It was most likely Robert Storm Petersen, the Danish cartoonist and writer, who coined the saying "it's hard to make predictions - especially about the future." But whoever it was, they were right. As the only person who could plausibly claim to be an AFM pundit, I think it only fair that my predictions about the 2013 AFM Convention should be graded. I don't think I did very well.
I got the election right when I wrote that "serious contests were unlikely." That wasn't a hard one; contested elections have not been common in the AFM's history, although more so recently, and are usually preceded by lots of internal turmoil. There's been almost none of that since 2010.
What I didn't predict was the actual outcome, which was that the entire IEB was re-elected - a first in AFM history. It was a plausible outcome, though, which I could have predicted, so I'd give myself no more than a passing grade on that one.
I completely failed regarding the other heralded main event, though - Recommendation #1, the IEB's financial proposal, which I all but labeled dead on arrival. The work dues details were slightly modified, and (as I suggested might be the case) the 4-year convention cycle was deleted, but the rest of the package was essentially passed as proposed. In my defense, I didn't figure in the possibility that the IEB might break with AFM tradition and treat the delegates like adults by telling them, in considerable detail, what they planned to do with the money. Between that and no one (apparently except me) having any appetite at all for a symphonic work dues increase, it was game over.
I still wish that the dues increase mix had been different, and I have some reservations (mostly from seeing lots of locals failing to manage their own real estate investments well) about the IEB's plan to use half the new revenue to buy office space in New York in two or three years. But I'm glad the package passed, and I voted for it. The old AFM would have defeated it; that's the only defense I can make for my complete failure to get this prediction right.
I should also add that, whatever my feelings about the outcome, the process was a vindication of the Recommendation #1 process - the requirement that the IEB put forward a financial proposal and that the delegates be required to consider it, although after Joint Law and Finance modification. I hope that future conventions - and candidates - remember that candor about finances can actually help candidates, and that the long history of incumbents and challengers running away from any discussion of dues is unhealthy and unneccesary both. I'm a little skeptical that JLF review of the IEB proposal was really intended, but it worked well in this instance.
As for the rest, Canadian issues represented far less of a hot spot than I thought they might - the appeal to the Convention of the IEB's decision to trustee the Vancouver local got almost no support, even from the Canadian Conference table (and I was sitting right next to them, and would have heard any votes in favor of the appeal).
Recommendation #3 turned about to be not a no-brainer, due to ICSOM's legitimate concerns about the AFM being able to come in and supervise local negotiations on the subject of the Pension Fund. After what I suspect were some hard negotiations, a softer alternative was put forward and approved by the Convention.
The discussion about the proposed change of motto took less time than I predicted, and eventually the resolution failed. I've already forgotton how the of traveling orchestras and the destination of their work dues was resolved; like it, like a lot of other proposals, got referred to the IEB to deal with.
Referral to the IEB was a tool used a lot at this Convention; if memory serves, more than in the past. I'm sure that it reflects the increased faith the Convention had in this IEB over past one, as well as the desire not to get into acrimonious fights over complicated issues.
So that's my evaluation of my predictive abilities; your mileage may differ.
Comments