This mailing details the Jan, 07 Local 47 membership. We also discuss the Copyright Royalty Board Hearing to Determine Mechanical Rates for Songwriters; concerts; trivia and comments from readers.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I.\tMEMBERSHIP MEETING RESULTS
\nII.\tARTICLE CONCERNING SONGWRITER ROYALTY RATES
\nIII. \tCONCERTS AND EVENTS
\nIV.\tTRIVIA
\nV.\tREADER COMMENTS<\/p>\n
===================<\/p>\n
I. MEMBERSHIP MEETING, JANUARY 28th<\/p>\n
Once again, quorum was achieved, allowing Monday night\u2019s meeting.
\nApprox. 137 members attended.<\/p>\n
Interim Director Gary Lasley, with 100 votes, was officially
\nawarded the vacant seat on the Executive Board. The Election
\nBoard, headed by Michelle Bryne, did their typically efficient
\nand professional job, as we\u2019ve come to expect.<\/p>\n
The bright spot of the evening was that we had no less than
\nfive candidates run for the seat! Rank-and-file activism is alive,
\nbut will only sustain itself on the efforts of those who are
\nwilling to show up and be counted:<\/p>\n
The others who ran for the seat were:
\nRuth Bruegger 12
\nRon Hess 12
\nVal Ewell 10
\nDr. Les Bergantino 2
\n1 abstention – 1
\nTotal 137<\/p>\n
Most spoke passionately about their desire to create a more
\ninclusive union, one that can work for the entire membership. <\/p>\n
It was democracy at work, and those in attendance made their
\nvoices heard.<\/p>\n
We congratulate Brother Gary Lasley on his election, and hope
\nhe will use his new-found position for the general welfare of the
\nentire membership, with favoritism toward none.<\/p>\n
————————-<\/p>\n
A curious thing happened at Monday night\u2019s meeting. Though
\nthe membership had come expecting to elect a new board member,
\nan unanticipated attempt to rescind an action taken months ago by
\na majority vote of the general membership took place. <\/p>\n
Member Jay Rosen moved that the Executive Board retake jurisdiction
\nover its years-long battle to move the Referral Service office to a less-
\nvisible and less-client-friendly location within the union building. Those
\nwho depend on a healthy and vigorous Referral Service want it left
\nwhere it has historically been (to the side of the main lobby.) A motion
\nwas passed many months ago by majority vote at a general membership
\nmeeting to mandate the office be left where it is. <\/p>\n
His argument was two-fold: (1) that the general membership did
\nnot hold jurisdiction over the issue, thus making the previous
\nmotion and vote out of order, and (2) that the number of votes
\nin the affirmative, which he characterized as “25 members”
\nshould not have more power than the duly-elected board.<\/p>\n
As proof of his assertion, he had President Espinosa read Article
\nVI, Section I of the Local 47 By-laws, which reads in part, \u201cThe
\nExecutive Board shall exercise supervision over all property and
\naffairs of the Local,\u2026 Actions of the Executive Board may be
\naltered by a General Meeting, but only by a two-thirds vote.\u201d<\/p>\n
The quote makes clear that the board shall exercise SUPERVISION
\nover the offices, it does not give the Board the right to move them
\nat will without member input. Further, the last line of the section
\nmakes clear that the actions of the board may be altered by the
\nmembership, which is exactly what happened with the earlier
\nmajority vote of the general meeting.<\/p>\n
This would seem to indicate that, contrary to Mr. Rosen\u2019s assertions,
\nthe membership was in no way \u201cout of order\u201d with the previous
\nmandate. Oddly enough, neither the counsel nor the parliamentarian
\nbothered to point that out. This leaves Mr. Rosen with only one
\nargument, that he didn\u2019t like so few making the decision for the
\nentire membership.<\/p>\n
His motion, as amended, passed. Despite the fact that the Local’s
\nlegal counsel present made no ruling that the previous action by
\nthe general membership was out of order, this, in effect, tried to
\nsend the issue back to the Board for a ruling, presumably in line
\nwith its previous drive to move the office (against the express
\nand voted will of the larger body) to make way for wholesale
\nrenovation of the lobby and meeting room. Evidently, majority
\nvotes by the general membership, when decided in his ideological
\nfavor (as in the case of recent elections) suit him fine. When
\nthey run counter to it, they are to be replaced by the will of as
\nfew as seven board members, which is THEIR quorum. <\/p>\n
If the pressing decisions of the day were not automatically given
\nover to the Board when quorum-starved meetings fail, we wouldn’t
\nbe quite so concerned with the quorum’s size. At least everyone
\nwould have an equal need to “get out the vote.” However, since
\nall such decisions ARE automatically relegated to the Board, and
\nif that Board is ideologically “stacked,” then the size of the
