An Independent Journal for Members of the
American Federation of Musicians
An Independent Journal for Members of the
American Federation of Musicians
|
This site is neither owned, nor (God forbid) endorsed, by the AFM Completely
unnecessary explanation of the above statement.
Editor's Note: UnionMuse
is neither fish, flesh nor web log. However, in its current undisciplined
form it tends to resemble the last of these. This was not entirely
deliberate, but it is certainly not the worst way to present the material. About Error Messages
Link page coming soon. For now, we'll place good ones here as we get a chance. Here's an essential one: The Association for Union Democracy
Editor: Lou Barranti Updated Contact Information (February 2005) On account of all the spam, we have removed the e-mail links and replaced them with spelled out e-mail addresses. No doubt you've seen this sort of thing on other sites before: just replace the red "at" with the symbol "@" (no quotation marks, of course) and the red "dot" with a "." - no spaces, please, - and your missive should be on its way to our new editorial offices. Contact UnionMuse: editor at unionmuse dot com Alternate UnionMuse e-mail
address: All content ©2004, UnionMuse |
Thursday, March 4, 2004 The UnionMuse Lost and Found Department Lost: Four AFM International Representatives Here are the survivors. Sources say Tom Lee has just fired the rest of them.
Could be a money saving move. In her January International Musician column, Florence did say we'd have a cash flow problem until that Special Payments tax started rolling in. The four who were let go cost the AFM treasury $255,037 (salary and expenses combined) in fiscal 2002. • • • • • Found: Former AFM Assistant Treasurer We reported last year that the AFM website showed that Rosalia Aquino was no longer listed as Assistant Treasurer. Knowing that Secretary-Treasurer Florence Nelson was in over her head, and should not have been left alone with the piggy bank or the abacus, we were quite concerned that an experienced worker had been allowed to leave the AFM's employ. However, Nelson did appoint an interim A-T shortly thereafter (which staff member himself disappeared after a short time, and the AFM apparently was without a comptroller for several months until the appointment of the latest Assistant-Treasurer/Comptroller). As to Ms. Aquino, we are happy to report that she was able to secure the position of Director of Finance at the fabled Hale House in Manhattan. Prior to its recent reorganization, that charitable organization itself went through some hard times. Lorraine Hale (daughter of its legendary founder, "Mother" Clara Hale), president and CEO, was forced out several years ago on account of coming down with hands-in-the-cookie-jar-syndrome and related maladies. The new executive director and CEO, Lawrence F. Davenport, has put in place a fine new staff, including Rosalia Aquino. Congratulations, Rosalia.
Friday, February 20, 2004 "What National Media Standards?" Department, Ohio Division Our latest Hilarious Recording Story Last weekend, we asked:
And we suggested that, if you were lucky, you wouldn't even have to file a contract. Sounds like a set up for a nice piece of satire, right? We've done that before, so it would be understandable if you assumed we were about to do it again. Sorry. No satire today. This is a true story. And, as such, it's even funnier than it otherwise would have been. Funnier than satire? Don't believe us? Here, try this: "So they signed a contract for the recording date?" "No. They couldn't sign the Phono Agreement because they aren't signatories to the Phono Agreement." Sounds a lot like Bob and Ray. Or Abbott and Costello. (There's probably a related joke, something to the effect of, "And how does one become a signatory?" Apparently the punchline is very funny. Something like, "One signs the contract." Absolutely HILARIOUS. Who would have thought?) Meanwhile, back at the story line... A band called Glass Harp, quite popular in the Seventies, staged an eagerly awaited reunion concert in their hometown, Youngstown, Ohio, on October 22, 2000. They wanted to have an orchestral backup for half of the program, so (naturally) they talked to the Youngstown Symphony management about the possibility. They also wanted to record the concert for a possible CD. The YSO sent them over to Local 86-242 where they talked to Del Sinchak, president of the local, Grammy nominee, delegate to the AFM convention. Sinchak also works in an administrative position at a recording studio that used to be a signatory to what used to be referred to as the Phono Agreement (we'll use that term here, since the affair to which we refer happened before the contract's name was changed). According to Sinchak, with whom we spoke this past December 11, he told the band that they would have to pay the rates specified in the Phono Agreement. Exactly right. We asked to see the contract. He told us that there was no contract. He said that "we didn't file a contract because they weren't a signatory." (At that moment in the phone conversation, we began to wonder where we were. We hadn't eaten or drunk anything unusual. A quick look around revealed no caterpillars, gryphons or grins without cats. Perhaps the president himself had fallen down a rabbit hole. Whatever was going on, there most definitely was a mad person about, but it wasn't a hatter.) BUT (Sinchak said) the players did get properly compensated under the terms of the Phono Agreement, including those requiring contributions to pension and health and welfare (both, however, paid directly to the musicians, as the local has no health plan; and without a signed contract, the pension fund wouldn't accept the pension contribution). Well, never mind those technicalities about not recording without a signed AFM agreement. Just because that's the AFM's FIRST rule of recording, doesn't mean it's terribly important. And never mind the protections built into those contracts. They're mostly window dressing. At least the musicians got the right money. And how much was that? For