Can't anyone here play this game?

Two documents recently floated over my transom, providing both some insight into the current state of play in the RMA/IEB war and more evidence of just how ridiculous was The Action That Shall Not Be Made Public.

Local 257 President (and IEB member) Harold Bradley wrote in his column for the latest 257 newsletter about The Action and the pushback from 188 members of his local:

Thank you for attending the Regular Membership Meeting, Sept. 8, 2008. It was an important meeting relating to the survival of the AFM and this Local. The meeting centered around a petition of 188 names brought to our Local Executive Board by Nashville RMA President, Local 257 Board member, David Pomeroy. For Local 257 members who could not attend, I will reconstruct the pertinent points:

The petition was given an unfavorable recommendation by the Executive Board, but the sponsors refused to withdraw it. Therefore, the petition went before the membership. At that time it became public knowledge in the U.S. and Canada via our local newspaper.

At the Sept. 8 meeting, Local 257's Parliamentarian Ron Keller ruled that it was not a resolution, and therefore could not be voted upon. I accepted his ruling, but opened the floor for discussion, although Secretary-Treasurer Billy Linneman and I had responded to the petition and David Pomeroy's E-Mail, in our own E-Mail dated Sept. 6, 2008, of which copies are available to Local 257 members.

Sure looked like a resolution to me. What, I wonder, was so un-resolutiony about it?

In the petition, Secretary-Treasurer Linneman and I (as International Executive Board members) are urged to vote no to the IEB's  consideration of a resolution that would take away the player conference status of the Recording Musicians Association. This begs the question, why would the IEB consider such drastic action?

Listed below are some of  the reasons the IEB is considering  terminating the RMA's conference status:

1. Since the 2007 Convention, RMA International President Phil Ayling has filed a board charge against the AFM with the National Labor Relations Board, which he lost, but appealed, and then lost the appeal.

If the AFM had expelled Ayling for filing a charge with the NLRB, the AFM would be in violation of the law. Why is it then OK to expel the organization of which Ayling is the elected head for the same reason?

2. Two AFM/RMA members, one an RMA officer, are alleged to have formed the Professional Musicians Guild (PMG), a rival union to capture video game work and ultimately AFM film work off the card. Joining a rival union is a violation of Article 10, Section 3 of AFM Bylaws. AFM Secretary-Treasurer Sam Folio filed charges against the two individuals. The cases are before the IEB, but no decision has been made.

Was this an action taken by the RMA? If not, why is the RMA being punished for it?

3. These individuals have already filed two charges with the National Labor Relations Board claiming the AFM was violating their freedom of speech. The two charges were frivolous and had no merit and were withdrawn. Otherwise, the NRLB would have denied their charges. If the IEB finds the individuals guilty, it is conjectured that the individuals will each file a lawsuit against the AFM, which again will be without merit.

So the RMA is going to be cast into the wilderness because it is “conjectured” that a few of its members might file another lawsuit? I guess we now know what the Bush Doctrine would look like when applied to internal dissent.

4. Additionally, in an article in the International Musician, video game producer Lennie Moore says Phil Ayling and Marc Sazer took him to lunch to solicit work for the PMG.

And, because it appeared in the IM, we know that the allegations are true? I would think that due process would require an additional step; it's called “proof.”

5. Three RMA L.A. members, David Parameter, Anatoly Rosinsky and Andrew Shulman, have filed a lawsuit against the AFM, stating that the Federation has no authority to collect work dues on promulgated agreements because they are not collective bargaining agreements. As a result, Local 47 work dues on promulgated agreements are being escrowed instead of being sent to the AFM. The perpetrators of the lawsuit contend the AFM must return millions of dollars in work dues it has collected on these agreements. The AFM has the authority to collect work dues on these earnings and it has always been honored by the membership - until now.

Well, those that filed the lawsuit apparently don't think the AFM has the authority to collect those work dues (and apparently the court thinks they have a case.) Is the RMA's crime that 1) it has members who think bad thoughts, or 2) that they have members who try to use the courts to enforce their rights under US law?

