Meeting Summary
Florida Film & Entertainment Advisory Council (FFEAC)
Tallahassee, FL
March 18, 2003
Hollis Batchelor introduced Susan Albershardt as the new Film Commissioner and asked her to tell the members about herself.
S. Albershardt briefed the Council on her education and career experience.Her 60-day goals include rolling out the newly designed website, getting to know her staff local film commissioners and their concerns, labor partners and how to work together better with them. Also, legislative issues are the number one priority as well as continuing to analyze the economic assessment.
Six-month goals include developing additional incentives such as interest-free and low-interest loans to production companies and developing a partnership with production companies to share in the back-end profits of films, developing an industry-pool of funds for productions, continue to support the media arts educational programs and teachers in Florida, strengthen the Hispanic and Latin American entertainment community to become a bigger part of the business by attracting high-profile projects for them, continue developing the digital media industry and continue relocation efforts for higher paying jobs in Florida. Revising the 5-year plan is under consideration. S. Albershardt asked the Council to be forward with any and all suggestions.
H. Batchelor asked that everyone introduce himself or herself for the record.
H. Batchelor asked for approval of the FFEAC minutes from the December 4, 2003 meeting.
Members agreed to motion for approval.
H. Batchelor explained that the Department of Business & Professional Regulation (DBPR) sent a bill to deregulate talent agents to the legislature. DBPR’s reason for deregulation is because of old debts- regulating talent agents has cost upwards of $300,000 since regulation began in 1986. Without a $300,000 reimbursement, deregulation seems to be the only answer according to DBPR. A few months back, H. Batchelor received figures from the DBPR stating that in 1997 the debt was $275,000 and is presently $350,000. Every other year, Florida talent agents pay a state fee, during the years that the fees are due, the debt would decrease. For example, last year the state fees were due and the debt went down to $290,000- an increase of only $15,000 in the six years since 1997. H. Batchelor was given no satisfactory accounting information as to how the original $275,000 debt was created. DBPR’s position is that they regulate professions and if the profession doesn’t wish to be regulated then why should the DBPR bother? The problem with this is that the public needs the protection of regulation from unscrupulous agents.
H. Batchelor suggested re-thinking the way this concern is handled- possibly removing talent agency regulation as a responsibility of the DBPR. H. Batchelor explained the Texas law prohibiting talent, model searches; these searches sweep into town heavily advertising promises of stardom and charging up-front fees- once they leave town they’re never heard from again. Also, consider regulating online agent services that charge consumers with the same false promises of stardom.
H. Batchelor’s suggestion to the Council is to allow the DBPR to de-regulate talent agents this legislative session and have the Film Commissioner and Governor work on new legislation that would not place talent agents under DBPR, but possibly the Attorney General’s Office where the public could be protected. Another suggestion was to incorporate the Texas law; H. Batchelor mentioned that in a recent meeting with the Texas film commissioner, he learned that as soon as their law prohibiting talent/model searches went into effect, the problem ceased to exist.
Lorraine Wood, who was once a literary agent in California, agrees with placing the regulation in the hands of the Attorney General.
H. Batchelor added that they also considered placing the regulation of talent agents in the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (DACS), but the DACS became disinterested after the initial discussions.
Mary Hinton explained that in Palm Beach County, the big problem is the talent/model searches- especially the fact that these companies do not originate in Florida meaning these could be federal fraud cases. H. Batchelor stated that he’s more interested in a “quick-fix” that focuses on the Florida law.
Jeff Peel suggested that in writing legislation, be careful not to exclude legitimate searches such as reality television searches. H. Batchelor agreed and added that determining a search's legitimacy is easy.
Katie Waters asked if it would be worth it to encourage the industry to blast emails of “concern” to legislators to try to protect people within the time period before the next legislative session that agents are not regulated? H. Batchelor agreed that trying to save the regulation is great, but the need to move forward with aggressive legislation is very important since the DBPR is determined to de-regulate this year.