what amounted to the equivalent of a two hour session leading to the production of a cd that contained just under 60 minutes of orchestral backup, the local president was pleased to say that each musician received $165 (plus the pension/h&w payments). They also received their usual per service pay for the concert and rehearsal, of course. $165? $165 certainly is nice pocket money. Add in the pension and health and welfare money and it's not too far away from $200. But it's not phono scale. We don't know WHAT scale it is, if any. Under the phono agreement, 15 minutes of finished product may be released for each three hour session. If a two hour session results in a sixty minute CD, the musicians must be paid for the equivalent of four three hour sessions. And just how much would that be? According to the recording department of a Major Metropolitan Local* (not its real name) the rate in effect in October of 2000 was $302.85 for a three hour session (15 minutes of "product"). Four sessions would have resulted in payments to each musician of $1211.40, not including pension or health and welfare. Sorry to say, we don't have a snappy ending to this story. Having given away the punchline at the beginning, all we can say is that this affair shows excellent, excellent work, as always, by Local 86-242, where the concept of Fair Representation has yet to be discovered. Revised slightly from original posting (session date added, typos corrected)
February 14, 2004 After a plague of delays, we've some hilarity on the way. Upcoming:
(We're broadcasting today and tomorrow from Cleveland, Ohio, where very few restaurants or bars are open for business at one o'clock on Saturday afternoon.) Please Stand By Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Bogus
recording contract is bogus, says AFM When the Pension Fund's signatory department reviewed the contract under which the Youngstown Symphony, with the Joe Augustine Trio, recorded a CD in December, 2002 (released in 2003), they found it inadequate (for background see "Pants on Fire, Part One," this page and our original reports, here). However, they indicated that they would accept pension contributions made pursuant to that agreement if the AFM would sign off on it. The AFM would not do so. (The original pension check itself, supposedly sent to the Fund last year by the local, has not yet materialized.) The signatory department reports that it sent the agreement to Debbie Newmark (Director of Symphonic Electronic Media with the AFM's Symphonic Services Division). Knowing a hot potato when she sees one, she refused the contract and tossed it to Idele Beltzman in the AFM's Electronic Media Services Division in Los Angeles. (Previously, in December of 2002, SSD refused to help when a concerned orchestra member first told Newmark of the local's mishandling of the recording.) Beltzman, too, found the recording contract to be less than proper and sent the president of Local 86-242, Del Sinchak, a copy of the Non-Symphonic Limited Pressing Agreement for the parties to sign. She indicated that the Symphonic Limited Pressing Agreement should have been used, but, trying to salvage the pension contribution, she said she would approve use of the non-symphonic agreement this one time only. (Why did Newmark avoid pushing the issue with Sinchak? If EMSD could authorize his using the wrong contract after the fact, why couldn't SSD do the same with the right one?). Of course, the parties already had made an agreement, whatever its flaws, over a year ago. The employer signed the anorexic document (provided by the local) in good faith. The recording was made and the CD released. They really don't have to sign another one (especially one that specifies significantly more legal obligations on the employer's part). Will they? Meanwhile, President Sinchak says he has obtained a replacement for the "lost" check and sent it to the AFM-EPF. Will it all be in vain? Stay tuned. (Local 4 follow-up on the way...) Friday, January 9, 2004 "We'd get a lot more work done if it weren't for Google" department It don't mean a thing No doubt this is just fine with everyone whose opinion counts: Largest grants issued by the New Jersey State Council on the Arts, fiscal 2003:
People in the news:
Wednesday, January 7, 2004 (Revised Thursday, January 8) Meanwhile, back in central New Jersey... On November 17, in "More Local Lobotomy" (a few entries below), we told the story of a musician who had played with a New Jersey concert band for many years, but who was dumped a couple seasons ago in favor of a player who was willing to attend free rehearsals. The band's performances are sponsored by the Music Performance Trust Funds, with the usual local co-sponsorship. We reported in a subsequent article (“Business as Usual” -- also below) that the band is contracted and conducted by an officer of Local 204-373. The officer in question, Chris Pedersen, is the MPTF administrator for that local. His band and that of another officer of the local, John Kulpa (vice president and secretary), played 49.1% of the MPTF sponsored jobs from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2003 according to information contained in the local newsletter. A rough calculation suggests that the two bands obtained approximately 60% of the total funds available. Pedersen's band also obtained money from the Film Funds for an additional two concerts.In the earlier piece, we also reported the following:
We wondered,
