Ain’t democracy grand?

Some folks in Nashville have apparently read – and taken to heart – Article 20, Section 3 of the AFM bylaws. Following the apparently unanimous adoption by the IEB of The Action That Shall Not Be Made Public, 188 members of Local 257 signed onto a resolution suggesting that Local 257 President Harold Bradley and Secretary-Treasurer Billy Linneman, who are both on the IEB, might want to rethink their positions:

We,  the members of AFM Local 257, hereby approve and present this resolution to all members of the AFM and its leadership, stating our belief that AFM International Executive Board (IEB) members Harold Bradley and Billy Linneman, who are respectively President and Secretary/Treasurer of Local 257, are not properly representing the issues and concerns of working Nashville musicians to the remainder of the AFM and the IEB.

The recent resolution, passed unanimously by the IEB, considering the revocation of the Player Conference status of RMA International is, in our view, ill-advised, and very dangerous. If executed, the potential negative consequences of this resolution, intended or otherwise, could very well include the demise of the AFM.

Working musicians have been caught in the crossfire of AFM politics for too long. We seek an end to confrontation. Rank and File musicians are being excluded from the decision making processes of the AFM. This is not acceptable or prudent, especially given the rapidly changing landscape of the music business. For example, the continuing series of “One-Off” recording agreements, sanctioned by the IEB, consistently omit proper new use protections, and should be stopped. These non-negotiated Agreements could easily compromise our negotiated contracts, such as film, phono, and television. De-conferencing the RMA so no one can question these promulgated agreements is contrary to the principles of a democratic organization. We do not want to see internal political battles and personality conflicts tear apart the AFM while the music industry of the future passes us by.

We expect transparency, openness and responsiveness from our Union leadership. We want to know that our concerns are being heard, and our contributions to the strength and unity of this Local and the AFM are acknowledged. As a group, we implore Mr. Bradley and Mr. Linneman to remember that we elected them in good faith to represent our best interests, and pay them a full time salary to do so. Supporting measures and policies that are detrimental to their Local membership when acting as members of the IEB, such as considering the termination of an authorized Player Conference, is a conflict of interest, and runs counter to that trust. We urge Mr. Bradley, Mr. Linneman, and the IEB to vote "no" to the decertification of the RMA. The future of the AFM is at stake, and we urge all its leaders to act accordingly.

Harold was, not surprisingly, unhappy with the proposed resolution:

To Local 257 Members:

I urge every member to attend the General Membership meeting, Monday, Sept. 8, 2008, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the Union rehearsal hall.

My future as your President is at stake. At the Local Executive Board meeting on July 23, 2008, RMA President David Pomeroy (also a Local Executive Board officer) presented a resolution to the Board that censored me and your Secretary-Treasurer Billy Linneman.

Next to this column is the resolution in its entirety. It alleges that it is a conflict of interest for Secretary-Treasurer Linneman and myself to be Local officers and national officers, and that we don’t represent Local 257’s members.

How ridiculous!

I am proud to be the first Local officer of this 106-year (AFM) Local branch to become a national officer, and I’m very proud that Secretary-Treasurer Linneman is the second Local officer to be elected to a national office.

I don’t know any other Local in the AFM that has two officers on the International Executive Board (IEB), and are more knowledgeable about recording. The real issue is that the RMA would like to run this Local, and I feel that the 188 people who signed this petition should not run the Local just because they are recording musicians.

I believe in the Union concept where the Local officers (myself and Billy Linneman) represent all the Union members, according to the oath of office we took when elected.

I also took an oath as (AFM) Vice President to uphold the constitution and bylaws of the American Federation of Musicians. To date, the IEB has not taken action to terminate the conference status of the RMA, but has passed a resolution that the question of terminating the RMA status be addressed as soon as possible, but no later than the September 2008 IEB Meeting.

This resolution, submitted by RMA President David Pomeroy, is intended to influence my vote! I will continue to vote my conscience (based on the facts before me), and I resent this attempt to force me to vote otherwise.

Obviously, the IEB would not consider such a drastic action without reviewing the RMA’s actions since the 2005 Convention.

Rather than give you all the gory details (which are rather lengthy), I suggest that all Local 257 members attend the Sept. 8, 2008 meeting. Especially, the 188 members who signed the petition, and hear the rest of the story.

Harold mis-states the resolution, of course. It doesn’t contend that it’s a “conflict of interest” for local officers to serve on the IEB. It doesn’t contend that the RMA should run Local 257. But while officers are indeed obliged to represent all the members,  smart ones don’t piss off the ones who vote and pay most of the dues.

And it’s a little disingenuous to say that the The Action doesn’t really mean anything. That’s like saying that cocking a gun doesn’t mean you’re thinking about firing it. On the other hand, he's absolutely right that the resolution "is designed to influence [his] vote!" As an elected officer, should he have a problem with that?

In one sense, maybe. He wasn’t elected to the IEB by the members of Local 257, but by the delegates to the national convention (although much of his appeal is that he is a recording musician and has had – at least until now – a good relationship with the Nashville recording community).

But the 188 members of Local 257 who signed the resolution not only have a point as well, but may have discovered the best way to change the behavior of the IEB. Harold and Billy wouldn’t be on the IEB if they weren’t President and S/T in Nashville. Why should members of 257 give them a pass on their home turf if they work against their interests on the IEB, regardless of what they do at home?

What’s most surprising about this fight is that Harold and Billy didn’t see it coming. Either they got caught up in IEB groupthink, badly misread the sentiment of the Nashville RMA folks, or simply got sloppy. The reason that rank-and-file musicians give IEB members a pass on what they do is that they do very little. The Action That Shall Not Be Made Public was a loud slap in the RMA’s face with a very smelly fish. Did they really think there wasn’t going to be some blowback?

For those of you who’ve read this far, by the way, Article 20, Section 3 of the AFM bylaws reads as follows:

The AFM endorses the political policy of the AFL-CIO, to wit: “Stand faithfully by your friends and elect them. Oppose your enemies and defeat them.”

That's a concept that Tom Lee and his allies have burned into their hearts and minds. It's about time the rest of us internalized it as well.

Comments

[michael]

Absolutely, Robert! Perhaps 802 recording musicians should be considering a similar action regarding Erwin Price's rubber stamping on the IEB.