Robert Grimm explained that there is no bill at this time, that this issue is currently a line item. Talent Agents are not the only profession targeted by the line item, but all professions that are in debt, or are “not fiscally sound.”
M. Hinton added that the OFE should consider continuing being vocal on this issue so when talent agents are de-regulated, the OFE can show that they fought the issue the entire way. R. Grimm added that the OFE has emailed the industry on the status of the issue and offered contact information for legislators that could influence this decision, but this line item is in the Governor’s recommended budget. M. Hinton added that the issue of protecting children is a strong point that could influence the Governor. H. Batchelor added that SAG has close contacts with Child Advocacy groups, which have been very influential in the past, but he stressed that this year the DBPR seems very determined to deregulate.
Paul Meena asked about the potential problem if no major problems are had by the industry in the upcoming year of deregulation. Why would a state agency want to regulate a profession that got along just fine without regulation for a year?
Ron Castell asked, “How big of a problem is this issue in general?”
H. Batchelor answered that talent/model searches are a current big problem and have always been a big problem. The issue of deregulation is a potentially big problem based on the previous times of deregulation when there were no laws to prohibit talent agent cons.
K. Waters asked if there’s a way to document the cost to consumers who’ve been taken advantage of?
H. Batchelor answered “maybe”, but added that some people are hesitant to come forward and admit that they were taken advantage of.
R. Castell asked if there is a House member or a Senator who is currently ready to support us on the issue? H. Batchelor answered, that he has a meeting later today with a potential supporter in the Senate and he feels like the OFE and the Governor will also be major allies on this issue. R. Castell added that the potential supporter should have backing in the consumer affairs industry as opposed to the film and entertainment industry.
R. Castell suggested briefing the new DBPR Secretary on the past actions of the FFEAC to keep talent agents regulated.
H. Batchelor asked is there were any motions?
K. Waters motioned to draft a letter of the FFEAC’s continue support for the regulation of talent agents by the DBPR. This letter should go to the Governor, Secretary of DBPR and House and Senate members. ??? seconded the motion.
H. Batchelor will draft the letter.
P. Meena asked for discussion; the letter should include a plan of action in addition to the statement that the Council is concerned with the potential deregulation. H. Batchelor explained that the letter would include stating the Council’s opposition against deregulation, and the Council’s favoring of new legislation for the 2004 session that would resolve the funding problems with DBPR and strengthen the laws to further protect citizens. R. Grimm suggested including a copy of the Texas statute as well. R. Castell added that this letter would put the government on notice and suggested that the Council should develop a task force. H. Batchelor added that the letter would be sent to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Chair of the Senate & House Appropriations Committee, Secretary of the DBPR and Jim Magill (from the Governor’s Legislative Affairs Office).
P. Meena agreed with R. Castell’s earlier point of making sure that the new Secretary of DBPR is brought up to speed on the activities of the FFEAC in relation to the talent agency issue.
P. Meena also agrees with forming a task force/sub-committee to discuss this further. H. Batchelor stated that he would appoint a sub-committee- those interested should submit their names.
H. Batchelor made a motion to close the debate.
Motion carried.
H. Batchelor stated that the DBPR’s position is to require make-up artists to maintain a cosmetology license. No other state considers make-up artists to be cosmetologists.
H. Batchelor stated that representatives from SAG and IATSE attended the 1/6/03 Cosmetology Board meeting in Tampa.
H. Batchelor asked R. Grimm is it’s too late to introduce legislation this session.
R. Grimm said that it’s definitely possible this session and that S. Albershardt recently spoke with Representative Ambler who agreed to help. R. Grimm suggested a compromise with the DBPR by requiring that at least one licensed cosmetologist be present on each set.
H. Batchelor disagreed with requiring a cosmetologist to be on the set. He suggested exemptive legislation for make-up artists on film sets.
Ally Hugg-Fields suggested a type of health/safety course that would require bi-annual certification for operating in Florida. Ensuring that make-up artists still understand the health concerns, without going through the licensing process of the DBPR.
Sterling Van Wagenen asked how this issue affects low budget or independent films?