We'll take a crack at it, the first two entries made with the assistance of a couple of our correspondents. Consider this a rough draft. I. Cooked books Both sources suggest that this sounds like an old game some locals like to play: The locals list members as suspended, though they are not, in order to be allowed to retain their per capita in those quarters for which they are so listed. If that's what's going on, it's not pocket money we're talking about. Assuming these "suspended" types are regular members, the per capita retained, per quarter, would be (or, would have been, until the dues increase on January 1) $11.50. Total retained, $3001.50 (261 members x $11.50). Note that, strictly speaking, the suspended members would drop from the rolls altogether after a quarter of suspension owing to AFM bylaw mandated automatic expulsion after six months of non-payment. If it's an old game, the Federation is on to it, right? And shouldn't they look into these things, if they know about them? Isn't the practice, if it is indeed a practice, fiscally dishonest, at very least? That the local might be engaging in this sort of funny business is, of course, just one hypothesis. Maybe that’s not what's happening at all. II. More cooked books: a theory possibly too weird to be even remotely plausible The 261 suspended members don’t exist. Of course the people exist, and they may or may not belong to other locals, but not to this one; perhaps they once belonged to 204-373; perhaps they were expelled for non-payment, but the local still lists them as suspended. Why? Why bother? The local, after all, receives no dues at all from them, therefore there is no per capita to retain. Maybe, by some strange miracle, the local never gets audited (the AFM’s International Reps don’t make the regular visits they used to), so no one discovers the bogus number. So why list them at all? Maybe in order to obtain a larger MPTF allocation. Looks like they live off of MPTF and coerced membership, so why not? III. Bum database (If this one is correct, we've wasted time in idle speculation, when we could have been working on the next installment of "What did you do before you were a musician?") The AFM member list has NEVER been quite right. (One local officer told us a couple of years ago that quite a few members, dead for some time, were listed in the AFM database as "active" well after the local reported their demise to the Federation.) However, we doubt they would be so far off as to list 261 members of a 599 member local as suspended. If such a number came up, surely bells would go off, wouldn't they? Let's give Local 204-373, and the Federation, the benefit of the doubt and try one more. IV. Seasonal work and Union Insecurity Let's assume that the member database is correct: there are 599 members, 261 of whom are suspended, presumably for non-payment of periodic dues. Why so many (44%)? We could as well ask why, in fact, so many members at all? Not much going on in Local 204-373 that would suggest the existence of so many union musicians. Here is what the membership numbers in other New Jersey locals look like, based on the AFM's database as of today, January 7:
The 204-373 membership total approaches that of the city locals of Newark and Paterson (both of which seem to have much more believable percentages of suspended members - and more work). Is it possible that illegally coerced membership is the cause of at least a significant part of the inflated local roster? Or that the musicians are less than subtly "persuaded" to join -- perhaps with a promise of future benefit (more work)? Let's say that there are many musicians working seasonal jobs in the local (though over 200 seems like it might be an excessive number). The musicians, most of whom are members of other AFM locals, are hired to play an engagement and are told either that they must join the local in order to be able to work there, perhaps even before the engagement takes place (no 30 day grace period), or that they will get more work if they do so. Let's say that most of this work is NOT covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (therefore there can be no forced membership, or non-member fee paying equivalent). Let's say the contractor has been instructed by the local to inform the musicians of this "obligation." Could this really happen? The musicians join the local for a few jobs one summer and don't work there again (at least not until the next summer, if at all). They have no intention of continuing membership, but they don't resign from the local, perhaps forgetting to do so, perhaps not realizing that the formality matters. They give their membership in that local no more thought until they get a past due, or a suspension, notice. Maybe they're even too busy to think about it after it arrives. Does any of this sound at all plausible? According to the musician who lost his job with Pedersen's band, Pedersen told him that he would get more work if he joined the local. With that promise, the musician joined. Certainly he could not have been the only one to be so enticed.
A friend of the UnionMuse editor has worked in the local's jurisdiction and joined 204-373 at one time, because he was told the work he was doing required membership there. Subsequently, the musician let his membership lapse (like the hypothetical musicians, above). He did not play there for a few years, and gave the local no more thought until he was called to play there again. He sent a check to the local to pay the back dues for what he determined to be the period for which he was properly obligated. When he played the job, the local told him he had to rejoin immediately or they would tell the employer to withhold the paycheck. He tells us that "everybody" is told the same thing when they play in that local: join now, play later -- even on the jobs not covered by a CBA. Clearly this is being done on instruction from the local. He told the local that withholding his paycheck or requiring him to join immediately were against the law, that since he was not currently a member, he had thirty days to join if his employment continued. He got no satisfaction, so he filed a complaint with the NLRB. That, of course, got the Federation's attention and the matter ultimately was resolved. God forbid the AFM should enlighten the locals as to the law (and the bylaws, for that matter) without such external pressure. Is it I, II, III or IV? A combination? None of the above? Is there a V? If we haven’t figured it out by the time the buzzer sounds, we’ll take whatever’s behind the curtain. (Note on the January 8 changes: In addition to the revision noted above, several other paragraphs have been edited for clarity.)
