it?\u00a0 Was that the implication from
\nVP Baptist?<\/p>\n
Regardless of who might have facilitated the loss of the
\n“blog,”the Local knew of the loss and openly admitted it.
\nThe only viable counter voice to the Local narrative had
\nbeen silenced.\u00a0 How could Counselor Levy claim, as he did,
\nthat there was anywhere near an even playing field when
\nthe members know they cannot send letters to the Overture
\nin opposition to the administration without the fear of
\nreprisal or losing work, or worse yet, (for our business)
\nloss of community?<\/p>\n
This incident of being “spammed off” is not the first time.
\nSeveral years ago, a very well known, but politically
\ninexperienced member tried to run for the Sec. Treas.
\nposition at Local 47. She put together her email list by
\ngoing through the union directory and sent out a mass
\nmailing. A well known and active musician was
\n“spammed off” apparently by her fellow musicians? She
\nlost any ability to mount a campaign to the membership
\neconomically and through electronic means.<\/p>\n
Because of the similarity of the incidents, I called the
\nadversely affected member about it.\u00a0 To her it was
\nobvious that she had become a persona non grata
\nfor having attempted to run for office,\u00a0 She told me
\nshe is not working much now.<\/p>\n
Grievance Issue<\/p>\n
Given the circumstances, it is risible to attempt for us
\nto file a grievance at Local 47. Internal probes in an
\norganization such as this can often be biased toward
\na specific outcome.<\/p>\n
Because of all the aforementioned, we are asking for
\nan investigation to be opened by the International
\ninto what many of us believe is a suspicious if not
\npossibly a fraudulent referendum. A finding that the
\nMembership has been irreparably harmed is sufficient
\ngrounds for seeking trusteeship of Local 47.<\/p>\n
Finally,\u00a0 President Hair, it is unclear to me that my
\nletter of February 16, 2016, was ever presented to
\nthe International Executive Board at its March meeting
\nas I was lead to believe.\u00a0 I contacted Ken Shirk for the
\nMinutes of that meeting to confirm that my letter was
\nincluded and whether any action had been taken by
\nthe Board as a whole.\u00a0 Mr. Shirk answered me that the
\nMinutes would be posted in July.\u00a0 I need to know about
\nany formal action or non action taken at the March
\nmeeting before July. This is not an unreasonable request.<\/p>\n
Sincerely,<\/p>\n
MEMBER
\nLocal 47 AFM\/Club 47<\/p>\n
[EC: The text of this letter included 19 footnotes, including
\n13 exhibits. Predictably, the AFM and the IEB did nothing.
\nThe misconduct was and is clear, but the AFM closed their
\neyes and stayed loyal to their overseers, or those doing
\nwhat the overseers wanted.]<\/p>\n
=====================================
\nII. MEMBER COMMENTS RE – BUILDING SALE<\/p>\n
I voted to stay put! I’m only still a member because I like the
\ncredit union. The Musician’s Union actually does nothing else
\nfor me, and If the new location isn’t convenient, I’ll probably
\nresign and take my money elsewhere.<\/p>\n
——————————<\/p>\n
So obviously no \u2018recording studio\u2019 at the new location\u2026 right
\nnext to the Bob Hope Airport. Probably not so hot for
\nrehearsing either. Jeeze!<\/p>\n
——————————-<\/p>\n
It\u2019s apparently on the east end of the airport. The flights take
\noff to the west and southwest.<\/p>\n
——————————–<\/p>\n
And which way do they land from?<\/p>\n
=====================================<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
III. EVENTS<\/p>\n
———————————–<\/p>\n
DEAN AND RICHARD\u2028\u2028\u2028DEAN AND RICHARD
\nare now at Culver City Elks the first \u2028Friday of \u2028every month.
\n7:30pm-10:30pm,
\n11160 Washington Pl.
\nCulver City, 90232
\n310-839-8891<\/p>\n
————————————-<\/p>\n
LA WINDS JAZZ KATS 584
\nNO COVER, NO MINIMUM.
\nEvery 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at
\nViva Cantina
\n7:30-10:00.
\n900 Riverside Drive, \u2028Burbank.<\/p>\n
Free parking across the street at Pickwick Bowl.
\nCome hear your favorite charts played the way
\nthey \u2028should \u2028be. \u2028\u2028We are in the back room called
\nthe Trailside Room. \u2028\u2028\u2028Come on down.<\/p>\n
Guaranteed to swing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
———————————————-
\n1\/21\/16
\nSFV SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
\nJan. 21, 2017 \u2013
\nTutor Family Center at Chaminade West Hills
\nSchumann: Manfred Overture
\nMendelssohn: Symphony #3 in A minor (Scottish)
\nBelling: Music Madly Makes the World Go Round
\nInaugural Performance
\nCary Belling, violinist
\n++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
\nOther concerts in the series
\nMar. 18, 2017 \u2013
\nAgoura Hills\/Calabasas Community Center
\nTuttle: By Steam or By Dream Overture
\nInaugural Performance
\nProkofiev: Symphony #1 in D major (Classical)
\nBen-Haim: Pastorale Vari\u00e9e for
\nClarinet, Harp and Strings
\nGeoff Nudell, clarinetist
\nBeethoven: Romance for Violin and Orchestra
\nRuth Bruegger, violinist<\/p>\n
May 13, 2017 \u2013 Agoura Hills\/Calabasas Community Center\u2028\u2028Saint-Saens: Bacchanale from \u201cSamson and Delilah\u201d
\nTchaikovsky:\u00a0Orchestral Suite No. 2 in C major
\nEgizi: Orchestral Suite \u2028\u201cIn Memoria di Mio Padre”
\nInaugural Performance<\/p>\n
Programs subject to change
\n——————————————
\nYou can read all previous offerings at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.responsible47.com
\nUNTIL NEXT TIME,\u2028\u2028THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
12\/23\/16 HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM THE COMMITTEE!! I. A CONCERNED MEMBER’S LETTER TO THE IEB – FROM MAY 2016 II. MEMBER COMMENT – BUILDING SALE III. EVENTS …Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer …The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’\u2028scoring musician …Allows us to speak our minds […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324","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=324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}