H. Batchelor answered that since most low budget or Independent filmmakers are from Florida, they’re not as effected by the law as high-end films where most of the crew comes from out-of-state. Make-up artists for the stars or that work on high-end films have a lot of expertise or they wouldn’t be working where they are and probably have extensive certification somewhere other than in Florida.
P. Meena suggested informing the DBPR of the problems with their legislation before the bill becomes active. H. Batchelor replied that he and Rebecca Mattingly met with the former DBPR Secretary in December 2002 to explain the problems of classifying a film and television make-up artist as a cosmetologist. H. Batchelor explained that he believes that mid-level management are the ones making these decisions, not necessarily the Secretary and that a simple exemption is needed.
H. Batchelor motioned for the OFE to talk with the new DBPR Secretary and legislators to find a sponsor/support to develop the appropriate language to insert into the DBPR bill.
M. Hinton seconded the motion.
Motion Carried.
H. Batchelor asked that if anyone is interested in being re-appointed, let S .Albershardt know.
H. Batchelor stated that the Governor had made a new appointment to replace Dawn Guzzetta, but the press release has not gone out yet. (Jorge Hane, CEO of Premier Solutions, Corp. a worldwide DirecTV company, was appointed to the FFEAC 3/18/03).
P. Meena asked if an amendment could be made to the FFEAC By-Laws to change the rule regarding unexcused absences and being removed from the Council. On page 4, section 4 the line currently reads “three unexcused absences in a row “ and P. Meena suggested “three unexcused absences” to be grounds for removal.
H. Batchelor asked for discussion.
R. Grimm added that these changes are not legislative, the FFEAC wrote their own by-laws and can change them with a quorum (unanimous number of members present).
P. Meena motioned to make the amendment to the by-laws.
??? Seconded the motion.
Motion Carried. (Amendment reads: Any member who is absent from three or more regular meetings without being excused by the Council Chair shall forfeit his or her seat on the Council.)
P. Meena asked that the OFE send revised copies of the by-laws to all members. (Copies mailed out on 3/21/03).
NEW BUSINESS
R. Grimm stated that Senator Saunders is sponsoring Senate Bill 1756 and Representative Davis is sponsoring House Bill 1149. The original definition of “entertainment industry”, by law, included recording studios. This was removed from the Senate bill, but was added in the House bill. The House amendment that includes recording studios will be added to the Senate bill. To clarify, recording studios were added back to the definition of the “entertainment industry” but are not included in the incentive at this time.
R. Grimm explained that the Senate bill says that the program was created in the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTTED) which was changed to say the program was created in the Office of Film & Entertainment (OFE). The OFE will set-up the process and OTTED will set-up the process’ procedures. Funding will be given to the OFE, but housed in a trust fund in OTTED. OTTED will have final oversight on the OFE’s recommendation for reimbursement to a production company. The policy and procedures have yet to be written.
R. Grimm explained that the OFE would deal with “obscene content” based on the US Supreme Court’s definition of “obscene content”. The OFE would review scripts and get back with the production company in question within 10 days. The actual process has not yet been set. R. Grimm reminded members to refer to their meeting packet from the December meeting to find the 3 criteria the US Supreme Court set to determine if a production has “obscene content” based on previous rulings.
Under this legislation the OFE would have the ability to develop procedures to work with the local film offices to learn if a qualifying company has set-up production offices and are indeed filming in Florida.
K. Waters asked if the reimbursement would be authorized after the production is complete?
P. Meena stated that he thought qualifying productions would be reimbursed during production.
R. Grimm stated that the timeframe of fund distribution might be defined during the process of establishing procedures.
P. Meena added that the reimbursement should have varying thresholds of return. This would prevent the negative outcome of advertising a great new incentive, but once movies come to Florida, the incentive has been tapped out. If the reimbursement had thresholds you could say yes you’re eligible, but they money is not available right now. S. Albershardt added that greenlight movies already have their funding in place. R. Grimm reminded everyone that timeline of reimbursement is not in the bill and is a matter of policy and procedure.