Tuesday, December 30, 2003 (UPDATED!) Mauve Alert! We have been asked to relay an urgent message from American Federation of Musicians President, Tom Lee, concerning the implementation of certain necessary security measures. In the event of an elevation of threat level, as specified in the accompanying document, be vigilant, but go about your daily business (and do not forget to certify weekly for unemployment insurance benefits). Click here for official AFM notice. (warning: dreaded pdf file - 317 K)
(Updated Wednesday, December 31, 2003) Pants on Fire, Part One What possibly could be the reason that an employer (a symphony orchestra) would not send a pension contribution to a local until six months after a recording date? (HINT: It’s not the employer’s fault.) What possibly could be the reason that the local would then sit on the pension contribution for six months rather than send it to the AFM and Employers Pension Fund office? What possibly could be the reason the local’s president would say (in August, October and again in late November) that, yes, he had sent the pension check to the Fund early in the year, when in fact he had not sent the appropriate paperwork to the orchestra management until sometime in May? (And, therefore, they did not send him the pension check until June.) Herewith, some bits and pieces in search of an answer: The Youngstown Symphony Orchestra (Ohio) has a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Local 86-242. We reported, in December of last year, that the orchestra recently had recorded its first CD (with the Joe Augustine Trio). We reported that the president of Local 86-242, Del Sinchak, provided the employer with a limited pressing contract to cover the dates. (There were two sessions: a live concert recording and a patch session the following day.) [click here to view our original reports] We reported that the contract in question [click to view text] was embarrassingly inadequate. It’s not so much that the president edited the AFM boilerplate, but that he removed almost all of the protections for the musicians. And he did not even use the correct contract (the Symphonic Limited Pressing Agreement) as a point of departure for his adaptation. One thing he did include in the laughable agreement, however, was a provision for a pension contribution, though the contract did not say to which pension plan the employer was contributing. We reported that when a musician from the orchestra complained to SSD that Sinchak’s handling of the recording contract was incompetent, the AFM’s Director of Symphonic Electronic Media, Deborah Newmark, told the musician that the AFM was not going to help; that Sinchak made an honest mistake; that he was inexperienced. Debbie was being much too kind. Sinchak has been president of the local for many years. As we wrote a year ago, according to the musician who spoke with Ms. Newmark, he has twenty years of inexperience behind him. Sinchak works in an administrative position at a recording studio. He has made many recordings with his own band. He has a copy of the AFM bylaws. He gets all the handbooks, handouts, bulletins, contract boilerplate and other material that every local is sent. If he doesn’t know what to do in a given situation, he can look up the answer. In January, we asked President Sinchak about the status of both the pension contribution and a grievance that had been filed concerning the second recording session’s overtime and breaks (there were no breaks.) Sinchak reported that he had “just” spoken with Patricia Syak, Executive Director of the Youngstown Symphony Society, and that she was at that moment preparing two checks, one for the local’s work dues and one for the pension contribution, and was going to send him both checks right away. In August, we inquired again about the pension check and were told that he sent it to the Fund early in the year. In September, the Pension Fund mailed out its annual individual account statements. Several YSO musicians noticed that there was no contribution indicated for the December recording sessions. The statements cover all contributions received up to April 1 of this year, and should have included the YSO pension money, since it had been mailed to them “early in the year.” One of the musicians wrote to the Pension Fund in mid-October and asked about the missing contribution. She provided them with information as to date of engagement, wages, employer, etc. Sometime thereafter, a representative of the Fund’s collection department called her, said they had no record of the date or of the employer being a signatory, and asked for detailed documentation regarding the session, which information she sent to him by overnight mail in November. [n.b.: Detail corrected. We originally said she faxed the information.] Exactly one week prior to Thanksgiving, and knowing that the Fund had no record of the contribution, we visited the local and inquired again about the grievance and the pension. Sinchak said he had mailed the pension check early in the year, but could not pinpoint the exact time. The next day, we returned to the local and told the president that we found out that the Pension Fund never received the contribution. He quickly improvised, “They called me three days ago...