Dear Local 802 Members,

You may have recently received e-mails being circulated by two Local 802 members, John Babich and David Finck regarding charges filed by member Finck against President Mary Landolfi and Executive Board Member Jay Schaffner. Once again there is an effort to embroil our union in what we believe are frivolous and unnecessary accusations that divert us from the work we need to focus on in these difficult economic times. We hope you will take a few minutes to read the information below and conclude, as we have, that these kinds of diversions and divisive efforts should end.

What is the basis of the charges?

The contention is that President Landolfi and Board Member Schaffner were responsible for distributing a survey at a meeting of the New York Recording Community on July 21, 2008. Due to its limited distribution and suspected duplications, the survey was subsequently determined by to be of little value and discarded.

Is that a violation of any bylaws?

No. Questionnaires and surveys of members' views and concerns are regularly done by the union. In this case the questionnaire was not a survey conducted by Local 802 and it was distributed informally.

What was the meeting on July 21 at Legacy Studios?

It was a meeting of the film recording community of New York organized to discuss the sharp decline in recording work in New York City. The call for the meeting was issued by nearly 20 individuals in the recording community; studio managers, recording engineers, composers, musicians and Local 802. It was not a union meeting. (The September 2008 issue of Allegro carried a full report of the meeting along with six articles expressing different points of view and perspectives.

What was the purpose of the meeting?

To discuss what could be done to keep film recording work in our city. The meeting was attended by nearly 200. Chairs were set up for 150 and many more were standing.  We believe it was both remarkable and encouraging to see this turn-out on a week night to discuss what could be done to save recording work in New York. 

Should the union even be involved in meetings about the recording industry's problems, studio closings and loss of jobs?

We feel the union has a responsibility to its members to continuously seek to protect and expand work opportunities, as well to make sure those work opportunities are union. This is particularly true when rapid changes in the industry lead to diminished work.  Our voice has to be heard at all levels of government when our industry is under siege.  Some feel that this is not the role of the union and "if a musician is good enough, they will get work".  If only it were so simple.

So what was the survey?

Prior to the meeting, a questionnaire was suggested and developed by some of the individuals who had issued the call for the meeting. At the meeting the questionnaire was distributed by members of the Legacy Studios staff and placed on every chair. It contained questions about changes in union agreements that some believed would attract more film work to New York. It included a place for people to put their name and/or email address if they wished. Some at the meeting agreed that a discussion of such changes was appropriate. Member Finck disagreed and expressed those views at the meeting.

What happened to the survey?

 About 50 surveys were turned in. It was observed that individuals who felt strongly about the issues, pro or con, filled out multiple surveys. So, out of a self-selected group of about 200 individuals, not all of whom were 802 members, there were some 50 surveys collected.  It was hardly a scientific survey and certainly could not be said to represent the views of 802 members working in the field, nor even the attendees as less than 30% returned the survey. Local 802 subsequently discarded the surveys.

 So what is member Finck taking issue with?

Shortly after the meeting member Finck insisted on seeing the actual surveys, despite being told that neither the survey nor the results were going to be used. President Landolfi refused to give him the surveys feeling that as many of the surveys identified the attendee by name and/or email addresses, this information should not be shared without the individual permission of those who had filled out the survey, at least some of whom were not even Local 802 members.

It is well known that various members both here and in Los Angeles disagree about the future of our contracts as they currently exist. The same types of discussions are currently being debated by SAG members as they renegotiate their contracts. Musicians and members of the recording community need to have these discussions and open exchanges of ideas- whether the result is continued support for the contracts as they are or whether it opens the door to future changes.

When were the charges filed and exactly what are they?

Sixty two days after the July 21 meeting member Finck filed charges against President Landolfi and Board Member Schaffner based on his belief that they distributed the survey, stating that it was "bad faith and unfair dealing" and therefore a violation of union bylaws. The Local 802 Executive Board reviewed the charges on procedural grounds and informed member Finck that union bylaws require that charges against officers be filed within 60 days of the alleged violation and that his charges were not timely. That EB decision was unanimous. Subsequently member Finck refiled slightly modified charges. The EB again ruled that charges based on the survey conducted at the July 21 meeting were not timely. Member Finck again appealed and along with some other members petitioned for a meeting to overturn the decision of the EB.

Can the EB conduct a procedural review of charges against officers?

Before ruling on the timeliness of the charges, the EB asked its legal counsel to advise whether or not the EB had the right to conduct such a procedural review of charges; Counsel's opinion was yes - the EB had both that right and responsibility.  Counsel added that their decision could be appealed by member Finck to the AFM International Executive Board and although that is the proper avenue for member Finck's appeal, because a meeting was requested, the EB could agree to call such a meeting to review the decision. The EB voted to convene a membership meeting for this purpose.

What is on the agenda for the January 13 special Membership Meeting?

The agenda is an appeal of the EB's decision that member Finck's charges were untimely. If the EB decision is reversed, the charges against President Landolfi and Board Member Schaffner could be presented to the June membership meeting.

Bottom line - Member Finck has now filed four different sets of charges based on this and the EB's response, two against President Landolfi and Board Member Schaffner, another set against five additional officers and EB members and a fourth against the entire EB.   We believe this is a terrible waste of the money, time and resources of our union and its members. We continue to believe that members would like to see an end to these divisive actions and a unified focus on the work ahead to preserve jobs and income.