\nquorum IS important and must be low enough to allow the general
\nmeetings to happen. <\/p>\n
THE NEXT ATTACK<\/p>\n
By raising this issue in this way (casting aspersions on sufficiently-
\nconcerned members who took the time to attend as “not working
\nthat evening,” it seems clear that Mr. Rosen still has no faith in
\nour present quorum, and another push to raise it may be in the
\noffing. <\/p>\n
As we’ve said before, if the idea of the smallest majority of a
\nquorum of 50 (50% plus 1, or 26) making decisions for the Local
\nscares Mr. Rosen so, then he is free to work to get more people
\nto attend and support his points of view. If, however, he holds
\nthe same ideological bent as the Board (and he does,) then a
\nhigher quorum, by throwing the decision-making power to it in
\nthe absence of general meetings (remember when we went TWO
\nYEARS without achieving a quorum of only ONE hundred?) will
\nachieve the control he would like over the Local without his
\nhaving to get one soul to a general meeting. <\/p>\n
Let’s not pay for the same political real estate twice, shall we? If
\nyou value the rank-and-file advances we have made over recent
\nyears, then it’s time to pay the tab, or you might end up having to
\npay it all over again at the next crisis. Giving a damn is optional;
\nacting as if you did is not. <\/p>\n
When deciding to attend, and then voting, ask yourself, \u201cDoes the
\nresult of this action ultimately increase the rights and freedoms
\nof the membership or not?\u201d <\/p>\n
Knowing that should make the right choice obvious.<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE<\/p>\n
================<\/p>\n
II. ARTICLE CONCERNING SONGWRITER ROYALTY RATES<\/p>\n
January 28th, 2008
\nMUSIC PUBLISHERS, SONGWRITERS VS. RIAA, DIGITAL MUSIC
\nASSOCIATION<\/p>\n
Copyright Royalty Board Hearing to Determine Mechanical
\nRates for Songwriters.<\/p>\n
The NMPA, which represent the interests of songwriters and
\nmusic publishers, are calling it \u201cthe most important rate
\nhearing in the history of the music industry.\u201d <\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
Music Publishers go head to head with the RIAA and the Digital
\nMusic Association (DiMA) as the Copyright Royalty Board begins
\nhearings today to determine mechanical rates for songwriters
\ntoday.
\n The National Music Publishers\u2019 Association (NMPA), which
\nrepresent the interests of songwriters and music publishers,
\nare calling it \u201cthe most important rate hearing in the history
\nof the music industry.\u201d
\n In addition to setting rates for physical products, rates
\nwill be set for the first time ever for digital products such
\nas digital downloads, subscription services and ringtones.
\nThe NMPA has vowed to \u201cfight vigorously\u201d to protect those
\ninterests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated
\nfairly.
\n\tBoth the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant
\nreductions in mechanical royalty rates.
\n\tThe current mechanical rate for physical phonorecords
\nis 9.1 cents. The NMPA is proposing an increase to 12.5 cents
\nper song. The RIAA, on the other hand, has proposed slashing
\nthe rate to approximately 6 cents a song.
\n\tFor permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate
\nof 15 cents per track, with the RIAA countering with 5-5.5 cents
\nper track and the DiMA less than that.
\n \tThe real difference comes in the area of interactive streaming
\nservices, where the NMPA proposed a rate of the greater amount
\nbetween 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-
\npenny calculation based on usage. The RIAA have countered that
\nsongwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of
\n.58% of revenue, while the DiMA is insisting that songwriters and
\nmusic publishers shouldn\u2019t receive any mechanical royalties.
\n\tThe initial hearing will last four weeks, with the three permanent
\nCRB judges hearing arguments Mondays through Thursdays. At the
\nconclusion of the initial hearing, there will be more discovery, followed
\nby a rebuttal hearing in May, and a final decision expected on October 2.
\n\tThe NMPA, RIAA and DiMA are expected to spend millions
\nof dollars attempting to sway the court of public opinion in the
\ndispute. <\/p>\n
=====================<\/p>\n
III. EVENTS AND CONCERTS<\/p>\n
FEBRUARY 13th<\/p>\n
On February 13th, 12 noon, at Catalina\u2019s in Hollywood
\nASMAC will honor Dynamic Music Partners: Kristopher
\nCarter, Michael McCuistion and Lolita Ritmanis.<\/p>\n
KRISTOPHER CARTER began his career as one of the youngest
\ncomposers to work for Warner Bros. He Received an Emmy
\nAward for \u201cBatman Beyond, as well as five other Emmy
\nNominations.<\/p>\n
MiICHAEL MCCUISTION is an Emmy Award-winning composer
\nwho has been working in film and television for over 15 years.