[they] said it’s either lost in their office or...They called to make sure I called the symphony to see if the check was cashed...I called [the symphony] yesterday...The National [the Federation] told me that [they’re looking into it]...That was about four days ago.” [ed: And he raises flying pigs. He didn’t remember these things one day earlier? Why would the Pension Fund have called him to say that the check must be lost, if they had no knowledge of the date at all? Any time this guy is caught lying, he somehow has just gotten a call from the party in question, and the problem is on its way to being resolved, even if a moment before being confronted with the truth, there was no problem at all.] A week after Thanksgiving, we called the Pension Fund again. They confirmed our suspicions. The collection representative told us that the Fund had not, in fact, called the local. They first needed to go over all of the paperwork the musician supplied to them only a few weeks earlier. When asked about the missing payment, the employer told an orchestra committee member that they did indeed issue a pension check, and the “B” report form, but not until June, because Sinchak did not provide them with the pension paperwork (and the “B” form) until May, five months after the recording sessions. Contradicting the local president’s statement on November 21 that he had discussed this with the symphony “yesterday,” this apparently was the first the employer knew anything about the “lost” check. Had Sinchak sent the check to the AFM-EP Fund immediately upon receiving it, it certainly would not have been “early” in the year. But at least the money would have been at the Fund’s offices by the time the musician contacted the Fund two months ago. The check was not yet cashed as of the end of October, according to the YSO’s bank statement for that month. Based on the president’s lies and general evasiveness (and past history) we (and the musicians) believe that the check is not lost in the mail or in the Pension Fund’s offices, that Sinchak never sent it to the Fund, and that he either misplaced it (and knows he did so) or is sitting on it for reasons unknown. Not surprisingly, symphony members’ faith in this guy is next to nonexistent. And at least one musician is surprised that Sinchak has not cashed the check himself. Next: More lies. More bad representation. Another Youngstown Symphony recording (and no contract whatsoever for that one). Tuesday, December 9, 2003
Friday, November 21, 2003 Meanwhile,
over at the International Musician This came in November 3. Obviously, the deadline for the December issue has passed, but January is a REALLY BAD month for advertising salespeople. Maybe they'll make you a great deal.
Needless to say, it is NOT a good sign that the back cover was still available less than a month before publication. It is an even worse sign that they were offering it for only $2,000. If readers have some spare change and want to help them out, here's the number to call: (315) 422-0900 ext. 101 Business as Usual The Music Performance Trust Funds sponsored 59 free concerts in the jurisdiction of Local 204-373 from November 1 of last year until October 31 of this year. Somehow the Local managed to obtain sponsorship from the nearly forgotten Film Funds for two more. Of those 61 concerts, 31 (or 50.8%) were led by just two local members, John Kulpa and Chris Pedersen. Kulpa got funding for twenty MPTF gigs, and Pedersen, funding for nine. Pedersen's band also received the money from the Film Funds. (Counting only the MPTF, they received 49.1% of the total.) In fact, their groups received a much higher percentage of the actual money than these numbers would indicate, because Pedersen employed 30 musicians for most of his concerts. Without figuring in leaders' fees, a rough calculation suggests that bands led by Kulpa and Pedersen took a little over 60% of the MPTF money distributed in their local. That rises to close to 65% if one counts the two concerts sponsored by the Film Funds. Ten other band leaders and their groups played the other thirty MPTF concerts. Most did only one, two or three. What makes this funding distribution especially significant is that Kulpa and Pedersen are officers of Local 204-373. Kulpa is Vice President and Secretary; Pedersen is an Executive Board member. Chris Pedersen happens to be the MPTF administrator for the local. Quelle surprise. Chris Pedersen's band is the Garden State Symphonic Band. That, of course, is the group mentioned in our last article in which a longtime player was replaced with someone willing to attend unpaid rehearsals. Unpaid rehearsals. This is NOT a union official you would want representing you at the bargaining table. Or one to whom you could go with a complaint of, say, unfair dismissal. No wonder the local never got back to the musician we wrote about yesterday. The AFM protects this kind of crapola. And readers surely don't believe that the Trust Fund doesn't have a clue as to how their money is being distributed. Not just in the Central New Jersey Musicians Union, either.
Monday, November 17, 2003 More Local Lobotomy (just a quick late night sketch) While doing some research on a New Jersey local of the AFM (204-373), these items turned up. We've not the time tonight to do much more than pass them along. We will revise this entry, and/or add comments, in the next day or so. [Update: follow-up article added, above, November 19] First, a letter from a musician with whom we recently have been in touch (he is a former member of Local 204-373), and who seems to have lost some work with a local employer. In the letter, he asks his union for some assistance in resolving the matter. (Note: John Kulpa is Secretary and Vice President of Local 204-373. Underlining is as found in the original letter.)
