"--there's not much to be gained from quarrelling with the mentally ill--" WOW. This sets the benchmark for a new low. I appreciate why that youngster fled Frameworks after 2 hours just a couple of days ago. Sasha, whoever you, for shame on you. What a contemptible and offensive remark. If you were at all involved in Millennium, I can see how might have helped steer it towards its ruination. I am appalled.
Elizabeth McMahon On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Sasha Janerus <sasha.jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > ------------------------------ > From: Jay Hudson <jkh30...@gmail.com> > Sent: 10/1/2015 4:27 PM > To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com> > 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 <fjtorre...@gmail.com> > 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 <dbak...@hvc.rr.com>: >> >>> 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 <dbak...@hvc.rr.com> >>> 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 > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > -- Elizabeth
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