\nHe has been nominated for eight Emmy Awards and two Annie
\nAwards. <\/p>\n
LOLITA RITMANIS is an eight time Emmy Award nominated
\ncomposer, having won this award in 2002 for her work on
\nthe animated series \u201cBatman Beyond.<\/p>\n
Together they have worked on series such as: Legion of Super
\nHeroes, Teen Titans, Justice League, Batman Beyond, the New
\nBatman\/Superman Adventures and The Zeta Project.<\/p>\n
Wednesday, February 13th
\n11:30am Cocktails; 12 noon Buffet Lunch, 12:45 Tribute
\n& Guest Speakers <\/p>\n
Catalina Bar & Grill (1 BLOCK E OF HIGHLAND \u2013corner
\nof McCadden 6725 West Sunset Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90028<\/p>\n
Cost: ASMAC Members & Students $30 \u2022 Guests and all
\nwalk-ins $35
\nParking: Valet $3.00 \u2022 Enter on McCadden \u2013 behind Catalina\u2019s<\/p>\n
RSVP by Tues., February 12th to 818-994-4661 or
\n asmac@theproperimageevents.com <\/p>\n
—————-<\/p>\n
FEBRUARY 23rd
\nLos Angeles Pierce College Department of Music Presents the<\/p>\n
SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
\nJames Domine, Music Director<\/p>\n
SATURDAY EVENING Feb. 23, 2008 at 8 pm
\nPierce College Performing Arts Theater<\/p>\n
Ludwig van Beethoven
\nSymphony #9 in D minor (Choral)
\nPierce College Philharmonic Choir
\nTerry Danne, director<\/p>\n
James Domine
\nBass Clarinet Concerto
\nSteven Piazza, bass clarinetist<\/p>\n
General Admission: $25
\nStudents & Seniors: $20
\nChildren under 12: $15
\n For ticket information and group rates call
\n(818) 347-4807
\nvisit our web site: www.sfvsymphony.com<\/p>\n
=====================<\/p>\n
IV. TRIVIA<\/p>\n
With all the ‘Sturm und Drang’ in our Local lately, we thought
\nwe\u2019d like to introduce a new section of our mailings for trivia,
\n1 item of obscure musical trivia per mailing. If you have your
\nown, and you can give us a source, please send it to us.<\/p>\n
LONG PLAYING RECORD<\/p>\n
Pink Floyd\u2019s \u201cThe Dark Side of the Moon\u201d stayed on the Billboard
\ntop 200 album charts for 591 consecutive weeks \u2013 11.4 years.
\nThe LP has moved in and out of the Top 200 for an incredible
\n741 weeks (14 years) and has spent 26 years on various other
\nBillboard Charts.<\/p>\n
*When the album hit number one for just one week in 1973,
\nDavid Gilmour won his bet with manager Steve O\u2019Rourke that
\nthe album wouldn\u2019t crack the US Top Ten.<\/p>\n
** At Pink Floyd\u2019s outdoor concert at London\u2019s Crystal Palace
\nBowl in 1970, they played so loudly that most of the fish in the
\nLake in front of the natural amphitheater\u2019s stage were killed.<\/p>\n
=====================<\/p>\n
V. MEMBER COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The comments below represent the uncensored views of the
\nreaders and not necessarily those of the COMMITTEE. In the
\nfaith that freedom of expression allows for the birth and
\nascendancey of the most beneficial ideas, all sentiments
\nexpressed are welcome, subject to the bounds of good taste
\nand decorum. If you disagree with an opinion expressed by
\nany contributor, we encourage you to rebut it here,<\/p>\n
——————–<\/p>\n
TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!<\/p>\n
——————-<\/p>\n
Good response to the “political action” attack! They’re feeling
\nthe heat.<\/p>\n
——————–<\/p>\n
In response to the response to my opinion on the Desert
\nSymphony negotiations:<\/p>\n
Hal Espinosa is upset because he got caught with his pants
\ndown. That’s lamentable, lamentable, lamentable. 17 people
\nfrom the orchestra voted to strike. It was not unanimous. But
\nI wonder who gets to pick the orchestra committee next time?
\nHey, lemme see that contract! And if the Espinosa administration
\ncan accuse the Comm Resp 47 of being in bed with NRTW, then I
\ncan compare the Espinosa administration of being in bed with
\n\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022 \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022 and \u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022\u2022 himself. Maybe they would rather I
\ntell a great story of an errant hippopotamus and his sordid
\nrelationship with a giraffe. Then we can all be friends. By the
\nway, what’s up with American Idol?