He got no response, of course. He copied the AFM. He got no response. In August, he wrote a follow-up to AFM President, Tom Lee. Did he hear back? Is the Pope an atheist? Tomorrow, we will name the employer. We'll also give you some information as to just who, in that local, gets the bulk of the MPTF work. (And we'll tell you who, in that local, is in charge of the MPTF funds.) It should be LOTS of fun. Second, and this is really curious... While doing research on Local 204-373, we found that over 43% of the membership of that local seems to be suspended. 261 people are so listed (in the AFM's membership database) out of a total of 599. What could this mean? We're sure there's a reasonable explanation. And, of course, we'll get to it, by and by. Friday, November 14, 2003 Canton
illegal dues increase approved (illegally); As we mentioned a few days ago, the Local 111 fall membership meeting took place as scheduled last week (Monday, November 3), and those present ratified the proposed dues increase. How many (few?) members attended besides the Executive Board we do not know. No matter. The fact that the meeting was not characterized, in the official notice of that meeting, as one at which a vote would be taken, renders the dues increase invalid and illegal. A former Executive Board member wrote to say that he's known Local 111's officers for a number of years, and he'd like to think it was just an oversight. If that’s the case, it's a serial oversight issue. In our original article on this matter (dated November 3, below), we said that a vote on a bylaw change was taken at the local's July membership meeting. We wondered "whether notice of intent to vote on those matters was effectively (and legally) conveyed to the membership in advance of [that] meeting." It was not. Though they came a little closer. The July bylaw resolutions were intended to change the grace period for payment of dues from three months to one month before a member may be suspended, and from six months to three months before one may be expelled. Couldn't have been much rank and file support for that one. But who knew to show up? Like the notice of the November 3 meeting, the Quarterly Report's front page notice of the meeting contained no hint of anything important going on: Quarterly Membership Meeting July 14, 2003 Local 111 Hall 7:30 PM Inside, on page two, is the text of the proposed language changes. At the end of the proposal, in the same small typeface as the bylaw language changes, and not highlighted in any way, is this sentence:
That does not constitute proper notice of a meeting. The actual notice of the meeting, on the cover of the newsletter, does not mention that a vote to change the bylaws would take place at that meeting. As the October newsletter stated, the July meeting was attended by 5 members of the Executive Board and 4 rank and file members. Some quorum.
Meanwhile, back in Canton, neither the July bylaw change, nor the November vote to change the dues was proper. The AFM most likely won’t touch this one. They won’t touch much of anything. Unless it will terminally embarrass them or land somebody in jail. Local Autonomy, you know. It’s ok. We’ve a few small things coming up that could indeed redden a few faces (with any luck, not ours) and which, in a properly run union, would help lead at least to the removal of certain individuals from their current positions. But we won’t hold our breath, and neither should our readers. Holding one’s breath for the next installment is not recommended either. But we will do our best. Tuesday, November 11, 2003 The UnionMuse staff is in transit today and will resume work from our Ohio office tomorrow. Note: Local 111's illegal dues increase vote took place as threatened last Monday (see November 3 article, below). The resolution passed. Further commentary on this and other Local 111 fun and games when we return.
Monday, November 3, 2003 In keeping with the AFM's guiding principle of Local Lobotomy, Local 111 has scheduled an illegal dues increase vote for tonight. Local 111 (Canton, Ohio) members will vote tonight on a proposed dues increase. The vote most likely will be illegal. The cover of the Local's November 2003 Quarterly Report carries this notice, prominently placed in a box at the top of the page: Quarterly Membership The notice says nothing about a vote to increase dues. Without an indication that something important is on the agenda, it seems unlikely that anyone other than Local 111 Board members, and a crony or two, perhaps a quorum's worth, will show up at the union hall tonight. No article inside the Quarterly Report prominently mentions the vote on the proposed increase. If one skims the Report, one finds these items: Page two, top, features a four paragraph report on the AFM Convention that includes a paragraph on the per capita and work dues increases that delegates passed. Page two, bottom, includes (presumably brief summaries of) "Minutes of the Board of Directors." Does anyone read these? We're not saying that one shouldn't read them, just that most members likely do not. They are, in any case, dry reports on what took place at past Board meetings. They are NOT official notices of upcoming membership meetings, elections (including votes on dues), member obligations or anything else. That said, the minutes of the September meeting state:
None of this constitutes notice of a membership meeting nor of intent to vote on a dues increase at the meeting, which notice of intent must accompany official notice of that meeting. A reader could be forgiven for confusing the Local dues increase with the AFM increase, reported on the same page, above. Page three contains a "Proposal for Local 111 Cost of Living Membership Dues Increase."
