Meeting Summary
Florida
Film & Entertainment Advisory Council (FFEAC)
2ND QUARTER MEETING
May
20, 2003 Tampa
Attendance:
Chair: Hollis Batchelor
Roll Call & Introductions:
FFEAC Members: Mary Hinton, John Welch, Jorge Hane, Sterling Van Wagenen, Daphne Boyd, Lorraine Wood, Katie Waters, Paul Meena, Ron Castell, Leslie Ann Bartlett, Patrick Keating, Jasper Balance
FFEAC Members Absent: Excused: Jeff Peel, Arlene Herson, Patrick Keating, Lew Klechak. Unexcused: Barry Plans
Staff: Susan Albershardt, Leigh Ann McRight
Susan A. gives update on her first days in office, getting acquainted with local film commissioners and labor partners. Attended annual Film Florida meeting; trips down to Miami and Tampa planned for mid June. Finalized draft of Economic Assessment. (copies for everyone.) Redesigned website up and running. Trade mission planned in LA, meeting with studio and production companies, as well as attending ADFED Conference starting June 1. Researching low interest industry loans, partnerships with productions companies, and industry pool funds. Meeting with office of policy and budget about that already. Will continue to focus attention on Latin Entertainment. Recently attended the Telenovelas Summit in Miami with Mr. Hane. Supported relocation of the Latin Grammy’s to Miami, which is going to happen for the first time this fall. Focus on Digital Media, targeting companies who might be interested in relocating to Florida is ongoing. Has started work on policies and procedures for administrating the new incentive bill.
Punisher: Discussion on the new movie called The Punisher, filming in Tampa. Susan A. estimates the budget between 20-30 million dollars. Actual movie takes place in Tampa, so they wanted to film it in Tampa, as well. Thomas Jane and John Travolta are starring in it. A local Florida production coordinator has been hired.
Hollis B. says that over this past year his focus has changed from Florida’s situation to the national. Florida is one of the very few hot spots for production, once you get outside of New York and California, it’s pretty dead until you get to Miami. This is due in large part to our Film Commissioners and what’s been set up over the past few years. What the Governor set up four years ago with this Office and the Advisory Council is really starting to bring in results.
Susan A. states major kudos go to Susan Simms, Edie Emerald, and Joe Humphries and the IA, b/c without those people it wouldn’t have been done in Tampa. They worked tirelessly to land this project.
Paul Meena wants to know if it makes sense to share the leads on the OFE website, so people who know people can help advise or share information? Susan A. responded that the local film offices receive all of our leads. If we posted them on our website, every singe person visiting the site would want to reply and the production companies would inundated with resumes, headshots and people showing up in their office wanting a job.
Susan A. says that the way the systems works is the leads go to the film commissioners, so Susie Allen in Orlando would know everything about all the movies scouting Orlando. If you call her and ask her, she could update you on the leads. It is up to your local film commissioners to give you these leads. That’s the way the system is set up.
Katie W. offers that these production companies have more of a proprietary relationship and don’t want the lead info made public.
Susan A. states that there are 49 film commissioners and it’s up to them to send back information on their region to the producer of the film. That way the producer of the film is dealing with one person representing a specific region, not fifty.
Paul M. suggests that maybe instead of trying to get in the front end, maybe when they’re successes like this, once it’s a done deal, we can openly discuss and let the industry know about the hard work involved. I don’t think we talk about our successes enough. We just use a different spin once the work is complete.
Susan A. suggests that the OFE website may be a good place to do this because we have more control over the content.
Katie Waters would like to start adding absent people’s names on the minutes. Especially, since we have certain rules and policies regarding excuses and unexcused absences. Everyone agreed.
Everyone accepted the minutes from March 18, 2003.
Hollis Batchelor introduced Jorge Hane.
Discussed people’s term limits.
People need to tell Susan (at least by August) when their time is up so they can let the correct officials know.
Jeff Peel does not wish to serve again.