6. Phil Ayling, in his capacity as RMA International President and a Rank and File member, has sent four letters to President Tom Lee seeking clarification of numerous items that are unrelated to the 2007 Convention action regarding the 2% work dues. His requests are numerous and frivolous, such as defining a musician as it will be applied to the work dues, addresses of Fund Administrators, Trustees, etc. It is believed that the purpose of his request is to assist those recording musicians who wish to threaten the Secondary Market Fund and Special Payments Fund Administrators with potential lawsuits in order to block the AFM from gaining the information necessary to bill for work dues which was mandated by the 2007 Convention.

So now it's a crime for the head of a players conference to ask the AFM president for information? Even if “it is believed” that he might want the information to assist his members fight AFM actions that they believe undemocratic and illegal?

7. Some recording musicians are trying to drain the AFM financially with NRLB charges and lawsuits. Recently, a web-site was established called “Fareplay,” with the stated purpose of raising $1,200,000 annually to sue the AFM.

A member of the Cleveland Orchestra is asserting his Beck rights. Perhaps Local 4 should be expelled from the AFM.

The leadership of the RMA claims that the RMA is not involved in any of the actions stated, nor has it filed or threatened to file lawsuits against the Federation. However, the leadership of the RMA has encouraged these actions against the Federation by not condemning those who are taking these actions. It is also believed that while the RMA as a body is not taking these actions, some of the leadership of the RMA is heavily involved in advising those who are taking the actions.

“Also believed” simply doesn't cut it as a basis for actions such as The Action. But I do love the idea that the RMA has “encouraged these actions by not condemning those who are taking these actions.” Local 8 hasn't condemned them either. I guess we'll soon be hearing via the grapevine that Local 8 is going to be expelled from the AFM.

And then a letter from AFM President Tom Lee to RMA President Phil Ayling showed up in my inbox (not, I should add, sent to me by Ayling). Tom wrote, one day before the meeting between the RMA and the IEB was scheduled to begin:

There seems to be a minimal amount of representation from members of the RMA LA community on this list and yet it is the Los Angeles members that have formed the PMG, attacked the Federation through lawsuits or threatened lawsuits, filed NLRB charges, participated in inflammatory and highly destructive newspaper interviews, and generally written articles disseminated widely that contain half truths or misstatements of facts.   Therefore, several members of the IEB have inquired as to the authority of the group that is meeting with the IEB.  Specifically, if the issues between the Federation and the RMA are resolved, does this group of RMA representatives have the authority to:
 

1.  eliminate current and potential lawsuits supported by known and unknown recording musicians?
2.  eliminate and denounce those associated with the Professional Musicians Guild?
3.  eliminate FAREPLAY?
4.  eliminate charges filed with the NRLB?
5.  eliminate accusatory articles in RMA newsletters?
5.  eliminate inflammatory newspaper articles?

 
Quite frankly, it was the IEB's assumption that it was meeting with a group that included more participants from RMA LA that could deliver on the above kinds of issues.  After, reviewing the list of participants that you provided, it is apparent that many are not from the LA area and that fact has raised the question on the groups' authority.
 
Please respond as soon as possible so the members of the IEB may evaluate your answer prior to catching their flights tomorrow.

The day before the meeting seems a little late to be resolving issues like this. Putting that aside, though, is Tom saying that, after the IEB passed The Action and stated that the RMA was behind all of this stuff, now some members of the IEB don't want to meet with the RMA because the RMA doesn't have the authority to make all this stuff go away? If the RMA can't make it go away, why did the IEB blame the RMA for it in the first place? And when did the RMA get the authority to "eliminate inflammatory newspaper articles?" Can I have some of that authority too?

I'll bet it was “the IEB's assumption that it was meeting with a group that included more participants from RMA LA that could deliver on the above kinds of issues.” Unfortunately, that group is not the one that that the IEB is threatening to de-conference.

This is just amateur hour stuff.