That is not a notice of a membership meeting and vote, either. The next two pages contain the text of AFM Convention Emergency Recommendation No. 8 pertaining to changes in per capita, work dues, etc. Page six contains a list of resignations, new and reinstated members, changes of address, and minutes of the July membership meeting, the latter of which states:
These bylaw sections relate to timely payment of dues, suspension, termination, etc. One wonders whether notice of intent to vote on those matters was effectively (and legally) conveyed to the membership in advance of the July meeting. And we almost (but not quite) hesitate to ask whether those present at the July meeting voted by secret ballot (and whether tonight's illegal vote will be so conducted).
Proper notice of intent to conduct union elections (including dues increases) is a requirement not only of the AFM bylaws (Article 5, Section 1(b)), but of Federal Law. How can these guys not know? Several possibilities come to mind: they can read, but didn't; nobody, including the AFM, told them; they knew, but they forgot. ***** Afterword (we're not certain whether this is amusing or not): Local 111 has done so well over the last several years that they did something truly boneheaded in late 1998 and gave $10,000 to the Canton Symphony Orchestra. No, it was not a loan. The Canton Symphony Orchestra is an employer, if we are not mistaken. "We wanted to give something back," a Local Officer told us at the time. Revised 11/4/03 Tuesday, September 30, 2003 A note to our readers:
Previous additions & updates:
Thursday, August 28, 2003 Perp Talk August was not a good month for the Sound Recording Special Payments Fund. News comes of two cases of alleged wrongdoing, reportedly of the hands-in-the-cookie-jar variety. The AFM, in a notice on its website dated August 21, says that the Executive Director of the Fund allegedly engaged in some "unauthorized actions" and was relieved of his duties. This was discovered by the Fund's auditor, who, it happens, is also the AFM's auditor. The Federation's report on this was rather discrete. Billboard magazine goes further and reports that "insiders" say that the E.D. "may have been involved in skimming money from the fund." The AFM notice initially was available only in the private members' section of the website, though it now can be viewed in the public section, perhaps because the information is now available elsewhere (like Billboard). The other case involves two rank and file members of the Union, who allegedly scammed the fund and took in thousands of dollars in Special Payments for recording dates which they allegedly did not play. Allegedly. There is just not a whole lot of information available on the matter(s) at this point. The two reports can be found here (Executive Director) and here. We have only two questions by way of concluding this brief item: Why was notice of the case of the administrator initially hidden from public view, while that concerning the two (named) members was immediately available for public consumption (via the AFM site and a press release, no less)? We've come to expect no news at all, of course, even via internal channels, when something goes wrong at the Union. So the issuing of ANY report on these matters would seem to be a positive development. But what was the rationale behind the different treatments? And why have we yet to hear about the AFM Local Officers who not only stood accused of embezzlement, but were tried and convicted of same? There were FIVE of them in the last three years alone. Four of them admitted their guilt. One of those convicted was also an AFM Executive Officer and is the only one of the five to have been sentenced to a prison term. Such news just doesn't mesh with the upbeat, cutesy-poo, tone of the new International Musician, does it?Monday, August 18, 2003 Local 4 Board OKs conflict of interest Hey, Local Officers! Do your Local bylaws say that an Officer may not play gigs? Does that AFM bylaw about not contracting get in the way of your career as an employer representative? Want to play or contract anyway? Why not have your Executive Board waive that pesky Local bylaw just for you? (You can ignore the AFM bylaw on your own. The Federation won't hassle you.) Sound good? Want more information? Great! Here's someone who can help you: His name is Leonard Di Cosimo. He's the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 4 in Cleveland. He's an all around kind of talented guy: plays bass (acoustic and electric), conducts, sings AND composes! (At least he's listed in the AFM database under all those classifications.) Some of you may have met Di Cosimo when he was campaigning for International Executive Board this year. Leonard has recently performed as a singer around town. When questioned about his professional activities in light of the Local's bylaw that prohibits full time officers from accepting engagements, Di Cosimo told other Board members that he wasn't PLAYING, he was working as a VOCALIST, so no bylaw was violated (he said). Well THAT makes a lot of sense. Conducting isn't "playing," either, but Di Cosimo recently decided to play it safe, given the flack some Board members gave him over the singing engagements. He asked the Board to exempt him from the previously mentioned Local 4 bylaw that prohibits the President or the Secretary-Treasurer from performing, so that he could work as music director for a production of Bat Boy at Cleveland Heights' Cain Park. Musicals at Cain Park have traditionally not utilized union players nor have they paid union scale. An unconfirmed report suggests Di Cosimo may have donated his pay for the production in order to hire union musicians. UnionMuse has not yet verified this claim. (It is, of course, illegal to use union membership status as a condition of employment in the United States, but that's another matter. Perhaps what the report actually meant was that he wanted the gig to pay union scale. But perhaps none of this is true, and he just collected his salary.) The Board voted to ok the bylaw exemption for Di Cosimo for this engagement (the run ended last weekend). Whatever one thinks of prohibiting an Officer from playing professionally, is it the business of a Local's Executive Board to waive member-ratified bylaws? Is the waiver in question LEGAL (either in an AFM Bylaw sense or a Federal Law sense)? Do the bylaws permit the Executive Board to change the bylaws without a referendum? Of course, there's more: According to one of our correspondents, and confirmed by Cain Park management, music directors of Cain Park events also contract the musicians for those events. Hmmm...