Paul Meena would like to serve again.
Mary Hinton’s term is coming up.
Legislative Update:
Susan A. gives updates on new incentive bill. No money was allotted and is still waiting for the Governor’s signature. He won’t start signing bills until after the special session.
Paul Meena suggests that we may not want to make any big news about this in the media since there is no money attached. Or should we make a big deal out of it, b/c the Governor signed the bill, etc? Suggests writing the Governor a thank-you letter thanking him for the completion of the first step of this process.
Susan A. says saying thank-you is always a good thing. Let’s talk about putting some money in a private-public fund. It would be governed just like the bill states, but set up like a public/private enterprise. Just like Enterprise Florida and FLA USA. OPB (Office of Policy & Budget) suggested this idea and they’re doing research for me on it right now.
Katie Waters asks if this would send message to the legislators that we don’t need you. They say, fine…we’re not going to give you any money.
Susan A. One way is if there is money made off the event… and instead of giving the money to Cancer Society, they gave it to this film fund.
Ron C. asks Susan to prepare a report.
Mary H. agrees, but using the key word “Public-Private Partnership” with the backing of the government. There are people that are willing to do film financing.
Jorge Hane says that fundraisers raise a lot of money, so the money is definitely out there.
Discussion regarding HB 1149:
Susan A. says this is an incentive for people who are not already planning on filming in Florida. It is to entice new business into the state. Also, you must hire a Florida crew and spend a certain amount of money here. We need to define who a “resident” of Florida is. Going through the application process and the policy and procedures, will help resolve some issues. Will be working with OTTED on this.
Paul M. says that he is worried that the press people in Tallahassee will jump the gun to where they want to make a big deal about this, even when there is no money attached.
The fight next year will be to get money into this. But going back to announcing this, I think the Board should send a letter to whomever saying thank you. But until we have some money, it’s in our best interest to hold off.
Daphne Boyd says we should thank the legislators for step number one and say let’s continue to work on step 2, and when we get to step 4 then we can blast the news to Florida. We need to stress to the legislators that this is just step number one and that we still need to get to step 2, 3, 4.
Hollis B. asks Paul to write the letter. Paul agrees and asks whom it should go to. Susan A. replies the Governor. Sterling VW suggests three letters, one to the Governor, Senator Saunders, and Representative Davis.
Anti-Smoking Industry Exemption:
Susan A. says the bill did pass with our exception in the Senate, it has stalled in the House. But as of today there is no consensus. The Governor has asked the legislators to concentrate on the budget before they do any other work.
Barry Plans Florida Entertainment Industry Act:
Hollis B. states that he will step out of the Chair, because he has a few comments to make. Paul will serve as Chair.
Paul M. states the history for those who don’t know. Barry Plans had a bill that they were trying to pass. There was a consensus at the last advisory meeting; we weren’t sure what he was asking. There was concern that his bill would confuse legislators, because we already had this other bill going, so we agreed to hold off on putting this Council behind that, until we could understand what this bill was. I think it’s on the Agenda today, because the plan was for Barry to talk to us about what he was trying to do. So we could all have a discussion on it, whether we want to support this bill or not. But with Barry not here to really plead his case, I assume there is a copy of the bill here.
Susan A. says that since the last advisory board meeting the bill has been rewritten and the new draft is in their packet.
Mary H. asks “Didn’t we ask Barry to go to Senator Posey and ask him to pull the bill until the industry had a chance to examine it?”
Paul M. says that didn’t happen. “I’m not saying Barry didn’t do that, but I am saying the Senator didn’t pull it. It got derailed by other means, the Senator didn’t pull it.
I think we need to table this and let’s go ahead and read all this information. And hopefully Barry will be at the next meeting.”
Hollis B. agrees. We can have this discussion later.
Sterling V. asks do we know why Senator Posey refused to pull it? Was he approached or asked?