M. Hinton added that this incentive should be used to recruit productions instead of being used as deal-breakers for productions that haven’t decided on a filming location.
R. Grimm reminded everyone that the State legislature is dealing with negative numbers this year.
R. Grimm stated that in-state digital media effects companies may receive a reimbursement of up to $100,000 or 5%, whichever is less and out-of-state digital media effects companies may receive up to $200,000 in reimbursement funds
R. Grimm explained that Senate bill 1758 is a trust fund for the reimbursement money to be placed. He reminded everyone that trust funds are not popular items in the legislature this year.
R. Grimm introduced Senate bill 1706 “The Barry Plans Florida Film Industry Equity Act” which is intended to partner Florida government agencies with Florida production and advertising entities. But, this bill does not have a corresponding House bill meaning it could latch onto our incentive bill and the result may not be positive.
H. Batchelor added that he believes this bill is redundant with the existing right-to-work law (referring to SB 1706 Section 2, Part 2).
S. Van Wagenen asked what the potential problems could be.
H. Batchelor answered that the determining who (Florida company vs. non-Florida company) has the better artistic ability is a judgment call. By tying the hands of the creatives, productions end up as second-rate material.
S. Albershardt has two issues with this bill. 1- the language in the bill doesn’t force the bill to be enforced and 2- the right-to-work reminder works against the purpose of the bill.
K. Waters proposed that Senator Posey pull the bill this year, since the FFEAC is just now reviewing the bill. Request additional time for review and possible re-submit next year.
S. Van Wagenen proposed that the Council prioritize their bills, obviously the incentive bill is the most important. S. Albershardt agrees because SB 1706 (the Barry Plans bill) doesn’t bring any money/work into Florida as SB 1756 does.
R. Grimm explained to the Council that the decision should be made among the members and possible options include:
P. Meena reminded the members that they all worked very hard to get the incentive bill passed last year, but time simply ran out- he recommends that the Council continue their support of the incentive bill especially since the bill has had the chance to circulate within the industry of Florida.
P. Meena makes a motion for the FFEAC to continue their support of Senator Saunders’ incentive bill.
K. Waters seconded.
Motion Carried.
Discussion
R. Grimm clarified that the motion is to support Rep. Davis’ bill as amended and support Sen. Saunders’ bill as amended to match Rep. Davis’ bill.
R. Castell suggested that this concern be brought before the FFEAC Legislative Committee for review and the committee should circulate the Barry Plans bill within the industry and possibly bring it back before the legislature next year.
Barry Plans explained that this bill was circulated within the industry last year, but was pulled to protect the incentive bill.
J. Peel added that the language of the bill could be construed by state agencies to no longer use the RFP (Request for Proposal) process, but instead use the bidding process.
K. Waters suggested contacting Sen. Posey and ask him to pull the bill, so that the FFEAC could review this premature version of the bill.
H. Batchelor asked B. Plans and S. Albershardt to contact Sen. Posey with the request to pull the bill.
P. Meena introduced SB 742 as a bill that the Senate intended to exempt the entertainment industry from the amendment that was passed during the last election. Without the exemption, an actor who is smoking as part of an acting role in an indoor environment, such as a sound stage, would be breaking the Florida law.
Discussion
J. Peel explained that during the last election the no smoking in an indoor workplace provision passed as a constitutional amendment. Both the House and Senate are “interpreting the amendment” by writing the rules and citing exemptions to pass the actual law.
K. Waters expressed concern with the exemption of crew members who smoke while working in an indoor environment- she agrees with allowing the working actor to smoke as part of the production.
S. Albershardt clarified K. Waters’ concern- this exemption would be limited to working actors only, the crew would not be exempt.
P. Meena added that he thinks the crew should be allowed to smoke because of the nature of the film industry.
L. Wood added that in both New York and California only working actors smoke so Florida would not be the exception in not allowing directors to smoke on the enclosed set.
S. Albershardt added that in a recent committee meeting, it was mentioned that it’s a constitutional right to be allowed to do your job; the role of the film crew is not to smoke, therefore they are not exempt. This is called the “commerce exemption” that both the House and Senate are discussing.
