Yes, at this point MFW ought to be wound down. Still, it'd be good to know what
happened and maybe hold some folks accountable, for some of the equipment to be
placed with other non-profs, etc. For that you need a few people who between
them can screw in a light bulb.
I'm not about to read or respond to JHs comments--there's not much to be gained
from quarrelling with the mentally ill-- but if they raise any specific
questions or concerns among others on the list I can respond.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Jay Hudson" <[email protected]>
Sent: 10/1/2015 4:27 PM
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop
According to New York State law, in a membership nonprofit, the board has the
right to add or remove board members at will, unless there is anything in the
bylaws or the corporate charter that states otherwise. Even in that case, if
there is a justifiable reason, like proven embezzlement, or something like
that, the board probably could get rid of the offending board member. There is
nothing wrong in the appointment of board members, with members approval or not.
According to MFW bylaws, the president can call for an election at any time for
a special purpose at their discretion. Stephanie Wuertz could have made that
decision at time. I am not criticizing her because of Millennium's extenuating
circumstances. I also don't think that it is fair nor appropriate to bag on
George, Lili, or the rest of the current board either.
There has been a lot of stuff going on, but as far as I know, the board is
working on getting the bylaws together, etc., so that when the time comes, the
meeting will be able to go on smoothly. I have trust in the current board, and
would prefer that they can have the space to do their job. If one has
concerns, it is much better that they contact board members personally, rather
than through public forums.
David Baker's criticisms about the movement to reform MFW was predicated on
"negating howard" and that there was no interest in the archive and completely
false and oversimplified. MFW had been in decline for many years. The
problems were not personal but structural. The NYSCA grant went from $30,000
to $12,000, to $8,000. There were considerable debts to the landlord, who were
about to pull the plug. NEA stopped funding MFW.
When I spoke to the funders, they both said that MFW was suffering from severe
and obvious "founder's syndrome," where one individual dominates the
organization, and can not distinguish between their own affairs and the affairs
of the organization. MFW was in danger of imminent collapse. If nobody had
stepped in the following would have happened: the landlord would have pulled
the plug, the archive would have been hastily sold, the landlord would get that
money, the equipment would have gathered by vultures, etc. It was in the best
interest of all parties that something was done.
Regarding the finances, all of that information should be available. As for
myself, the "undocumented income", that Sasha describes totals $22K, which
includes 3K of debts from my works as a monitor, or 19K, basically 10K a year.
I can document that I worked an average of 15, 16 hour days for months on end,
including thirty six hours clearing stuff from the theater and putting it in a
dumpster. I worked my ass off well past the point of exhaustion and payed and
significant personal price for it. If anyone has a problem with that, tough
shit. I have no complaints about it, nor any animosity towards anyone, but I
am not going to take shit for it either.
I have been away from MFW for two years and have moved on. As tough as it was,
it was a great experience for me. I was thankful to have the opportunity. I
also am supportive of the current board. I think that people should not think
about how MFW was or how MFW should be, but how MFW is, what MFW can do and
what they themselves can do to contribute. If people want to be stuck on
negative shit from the past, that is their problem, not mine. If people don't
like the "now" MFW, they don't have to participate.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Francisco Torres <[email protected]> wrote:
I would like to bring something up may seem harsh to most people on this
discussion- Why not close the place for good already? After all these years it
seems like the only sensible thing to do. As of ''As if it was our last day''
it seems that day is long past for the MFW. Maybe it was the day they closed
shop at 4th street. Only the journal will remain as testimony of its greatness.
And our memories.
2015-09-30 12:26 GMT-04:00 David Baker <[email protected]>:
Dear Sasha,
For all those who enter the orbit of this strange institution
there are endless irreconcilable ironies to untangle.
There is considerable mystery in how Howard Guttenplan was able to preside
despotically for forty years
without adherence to any of the precepts set forth in the bylaws,
simultaneously acting single handedly as steward to a cultural milieu of such
importance
that MoMA would proffer eighty five thousand dollars
(a number I believe was low for the staggering trove therein)
to obtain the archives.
Lili White as much as she may vex
(I have no appreciation for gender biased curation whatever the rationale)
decisively stepped up to lead a tiny group of people in order to preserve the
Millennium Film Workshop Archives at a moment of almost unimaginable disorder
and chaos.
Were she not to have acted with such forceful authority this treasure could
easily have
been made to disappear by an ensuing political regime determined to negate
Howard's
achievement.
As ironies go, one of the greatest for me to negotiate
has been observing my mentor Ken Jacobs's recent involvement with the
Millennium,
serving as great Oz behind
an obfuscating curtain in successive post-Howard "democratic" political regimes
each of which eschewed and expunged the monthly open screenings
that were an entry portal of the most democratic kind.
The irony being that it was precisely the open screening format
that gave Ken his start as a maker.
Things blossom in that sort of environment that cannot occur elsewhere.
One Friday on Fourth Street I remember the rare paperback book specialist and
great single frame advance
practitioner Chris Eckhoff a.k.a. Mr. E speaking about the projection screen,
he asked
"What if residue from all the films that have ever been projected on that screen
are still there in some way?".
Thereafter I treated that particular projection surface
as a secret sacred palimpsest.
When Millennium collapsed and the screen came down,
the ghosts were gone.
The place was useless to us.
Cronyism and concomitant kickbacks do not make a cultural milieu of consequence.
Singular courage and passion of the intensity you demonstrate does!
As artists it is our mandate to be fearless, to find a way, to make it happen.
As if it was our last day.
David
On Sep 30, 2015, at 12:16 AM, Sasha Janerus wrote:
Thank you Dr. Walley. Thank you David.