Hollis B. states that after we had our meeting in February this bill underwent some drastic changes and what it did was it pointed the gun right at Labor and more specifically at the Screen Actor’s Guild for the violation of the right to work laws. And my understanding was that this bill was introduced to send a message to Screen Actor’s Guild. Funny thing, we’ve been in operation in this state since 1963 and also out of this office in Miami have been in charge of all right to work states in the country for Screen Actor’s Guild. There has never been a violation of the right to work laws. We’re aware of the laws and have never violated them. One of the state aids has been saying the Screen Actor’s Guild has done this and we’ve received numerous complaints from unknown names.
There was language introduced into this bill that went way beyond the right to work laws, that may even be in violation to federal law that have to do with the internal workings of a union. How a union regulates its members. How a union deals with its members. It is not something that is subject to federal law or right to work laws. When that showed up in the bill, every labor union in the film industry got extremely concerned to the point that in the event that this would become law in the state of Florida, it would have very drastic effects on the film industry in this state. I ask that you look at this and it will pop right out at you; but it’s definitely on the radar screen for the film unions and we’re going to take a long look at this thing. We’re not going to let this fall through the cracks.
Mary H. asks, “Didn’t this start out as a bill that was going to make agencies within the state of Florida take their advertising dollars to Florida companies first? When did it switch into a labor union issue?
Susan A. says the language is still in there. They made the labor union language much more important.
Hollis B. says we can wait until Barry comes back and I’ll be more than happy to have this discussion. This is not just on the local level it is on the national.
Sterling V. says that a bill that was introduced for one purpose is now refashioned for another purpose. This bill goes above and beyond the existing bill?
Paul M. states that he doesn’t know if it was introduced for one purpose and then switched to another. When it was first introduced there were two paragraphs each addressing a different purpose, but it was just so vague that the council said what is this? We don’t understand this. Where did this come from? And even Barry said this is a lot different. So we should have Barry talk to us at the next council meeting. Now, there is a revised version. So, let’s read it and discuss it at the next meeting.
Sterling V. asks with the legislature coming to an end, nothing is going to happen.
Susan A. says that the bill died this year. I was told that it would be coming back next year. I do know that Senator Posey’s legislative analyst read it before the Senate and they passed it unanimously in one committee, and that was based on the Senate staff analysis and economic impact statement that was attached to the bill. Representative Davis was very adamant about them not attaching this to our industry bill and he turned it down a couple of times. He has done a great job.
Mary H. says that before we start signing off on any bills, we need to make sure what we’re signing off on. We need to be specific as to what exactly we want and need for our industry so we don’t end up as some other type of bill.
Paul M. suggest that the bill gets tabled at our next meeting let’s really make sure we understand it and decide if we want to support it or not. Even if we oppose it, it doesn’t mean Barry or Senator Posey still can’t run this bill, it just means they won’t have our stamp of endorsement, which will mean a lot to the legislature. Let us table this for next session. We should read up on this and be prepared next time. We promised Barry this and I think we should stick to our word.
Make-Up Artist Licensing & Talent Agency
Deregulation:
Susan A. reports that Representative Ambler tried to find a bill to attach an amendment that would exempt make up artists, but he just couldn’t find one. Says we will have to find sponsors for a bill that will exempt film and television make-up artists from being licensed cosmetologists in the State of Florida before next session. Right now it’s illegal for make-up artists to operate without a license.
Hollis. B. asks Commissioner Albershardt to touch base with the DBPR Secretary and let her know about our current concerns.
Susan A. reports the DBPR told her “We do not go onto film and television sets.” The only reason they went onto the HSN set was because there was a disgruntled cosmetologist who didn’t get a job and filed a complaint against HSN. The DBPR had to investigate.” I asked the Secretary to call the OFE anytime she receives a call from a disgruntled employee. Tommy Sobek knows this and as soon as I hear from the DBPR Secretary with a complaint, I’ll call Tommy.