Who waived THAT one? While we're on the subject, at least one other Officer of the Cleveland Local is active as an employer (or employer representative--that IS, after all, what a contractor/personnel manager is). That Officer has hired musicians for the Lakewood Band in the past and is assistant contractor for the Cleveland Playhouse. In the case of the Playhouse, she has also served on the Orchestra/Negotiating Committee. Whether she will participate in the upcoming negotiations as a player representative remains to be seen. A source reports that she also assists the contractor of the Cleveland Lyric Opera. That report says that the officer/contractor sits on that orchestra's negotiating committee as well, for which position, according to our correspondent, she was chosen by Local 4 President Don Santa-Emma. See above referenced AFM Bylaw, as well as this one:
Those fun loving Local 4 Officers! Either conflict-of-interest is not in their vocabulary, or they voted to waive that concept, too. It certainly sounds like business as usual, as practiced in many Locals of the American Federation of Musicians where fair representation has yet to be attempted.
Who the hell are these gaudily attired people, anyway? And how, exactly, do they fit into the AFM master plan? (Or how does the AFM fit into their master plan?) (And where did we get these pictures?)  
August 16, 2003 Read our inspirational "Labor Day Story" Revised (Department name corrected) Touring, Theater and Booking: M.I.A. or R.I.P.? No doubt it's just a technical glitch, but here's what the AFM department listing (password required) looked like this morning on the AFM website:
First they take your name off the door, then...??? TT&B is still in the public section of the website, however, listed directly below the entry for the office of what apparently is now being called the "Secretary-Treasure." Tuesday, August 12, 2003 Summer reading It's a book! Congratulations to The Popyk! Its latest column generated for the International Musician is entitled, It's More Than "Who You Know." Of COURSE it's more than "who you know." It's what you can sell. And The Popyk leads by example. The bulk of the article is an infomercial for his latest book, "The Business of Getting More Gigs as a Professional Musician." "Shameless self-promotion," the negativists will say. It's not so bad. At least this time around, he points out that he has an interest in the item for sale. In March of this year, he flacked a book, and (a few years before that) a video (a whole column devoted to that one), without mentioning that he was the author/producer. The title of the new volume is reminiscent of that of an AFM video, "How to Get Gigs That Pay Big Bucks," an item frequently advertised in the pages of the I.M. We said "AFM video," but the whole thing was actually generated by The Popyk prior to the AFM putting him in charge of privatizing its member communications and PR efforts. (This is the video to which we refer, two paragraphs above.) In the current International Musician, Popyk puts out some of the same recycled crapola he dispenses every month, so it appears he is actually giving you something useful, rather than just advertising his new baby. Included in the book, he says, is "a whole chapter on self-promotion." (No, really? Just a chapter?) And he lists the topics:
"If you missed these in the International Musician, they are all there in the book," he says. Yes, we certainly have seen them all before. But if you did miss those articles, and don't yet have any of those gigs that pay big bucks, it is possible that you do not have the money to buy ANY book. Fortunately, if you really need the advice and want to read up on those topics, you can look them up in those old I.M.s that you piled up in the corner to start mid-winter fires. Or, if you've already burned those rags, you can look them up online at the AFM's website. It's free (so far). Even better, save yourself some time. Just read this month's Focus column. Or any Focus column. Every one of them is a variation on the same revelatory theme: If you're not working, it's your own damn fault. Saturday, August 9, 2003 Thursday, August 7, 2003 International Musician editor kisses what?
(International Musician, August 2003, Headline, page 14)
Election by acclamation deserves such a headline?
"...showed their faith..."? They were elected by acclamation because that's what the bylaws dictate shall happen in the event that there are no opposition candidates. The incumbents would have been re-elected whether the delegates loved or hated them. Faith had nothing to do with it. There were no other candidates for those positions because, for a variety of reasons, nobody else chose to run. It was not because potential hopefuls either adored the current leadership or thought that Lee and Nelson did a better job than they could possibly hope to do. (Nearish) Future Attractions (both previously promised):
The other articles previously visible on this page have been temporarily moved and are available by clicking here (entries moved November 18, 2003), or here (entries moved April 20). Please note that the order in which articles appear in these "archives" is not strictly chronological, and some items dating from the early part of the year will actually be found among those moved from this page today, 11/18 (the first of the two links in the above paragraph). page revised March 11, 2004 |