It is worth noting that MFW has kept this document off their website. Strictly
speaking you're right about the "President" thing, which I'd forgotten
about--but it's really a technicality, as the title doesn't bring any special
powers. George was not elected to this or any other position, but was . As I
recall it, after Howard stepped down, a member-consensus decision was made to
keep the director off the board, and to have the ED be appointed by the board.
All of which makes good sense, especially given everything that had transpired
during the latter phase of the Gutenplan period, though this emergency measure
should have been ratified by a timely revision of the bylaws. So "President"
here is just an honorific--same term, different meaning--so that the board
looks the way boards are supposed to look.
If only the board had acted the way a board's supposed to act.
One other quibble, David: the verb: "to Gerrymander" implies that elections are
in fact taking place. The mot juste would have been "to steal."
***
George,
I didn't receive your email as you didn't send one to me. Apparently the fact
that I don't agree with your failure to follow MFW's bylaws means that I'm not
to be counted a "Friend" of Millennium--or is it simply a friend of yours? My
partner, Stephanie Wuertz--who previously occupied your office--did receive a
copy but deleted it, wanting nothing to do with MFW ever again. Another life
you've touched. The email is, of course, also posted on an orphan page on your
site. How could I have missed that?
Your texts are, needless to say, mendacious in the extreme. Millennium didn't
pack up shop because the MoMA money was late. Millennium sank because you and
PK were incapable of providing financial information to go with the grant
narratives I wrote for you. When you did finally massage the books into order,
I'm pretty sure it involved making some shit up, in particular Jay Hudson's
undocumented ATM withdrawals.
Your claim to transparency is belied by the fact that nobody knows what's going
on at MFW and next to nobody cares, as well as by a prior email from you
instructing me 1) not to talk about MFW in public and 2) not to share
"confidential financial and other information without authorization," namely
PK's insane budget for FY2014. I should note that PK had himself informed me
that all MFW documents--minutes, books, etc.--were available to anyone who
wanted to see them. And why not?: it belongs to its members and to the
community, and not to you.
If you'd like to have a discussion about Millennium's future, I'd encourage you
to do so in full view of your constituency, which I'm sure you'll agree extends
beyond present membership and self-selected "friends". Here are some places to
begin:
Could you put text of MFW's present bylaws on your website--preferably not on
an orphaned page.
How many active members does MFW presently have? How many of them do you
consider elligible to vote? How many lapsed members would you consider eligible
to vote upon renewal? According to what criteria?
How much cash does MFW have on hand?
What are its month-to-month expenses?
What were its FY2014 net income and expenditures, exclusive of the MoMA money?
How much income did MFW receive from workshops and equipment rentals FY14? How
much profit on the same?
Has the board passed any resolutions to compensate Peter Kingsbury? If so, for
how much?
ON WHAT DATE, IN OCTOBER, IS A MEMBERS MEETING TO BE HELD?
Finally, there is the question of "slander." I was careful to frame certain
statements speculatively, and in your last email to me you enjoined me to
"desist from broadcasting via Frameworks opinions and speculation that are not
based on facts." The present opacity of MFW makes a necessity of speculation. I
do, however, know these people. Lili, for instance, attempted to program
herself in a Millennium show at the New School, with a $200 honorarium for a
single film. Steph and I stepped in, and those with conflicts of interest were
replaced by Jen Reeves and Peter Hutton, among others. Lili promptly one-upped
herself by having her husband build Millennium a website. MFW was stuck with
unauthorized, recurring, exorbitant paypal payments. The website Mark built was
so shitty it had to be replaced by the current shitty site.
MFW has furnished me with many more interesting anecdotes. And I should note I
have been a model of restraint insofar as I have not contacted or the NY arts
press, regulatory bodies, or your prospective funders. That stance is subject
to revision.
Yours in cinema
Sasha Janerus
PS I have a sneaking suspicion certain phrases in the trash you've been sending
out as "Outreach Coordinator" were derived, consciously or not, from the grants
and other fluff I wrote. It's the sort of vague, pseudo-descriptive language
that is meant to sound inspiring when the situation is anything but.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:08 PM, David Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Spencer,
Your skill as an Outreach Coordinator is certainly evident.
I mean no disrespect in asking who designated you President of
Millennium Film Workshop?
As I read the bylaws (with which Howard Guttenplan was wrested
from his long time role as Executive Director), it stipulates in Article I #2,
the President is to be voted on by the membership.
I have no recollection of this election occurring in regards to you
holding this office.
Is it possible I missed this important event?
Perhaps I am in some way mistaken.
It is my understanding that the original bylaws are applicable
until the membership chooses to ratify a new set of bylaws.
Is this not the case?
Attached are the original bylaws as they were sent to me by Jay
Hudson on 9/21/11.
I do not think Sasha Janerus is alone in the perception that this
venerable institution has been gerrymandered by a coterie of insiders bent on
personal
enrichment of one sort or another.
This may in part explain the precipitous decline in Millennium's
membership from last year's 89 to the current 40 active members
(as I count them on this recent list, http://millenniumfilm.org/memberlist/ )
I would very much appreciate a response from you here in this forum.
Herein I also appreciate Jonathan Walley's caring constructive words
as they pertain to this matter.
Thank you,
David Baker
On Sep 27, 2015, at 8:55 PM, George Spencer wrote:
Hi, fellow experimental film enthusiasts-
The great institution of Millennium Film Workshop, which over 49 years has done
much to support the development of artists cinema, has been under financial
threat since 2011. Our governing board, executive director, and volunteer
staff have struggled in extremely difficult circumstances not only to maintain
our workshops, screenings, film journal, and equipment access programs, but to
restructure our governance and operations.
[The entire original message is not included.]
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