Jay B. and Hollis B. have discussion of what is and is not considered a makeup artist and cosmetologist. Hollis B. says the DBPR is over-stepping their bounds in this and they don’t understand what it takes to be a make-up artist and they have continually said that they’re interpretation is that the laws in Florida states that if they’re performing cosmetological services, they should be licensed.
Hollis B. says we’ve gone to the Board of Cosmetologist and they agree with us that this doesn’t fall under the law and we will not fight you if you attempt legislation that would exclude make-up artists. We tried to do this, this past legislative session, but unfortunately we could not find a bill to attach this language to. Next year we’re drafting out own bill to exempt make-up artists.
Jay B. states that something like this makes Florida unattractive. The State should not regulate who works on a motion picture set.
Deregulation of Talent Agents:
Katie W. describes the committee Hollis asked her to chair to deal with (1) finding a new home for the licensing and regulation of talent agents which the DBPR is currently doing and (2) advance fee talent agents in Florida. To get an idea of the money they generate- if they have 75,000 members, they’ve generated around $75,000,000 in just initiation fees alone not including photo fees, addition website photo fees, plus many additional “add-on” fees. In order to keep a photo on their website, members must pay $19.95/month.
They work by going to the mall, ball park, etc. and work off of commission and approach people by saying “Hey, you’ve got the look! We can make you a star, come to this meeting at this time.” Anyone who shows up will get accepted as a member. At the meeting you get a sales pitch and you have to call someone in a boiler room where you’ll talk to someone who’s “seen your picture and needs to now right now, if you want to be a star, it’ll cost $1000 and if you don’t sign-up now, you can’t re-apply for another year.”
CA statutes look to be a good template to move forward with. The talent agency sub-committee has agreed on this. (Katie W. provided copies of the FL talent agency legislation, the TX legislation, licensing requirements of talent agents in NYC and the CA legitimate agency licensing rules and the advance fee law).
Suggested additions/revisions:
1- In Florida there is a telemarketing act, which includes requirements and penalties for violations. The CA act requires a $10,000 bond. The FL telemarketing act requires a minimum $50,000 bond. Knowing how much money these companies bring in, we’d like to start with the $50,000 minimum bond.
2- No one under 18 can be a client of one of these companies regardless of parental consent.
3- You can’t have a financial interest or be an employee of one of these companies if you’ve ever been convicted of fraud in the talent or modeling industry or if you’ve ever been convicted of any sex crime.
4- Violating the CA act is a misdemeanor and violating the FL telemarketing act is a second-degree felony.
Talent agency regulation will ride on the tails of the advance fee issue. Discussion follows regarding outlawing advance fees altogether.
Hollis suggests meeting with high-ranking representatives from the Attorney General’s office, plus the people in the Consumer Affairs department and start going over the advance fee legislation. We need more strategic planning in Tallahassee.
Paul M. says we’ve got to run the channels of getting the law passed, finding sponsors, etc. The news will break when it breaks, but we shouldn’t point to one business, we should point out that this is a bad business for our industry that we need to defeat.
Ron C. says that it would be very helpful to have some find of analysis of the complaints and some kind of evidential basis to show how widespread the problem is..
Susan A. says the complaints are “We gave them $1000 and never got any work.”
Hollis B adds that we certainly have statements from the DBPR including the complaints they’ve received.
Mary H.: For every one of our companies in FL, there are probably 50 in TX, because TX companies are advertising everywhere. The rules and regulations should be written very specifically because if these people have figured out how to make millions each year, they’ll figure out another way if the laws are changed.
Katie W.: Of the amendments that I want to include comes from the CA bill that no one over 18 can be solicited regardless of parental ok.
Ron C.: These people know what they’re doing. I bet the contract waives them of all responsibility anyway. It probably implicates that they can get you a job, not promise a job.
Lorraine W.: The fact that CA is trying to prosecute at this time- if they make their case this is going to help us move forward, if they don’t we’re back to “it’s not worth it”.
Susan A.: What about the big casting calls?