Motion made to support the smoking exemption.
??? seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
OFE PROJECTS & PROGRAMS UPDATE
ERA/BI-ANNUAL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT UPDATE
S. Albershardt stated that she wanted to be able to share the assessment with the Council at today’s meeting, but after a careful review, she had questions for the researcher on every page of this lengthy document. Questions regarding the methodology used, where the data was collected and the results. The assessment did not encompass all of the industries that fall under the Office of Film & Entertainment, but unfortunately not all of these industries were listed in the original RFP.
J. Peel added that the Miami-Dade film office used the same company for their assessment and agreed that the scope was extremely narrow and looked mostly at production companies and services and distribution companies and services. He added that from a PR perspective, the numbers obtained in the first assessment completed in 2000 shrank dramatically with the newer assessment.
S. Albershardt added that the multiplier effect was not applied to this study (the local economic trickle-down effect).
S. Albershardt announced that she would distribute the assessment as soon as the company answers her questions and concerns.
NORMAN STUDIOS
A. Anderson spoke on behalf of Lew Klechak, who is absent.
A. Anderson stated that on March 27, 2003 a dedication ceremony would be held in Jacksonville in honor of the Richard E. Norman Studios. Savannah School of Art & Design’s Film Program will be sending 24 students to plan and design the studio focusing on preserving the building. A. Anderson announced that Richard E. Norman’s film “Flying Ace” will be shown at several film festivals including the first annual Jacksonville Film Festival slated for this year.
The UNCF/Richard E. Norman Scholarship was rolled out at a luncheon in Orlando on February 27, 2003 and the scholarship will be given to three deserving students from Bethune Cookman, Edward Waters and Florida Memorial Colleges to use towards a film school education at the University of Miami School of Communications, the University of Central Florida/Zora Neale Hurston Institute for Documentary Studies and the Florida State University Film School.
The www.filminflorida.com website has a UNCF/Norman Scholarship banner on the homepage that links directly to the www.myflorida.com page explaining the application process.
2nd ANNUAL FLORIDA FILM EDUCATORS EVEN EXCHANGE
A. Hugg-Fields stated that the 2003 Florida Film Educators Even Exchange would take place on April 7-8 in Palm Beach County. Palm Beach International Film Festival, Palm Beach Community College and Palm Beach Film & Television Commission have partnered with the OFE for this 2-day event. On the second day S. Albershardt will address the film educators with a State of the Industry address. The keynote luncheon will feature both Chaille Stovall, a 13 year-old documentary filmmaker, whose projects have appeared on HBO, and Chaille’s mentor, director John Rikkers. People are using our website www.filminflorida.com to download the event schedule as well as to download the RSVP form.
H. Batchelor asked the members to set a place and date for the next quarterly meeting. Holding the meeting in July would help the budget of the OFE, but according to the bylaws, members must meet at least once per quarter. He suggested Miami as the place of the meeting, in mid-May before Memorial Day.
J. Peel suggested the week of May 19th.
M. Hinton suggested Orlando as a central location and Daphne Boyd suggested Tampa.
D. Boyd also added that if the meeting were held in Tampa, everything would be free including the meeting space, audio/visual equipment, etc.
P. Meena suggested planning the meeting locations and dates for the remainder of the calendar year. So far, May 20-21 in Tampa with D. Boyd’s invitation. Since H. Batchelor originally suggested Miami, hold the 3rd quarter meeting in Miami in September, since most 3rd quarter meetings are held in September, possibly September 15. M. Hinton has suggested Palm Beach County, and it’s been a while since the Council has met there, Palm Beach for the early December meeting, possibly Tuesday, December 2.
The Council tentatively agrees with the future meeting dates.
George Hernandez asked the Council to consider the “Florida filmmaker” while working on the incentive bill; he added that most Florida filmmakers’ budgets are nowhere near the $850,000 minimum required of feature films in the incentive bill. He also asked the members to consider digital video, which is quickly growing in popularity in film schools nationwide.