\n I do not support the election of our current Secratary. Good
\nperson, wrong camp.<\/p>\n
——————–<\/p>\n
“I’m talking and I can’t stop”<\/p>\n
Oh, I forgot. The “winning strategy” would have been to deal with
\na full deck. The way I understand it, the Desert Symphony was
\nready to give the union what it wanted. Then Mr. Espinosa sat on
\nthe contract for 4 months and waited till the last minute to
\nthreaten a strike. This way, he looks like he is doing something
\nfor the orchestra (getting votes) and gets to bully an old couple
\nthat run the orchestra for the fun of it. Don’t tell me they’re just
\n“smart business people”. Ben doesn’t conduct for the money.
\nTrust me, they don’t need the money. This is the kind of
\nnegotiating that alienated the McCallum theatre (note: McCallum
\ntheatre knows Local 47 will stab them in the back if they do
\nbusiness with them. But they are not “union busting”, because
\nthey allow artists to bring union players in. And you\u2019re right, I am
\nbutting my nose into other peoples union business. So what?<\/p>\n
——————-<\/p>\n
Sounds like Espinosa is a George Bush clone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <\/p>\n
——————-<\/p>\n
I noticed that Hal wanted to “set the record straight” on the Desert
\nSymphony but not the “allegation” that Pete Anthony went to
\nLondon to conduct on a non-union film. What’s up with that?
\nDoes he condone this? Hal if you are reading, please feel free to
\n respond. By the way I am in no way connected to the
\n“Committee”.<\/p>\n
——————–<\/p>\n
go get em – what right is right – god I love it – Pete ratted out
\non a London gig but – maybe his name should have stayed
\nout…..???? should have read – a top orchestrator……<\/p>\n
anyway – it’s already out there – how can we affect change right
\nnow – FOLIO and LEE ??<\/p>\n
——————–<\/p>\n
YOU ARE CORRECT – that is the right slant – the rank and file
\nthat are afraid to talk openly for fear of you know what<\/p>\n
now lets start affecting change<\/p>\n
——————<\/p>\n
Kinda reminds me of how the Bush administration will make a
\ncomplete mess of – you name it – the economy, hurricane
\nKatrina, veterans hospitals, the illegal profiteering from the
\nwar in Iraq – and then after making that mess they will come
\non television and make a statement like, “somebody ought to
\nclean this up”; or “we’ll get to the bottom of this and catch
\nthose responsible”. I know what my Christmas present to
\nHal is going to be: a mirror. Oh dang, he’s probably got too
\nmany of them already!<\/p>\n
——————<\/p>\n
What started out as being informative has turned into vindictive
\nnonsense written by people who don’t even have the courage to
\nidentify themselves{I am sure the people who do the hiring
\nknow who you are anyway so I don’t buy that defense} take me
\noff your list!!!!!!!!<\/p>\n
——————<\/p>\n
The question in the union paper went something like this: “If the
\nCommittee is for a more responsible Local, then whose side is it
\non, Local 47’s or the National Right To Work Committee (NRTWC)?”<\/p>\n
One answer to this question is that the two are not mutually
\nexclusive. It is not an either\/or situation. The union claims
\nto want the best for workers. So does the NRTWC.<\/p>\n
California and approximately 27 other states are not, contrary
\nto what some believe, “Right to Work” states. “Right to Work” in
\nthis context has a specific legal meaning. Do your own Google
\nsearch.<\/p>\n
Unions can function, and function responsibly, without compulsory
\nunion membership. Right to Work laws provide that a worker can
\nfreely choose to be a member of a union or not.<\/p>\n
A “closed shop” or “union security clause” seeks to force a worker
\nto join a union and pay dues or lose his\/her employment. The
\nfederal judiciary, in a number of rulings one of which was Beck
\nv. CWA, has basically declared the “union security clause” to be
\nunenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act. In other
\nwords it is becoming increasingly difficult for unions to enforce
\n“closed shop” or “security clauses.” <\/p>\n
On the other hand in California an employee who is a non-
\nmember is still obligated to pay dues related to the costs
\nassociated with collective bargaining, contract administration
\nand grievance procedures if he or she works under a CBA. But
\na non-member is not subject to union disciplinary procedures.
\nSo the union can’t dictate to the non-member what he or she
\nmay do. The NRTWC is dedicated to the idea that no one should
\nbe forced to join a union to get or keep a job. I agree with that
\nidea but I do not claim to speak for The Committee; I speak only
\nfor myself. I do not want to be threatened by my union, nor do
\nI want to surreptitiously and hypocritically work “dark” when I
\ncan honestly and openly just accept work I want to do. But that
\nis just me.<\/p>\n
Rick Blanc (please attach name)<\/p>\n
————————<\/p>\n
Please.
\nNo more political information.
\nI will not choose to vote for anyone if this persists.<\/p>\n
===================<\/p>\n
Until Next Time,<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This mailing details the Jan, 07 Local 47 membership. We also discuss the Copyright Royalty Board Hearing to Determine Mechanical Rates for Songwriters; concerts; trivia and comments from readers.<\/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-9","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\/9","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=9"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}