Hollis B.: When they come in there’s usually an employer, a project and there’s something going on. In LA they just had mother’s bring their babies in for a photo shoot for Baby’s R Us. It was a live remote with 300 babies lined-up, but this was a legitimate type of casting. But when there’s nothing there or it’s a fictitious situation that’s what is illegitimate. Take a look at the documents Katie has assembled, in particular the CA laws, because it has put it in a way that defines what we’re looking for with the consent of the body we will continue along with this project and will be further along at the next meeting.
Objections? None. OK, we’ll move the agenda to the economic incentive.
Industry Bill:
Susan A. asks them to take a look at the grid outline under tab 2, which explains what the incentive is. Comparing to other states, it’s a really good package, not too low, not too high. It will do what it’s meant to do once there’s money backing it.
Production Report:
Susan says a full annual report (July 2002 through June 2003) will be available when we meet in September. Our report is based on tax incentive applications. At out last meeting, Ally Fields reported that local film offices are not getting their reports to her, as they should, so they’re not completely accurate which is the problem.
Discussion follows between Paul M., Susan A. and Katie W. re: tracking ROI using the tax incentive application and other alternatives. Final determination is that it must be figured out in an accurate manner. Susan A. states that the OFE is designing a post production survey to be filled out by a production company and returned at the end of production. It can be anonymous; it could be on the record. We’ll ask how much they spent on labor, equipment, leasing space, etc. That’s if we’re aware of the project. How can we get the survey to them if we’ve never heard of them?
Jorge H. asks how the OFE divulges the tax benefits? How do you get the word out about tax benefits in FL? Susan A. states that it is in all of our collateral, the website, one-sheets, the minute they call our office we offer a Florida info packet. Today there is a special feature on FL in the Hollywood Reporter including a letter from the Governor, which mentions the tax incentive. Our tax incentive is only 6%, whereas, other states have a lot more than that now, so we really can’t tout our new incentive until we have money for it. OTTED offers several incentives such as Urban & Rural Development incentives, but they’re harder to get.
Ron C. asks about trying to assess what the relationship is between the individual local film commissioners and state film office. Susan A. states that it’s great. The film commissioners have been incredible and bend over backwards to work together and with the state film office. They’re very engaged in what they do. Some need more budget and staff to respond to each lead they qualify for. Across the US, film commissions are disappearing because they’re losing their budgets. Many of our local commissioners have multiple jobs.
Hollis B. states about 4-5 years ago the Hollywood Reporter ran a comparison of all states and their productions…outside of CA, MI was the number 2 production state, because MI had a few films in and multiplied the numbers by 10 and came up with $1.2 mil. Susan is saying that we’re not putting figures out there unless they’re real, without multipliers. By calling other film offices, you’ll only get hype.
Economic Assessment Update:
Susan A. reports that she spoke in depth with the economist who wrote the report. One question she asked him was why he doesn’t do a comparison of other states and he replied that he couldn’t do that because they all use different methodologies for getting numbers. She then asked how does FL rank, because NC also claims to be #3. He said FL is #3 because FL employs many more workers than NC, but we can’t compare total revenue figures because our methodologies differ.
Susan discusses the results of the new assessment, stating there were some major areas that were left out like exhibition, broadcasting, music recording, still photography, and intermediate inputs (caterer, greenery people, dry cleaners, etc.). Going back to the MGT report, look at the SIC codes, the new report only covers four SIC codes (motion picture & video production). In 1999, we did $1.26 bil and in 2001 $1.16 bil worth of business, which is $104 mil less. Why? We had a 6-month SAG strike in the commercial industry, a threatened writers strike, September 11, 2001. We rebounded well due to fears of traveling overseas, plus our upfront sales tax exemption was well established at that point.
The good news is employment has grown by a compound annual rate of 11.7%, wages have grown by a compound annual rate of 14.1%, units (businesses) of employment has grown by 7.6% , wage growth between 1995 and 2001 outweighs employment growth. The promise of cheap labor is no longer a marketing tool. The report is laid out regionally: Miami had 52% of the business last year, Orlando had 18%, Tampa had 16% and everyone else shared the rest.
