In an earlier post on the subject of Recommendation No. 1 (aka the IEB's proposed dues increases), I suggested that it was DOA, at least in its current form. I also suggested that it's time to look at alternative schemes for raising the money required to pay for an effective national union office.
Our current funding scheme, which was put into effect conceptually in 1991, is a combination of per capita dues and work dues. All AFM Locals charge membership dues; a flat fee (or tiered fees, depending on age and length of membership) in order to belong to the Local and the AFM. Per capita dues are what Locals pay the AFM from those flat fees (technically, what the Local pays the AFM based on the number of regular and life members in the Local). In addition, Locals with electronic media activity and symphonic work also pay the AFM a portion of the work dues they collect on that work.
The basis, and justification, for this bifurcated funding mechanism is that per capita dues, which are paid by all members more or less equally, would go to fund those AFM expenses that benefit all members more or less equally. These include so-called "turnkey" expenses (the money necessary simply to keep the office open and functioning) as well as governance (paying officers, funding the tri-annual Convention), the International Musician, membership in the AFL-CIO, a presence in Washington DC, and similar functions.
Federation work dues, on the other hand, were intended to pay for those AFM departments directly serving the workplaces paying the work dues. Thus Federation symphonic work dues (currently 0.55%) would go to pay for the Symphonic Services Division and any other expenses directly associated with helping members and Locals with symphonic issues, while Federation electronic media dues would pay to run the Electronic Media Services Division.
Associated with this additional financial burden on symphonic and recording musicians was a formalized system of governance, described in the Roehl Report of 1989 and later adopted by the IEB. This system provided for a greatly increased formal role for symphonic and recording musicians in the operations and direction of the AFM's symphonic and electronic media departments.
This system worked pretty well for a while. Both SSD and EMSD saw a significant increase in size and activity, AFM leaders paid close attention to the input provided by the SSD and EMSD steering committees, and the increases in per capita dues brought per cap revenue and turnkey expenses far closer to balance.
But as we all know by now, the Roehl Report has been effectively gutted over the past 8 years. Directors of both SSD and EMSD have been appointed without the consent (and occasionally without even the knowledge) of the steering committees. Major policy decisions regarding the recording workplaces have been made over the vehement objections of the relevant player conference. The AFM has used the subpoena process to search the internal communications of RMA. And this IEB has, through its revision of the IEB Handbook and its Recommendations to the upcoming Convention, sought to restrict the input of both the Player Conferences and rank-and-file musicians into AFM governance and participation on the AFM-EP Fund Board.
Less well-known is how the structure of per-cap for turnkey expenses and Federation work dues for departmental expenses has eroded. In 1993, for example, per capita revenue was 59% of the AFM's income, while work dues were 34%. In 2009, by contrast, the figures were 36% and 44% respectively. Per capita income over the same period has decreased from $4,451,671 to $4,193,090, which work dues just about doubled; increasing from $2,515,409 to $5,100,806.
Since Tom Lee took over the Secretary-Treasurer position from Steve Sprague in the last 1990s, there have been no published departmental expense reports in the AFM's annual reports, so it's impossible to know with any certainty how departmental expenses have changed over that period. My recollection is that both SSD and EMSD employed more people 10-15 years ago than they do today, however.
And yet the AFM still needs more money. One reason, of course, is that the recording wars have been very expensive. There has been great resistance amongst the rank-and-file to paying the fees on the secondary market fund payments, for one thing, thus depriving the AFM of income on which the officers counted. And the lawsuits appear to have cost something in the vicinity of six figures.
There are, of course, other reasons. Membership continues to decline, and consequently so do per capita payments. Symphonic work dues can't be in great shape these days. The costs of publishing continue to creep up, while publishing revenues (largely, but not entirely, help-wanted ads from orchestras) drop. And most other expenses continue to rise slowly.
In short, the AFM's income goes down and its expenses go up. In 2007 and 2008, income and expenses were not far apart. In 2009, the difference was over $800,000, if I'm reading the Annual Report correctly. And the underlying dynamics - even if one assumes an end to the Recording Wars - provide no reason for optimism.
But, as I pointed out in an earlier post, the IEB's proposed dues package is likely to be wildly unpopular. I think this is less the fault of the proposal itself than of the unraveling of the Blue Ribbon compromise finally reaching a tipping point. While there has never been a dollar-in-dollar-out (DIDO) relationship between EMSD/SSD work dues and spending on those departments, more and more of the work dues are funding turnkey operations. And, just as Leo Liddle doesn't want"small locals paying for the negotiations of recording musicians" (which, of course they don't), recording and symphonic musicians aren't thrilled about paying more than their fair share of the cost of keeping the door open at 1501.
The folks at the Convention responsible for putting together a package that a majority of delegates might actually approve have a very tough job this year. Three of the largest locals (NY, LA and Nashville) are likely to oppose any increases in work dues, especially if Tom Lee is re-elected. Small locals are likely to oppose any increase in per capita payments, fearing membership attrition as a result. There aren't any other pots of money out there to tap that haven't already bleeding money into the AFM money pit.
So maybe it's time to rethink the problem.
......."recording and symphonic musicians aren't thrilled about paying more than their fair share of the cost of keeping the door open at 1501"......
As I'm sure you know, Robert, that's just the half of it. Recording musicians are also unthrilled by the AFM's relentless actions to shut them out of increasingly large parts of the input and decision-making processes of their very livelihoods and areas of expertise. And they are especially ticked off by being portrayed in the most negative light possible within the AFM by the present regime.
Posted by: Antony Cooke | June 11, 2010 at 08:31 AM