At press time, it appeared that the proposed measure to ban filming of commercials with non-union actors on public and city-owned property in Los Angeles had pretty much fallen by the wayside during a Los Angeles City Council meeting last week (7/7).
Rather than push for a vote on the overall initiative-which included the lensing ban on spots being struck against by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)-its author, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, moved that her measure be taken to the Community & Economic Development Committee (CED) for further discussion.
The Council voted unanimously to send the filming proposal to the CED Committee, agreeing with Goldberg’s assessment that the motion needed additional "refinement and analysis."
Goldberg said, "We are not trying to drive commercials or any other production out of Los Angeles. Most of us on this Council-if not, all of us-were active in establishing the EIDC [the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation, which oversees the Los Angeles City/County Film Office]."
Goldberg instead shifted the focus of her proposal from the spot shoot ban to other provisions requiring production companies to provide accurate information in their film permits regarding the type of project being shot and the location sites being used. SAG and AFTRA have accused producers of filing permits that listed bogus multiple locations and that categorized commercials as music videos or other projects in order to avoid actor picket lines on shoots.
At the Council meeting, Goldberg said that when setting up the EIDC, she and her colleagues didn’t intend for the film permitting system to be "abused and used" in this manner. Intentionally inaccurate film permit info has created problems throughout the city, she contended. Goldberg cited instances of the Bureau of Street Maintenance posting "no parking" signs on streets that weren’t being used for filming. She added, "Locations and folks have been picketed where there was no actual [filming] activity going on…Our process should have some integrity…We have a legitimate set of issues to address in this situation." At the same time, she said, "I don’t believe that the motion as written narrows the focus on what we need to address."
Councilman Nate Holden expressed support for the film permit accuracy provisions, but said of the proposed lensing ban, "I don’t think we should address that at all today-if at all." Councilman Joel Wachs observed, "All of us sympathize with the actors. All of us want to encourage filming in Los Angeles. We want to do something that accomplishes both those objectives."
The Council members’ remarks came after advocates and proponents of Goldberg’s original motion stated their cases during the City Council meeting. A couple of hundred SAG and AFTRA members turned out to express their support for the overall bill. Meanwhile an industry contingent-representing producers, crew members and support services-was on hand to express its opposition.
Steve Caplan, senior VP, external affairs, for the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), testified that it’s been "mistakenly reported and suggested that this dispute is between commercial producers and SAG. It’s actually between SAG and the Joint Policy Committee [the JPC, which represents the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers] … Suppliers, producers, crew members are simply caught in the middle. It’s our job to continue to work…We want to see the strike settled." Caplan said passage of Goldberg’s original measure "will send a loud and clear message" that filming "isn’t wanted here." Caplan urged the city to instead take action that would "bring more production back to Los Angeles and the State of California."
Others testifying against the measure included AICP/West president Brian Donnelly, executive producer of bicoastal OneSuch Films; Mark Thomas, executive producer of Area 51 Films, Santa Monica; Gary Rose, executive producer/partner, bicoastal Moxie Pictures; and Rufus Burnham, principal in The Camera House, Van Nuys, Calif.
"It’s hard enough to keep business here," said Burnham. "Los Angeles and America are becoming more and more production unfriendly. I had to lay off four people last week. And I will have to lay off more if this ridiculous motion to prevent filming passes."
Among the Goldberg measure proponents testifying were Gordon Drake, strike coordinator on the ground level for SAG nationally and in Los Angeles; Sumi Haru, first national VP of SAG, and a local and national board member of AFTRA; and Miguel Contreras, executive secretary/treasurer of the Los Angeles AFL/CIO. "The issue is not about runaway production," said Drake, who cited a scenario in which a homeowner was informed that he’s being picketed for a commercial shoot that’s supposedly set to take place on his street and in his house. It turns out no such shoot is happening. "These permits are permitting residences who have no idea they’ve been singled out," related Drake, who cited a film permit covering a 20-square block area of Los Angeles as "unconscionable." The large area was listed to create a buffer between the production and potential picketers.
Haru also contended that Goldberg’s proposal is "not about driving production out of this city." She noted that the ban does not apply to spots being produced under an interim agreement with the actors’ unions. Haru said that "the people who have supported fair wages for performers" would be allowed to shoot on city-owned and public property.
However, the proposal to allow access to city locations for shoots with interim union agreements and denying such filming sites to projects being struck against raises legal questions. As earlier reported (SHOOT, 7/7), the JPC sent a letter to Goldberg and the other City Council members, contending that it was illegal for the Council to take sides in a labor dispute by instituting a filming ban.
Caplan said that the AICP was pleased by the results of the Council meeting as well as the widespread industry opposition mustered against the ban. According to Caplan, more than 70 opponents of the ban turned out for the meeting.
After the Council session, EIDC president Cody Cluff issued a statement: "EIDC appreciates the Council’s frustration regarding the strike, the Councilwoman’s interest in the issue and her desire to get everyone back to the bargaining table. We’ve communicated our concern that the only people winning in this walkout are the production centers outside the country that are picking up a lot of this work, and may hold onto much of it after a settlement.
"Here-at home-a lot of people," continued Cluff, "are hurting during this strike … While the optimum situation would be an end to the strike, EIDC will work with the Council, SAG and AFTRA and the commercial community in the coming days. Our goal will be to identify areas of compromise that can address the Councilwoman’s concerns while continuing to maintain a film-friendly climate that facilitates employment and production of all types of filmed entertainment."
Council president Ruth Galanter said, "With any luck, by the time the [CED] committee deals with this, the strike will have been settled…But we’re not holding our breath waiting for that to happen."
The lead negotiators for the JPC and the actors’ unions will, at least, again soon be in the same building. Federal mediators have summoned both sides to a meeting on July 20 in New York to try to break the stalemate. A similar session called in June by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service failed to yield any significantly positive results. The actors’ strike against the ad industry began on May 1.