What is the OFE doing?
1. We are encouraging Film Florida, FMPTA, WIFT-FL, and other trade associations and vendors to stay engaged. Remain active promoting and marketing local locations and services, staying actively involved in the lead generation process, working with cities and county governments with location packages, working with local vendors for discounted rates for long-term projects, encouraging producers to share costs where equipment and supplies are shared, sending the location photos to the OFE for the online library, calling the OFE whenever we can be of assistance.
2. Exploring additional incentives.
3. Creating greater ties between education and the industry.
4. Provide intense focus on Latin American entertainment and digital media. We can own these areas. Governor Bush’s letter in the Hollywood Reporter states that “Florida is the gateway to Latin American entertainment.”
Future Meeting Dates:
Hollis B says that Jorge has informed him that he will be in Las Vega at a convention on the scheduled date of our next meeting, Monday 9/15/03 in Miami. Since he’s hosting the next meeting, he’d like to be there. How about Monday, 9/22/03?
Everyone agrees.
Website Redesign:
Susan A. reports that the new website is much more interactive than it used to be, there are different areas we can administer from our office, including the homepage where we post press releases, our Reel Jobs, What’s Shooting, Film Festivals which will save us money and gives us a more proactive role in updating the website. The homepage has been re-designed. I had them add back in our branding, which had been removed. There’s also a link on the homepage to give feedback to the OFE. The Reel Jobs are being policed, they’re not automatically posted and we’ll work with the local film offices to learn whether companies are legit or not. Film schools are really taking advantage of this. For Filmmakers is also an adminet so we can update it from our office. The flash map allows visitors to wave their mouse over the map and the main cities in that region “pop-up”. Again, please visit the site. We want it to be as useful as possible.
Hollis B. asks if anyone else has anything else to discuss?
Paul M. says the council should focus on next year, what’s coming up and where priorities are, including getting appropriation for our bill that just passed, in conjunction with that, policies and procedures/rule and regulations, we need to sign-off on that. Defining “state resident”, etc. Find a sponsor for the cosmetology amendment; find a home for talent agency regulation, etc. Figure out the bookkeeping and cost tracking so we can justify our numbers.
Hollis B. suggests that this is the kind of meeting at the end of the year, because next year at this time we’ll be electing a new chairman. Will look at the committees and see if we need to re-configure them.
There is discussion between Jorge H., Paul M., Sterling V. and Hollis B. regarding council committees, their function, and how they are formed. Hollis B. says council’s work has got to be done in committees because every time we get together we’re limited by time on what we can discuss. We need to move our committees forward.
Hollis B. states that between February and now, Susan is dealing with legislation, between September and December she’s dealing with committees getting ready for the legislature. Between now and December is when we need to do our work and set-up our legislative agenda and coordinate our efforts with Film Florida.
Susan A. states that the local film offices will be at the December meeting. Hopefully we’ll get a lot of work done and some great ideas. She invites marketing ideas.
Discussion follows regarding the results of the economic assessment. Lorraine W. asks if NC has 3 multimillion dollar productions, but only hire 300 people and FL only has a few low-budget films but hires 4,000 people- NC can still claim to be #3 because it’s based on how much money was spent in the state. Susan A. states more labor dollars are spent in FL than NC. Lorraine says it depends on your criteria of what is #3. If you’re figuring production dollars, or labor dollars. Mary H. remarks that Susan has to show that our industry hires 55,000 a year, for example, that’s the number that Florida looks for.
Susan A. states that the assessment states there are approx.10,000 people employed in the industry in FL, although the previous report showed 37,000 but not all of those areas were covered in the recent report. Further discussion ensues on including a press release or top sheet with the assessment when it is sent out to detail the positive results.
Hollis B. makes a motion to adjourn.
All in favor.
Motion passed.