BOSTON—Funding for the Massachusetts Film Office (MFO) is not included in a proposed $23.2 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2003 (July 1, ’02-June 30, ’03) unveiled by the state Senate’s Ways and Means Committee earlier this month. "The fact that the Senate did not include funding for the MFO in its [fiscal year ’03] budget came as a surprise," said MFO executive director Robin Dawson.
The news comes on the heels of the closing of the Boston Film Office, which ceased operations on June 28. The decision to shut down that office was made earlier this year by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Merino, who cited budget constraints, according to a press representative in the mayor’s office. The Boston Film Office mainly served the commercial production community in the area of permitting. From now on, production companies seeking permits to shoot in Boston can obtain them from the Office of Special Events and Tourism.
As for the MFO, all hope is not lost, according to Kristine Graney Foye, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Department of Economic Development. "We have contacted members of the legislature who have shown tremendous support in the past, to request they file an amendment to the budget," Graney Foye reported. "We are hopeful that some level of funding will be restored as the budget goes to conference."
Members of the state’s Senate and House of Representatives—two independent bodies—will meet in conference toward the end of June to meld the Senate’s proposed budget with the House of Representatives’ proposed budget, which actually does include funding—$496,000—for the MFO in fiscal year ’03. Ultimately, the two bodies will have to come up with one agreed-upon budget to be presented to Governor Jane Swift.
Why didn’t the Senate’s proposed budget set aside money for the MFO? Senator Mark C. Montigny (D-New Bedford)-chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee-said he wasn’t singling out the MFO for any particular reason. Rather he stressed that the state of Massachusetts is suffering "a significant revenue crisis." The Boston Globe reports that the state of Massachusetts is facing a $2 billion budget deficit in the upcoming fiscal year-and elimination of funding for the MFO is part of $900 million in budget cuts the Senate Ways and Means Committee made.
Once the budget goes to conference, Montigny said it is possible that funding for the MFO may wind up in the final budget. "What I’ve said to people is, ‘Look, I wouldn’t hold my breath. But I also wouldn’t assume the worse,’" he related. "One branch has funded it; the other has not. We will probably decide on 1,000 [budget-related] items in conference, and this one has no more or less of a handicap against it than others, although I would make an argument that some of the other cuts are much more painful than this one."
Montigny continued: "But I definitely have not drawn a line in the sand to say that we believe under no circumstances should this be funded. We’ll listen to the arguments of the House. We certainly remain open to listen to the arguments of the industry or of [Dawson]. There is no bias."
In fact, Montigny praised the MFO for doing an outstanding job of promoting the state of Massachusetts as a place to shoot and courting the production industry. "They’ve done their job," he said. "They get good grades."
According to Dawson, who has headed the MFO since 1994, the Office obtained $604,890 from the state for fiscal year ’02. She maintained that money is put to good use, helping to facilitate production in the Bay State. In fiscal year ’00, Dawson reported, $73.7 million in revenue was generated from film and television productions in the state. (In the last few years, feature films such as The Perfect Storm, Good Will Hunting and Cider House Rules have been shot in Massachusetts.)
MFO provides support services—including assistance with research, locations and housing-to those working in all areas of production, including commercials. However, Dawson noted, "There is less of a need [of our services] in the commercial area, as they are fairly self-sufficient and smaller productions."
The MFO is "not a viable resource for us per se," confirmed Bill Near, an executive producer at Boston-based Picture Park, a production company that is primarily known for spot work. "But as someone who works in advertising and the film business and is based primarily in Massachusetts, I’m sorry that it wasn’t funded. It served a viable function in attracting work to this state from Hollywood and other places."
Bob Hirsch, manager of film and video lighting for Boston’s High Output, a provider of lighting equipment, generators and production supplies, stressed that if the MFO is forced to close its doors due to insufficient funding, "It would be sending the message that the production community is closed for business, and that’s just not the case."
The fact that the Senate would propose a budget without any money for the MFO "illustrated to me that we have not done a good enough job of addressing our local government as a constituency," Hirsch surmised.
Hirsch recently launched an e-mail campaign to alert members of the Massachusetts production community to the situation and to rally them to take action. "I got a tremendous response," he reported. "A lot of people said they contacted their representatives and senators and made their opinions known [regarding the importance of funding the MFO]. I think we will see more activism come out of this."
The MFO currently operates with a staff of four full-time employees, as well as independent contractors who are retained as needed. As for whether the MFO could continue to operate without state funding (the Office also gets money from the state’s tourism fund, as well as from various grants), Graney Foye stated, "Right now, we are focused on trying to get the money allocated for the budget. We will make decisions regarding operations once the budget is passed."
