CBS COLLECTION 072 UCLA - Film Score Rundowns

position would increasingly serve as a self-aggrandizing platform to promote the
professional careers of composers in the industry instead of on the original goal to
preserve film music. They objected to the primary focus on annual “life achievement”
award dinners that in effect serve as profit-making fund raisers (a curious dichotomy
considering that SPFM was a tax-exempt nonprofit educational charity that was supposed
to rely on contributions (such as members’ dues) and grants (such as the Skaggs
Foundation of Oakland, California). These were their complaints around 1991, not mine,
because I was not really involved in the Society beyond being a passive dues-paying
member. It wasn’t until 1997-1998 that my experiences with SPFM started to become
personally involved due to the CBS Collection research ties. Others also have voiced
dissatisfactions with FMS, including those posting in the FSM (Film Score Monthly)
Discussion Board, such as given in the April thru June 2003 archives. Some described the
Society as being largely dormant, have an adversarial attitude towards collectors, having
a rickety history, but seemed to improve a bit once a new President came on the scene in
2002. But even with this change many complained about the lack of timely
communication & response. The timing of the beginning of the turn of events that
members were disturbed about earlier and that changed the nature of the Society for them
was in 1989 when a founder of the Society stepped down as President (to take the new
Executive Director paid job), and the industry composer took the reins. There was a
“Report on Current Issues & Proposed Plan of Action” (over thirty pages) dated June 30,
1990 that discussed various issues, notably involving that founder. Relatively soon after
that, he was ousted from his own Society that he significantly established.
Now: If a grant requires matching funds (as was the $30,000 Skaggs Foundation
fund) to be raised independently by the Society in order to fully receive the grant, this
conditional provision would further complicate a situation. Ideally, to my mind, a grant
should be “no strings attached” beyond the stated purpose of the grant, say, to physically
preserve film music. A grantor foundation should not interfere with ideals of the grantee
organization. This means strongly influencing it to, say, hire a full-time salaried
Executive Director in order to raise money or to fulfill some sort of matching funds
arrangement if the organization is tempted by the money being waved in front of its face.
If I was the Founder/President of SPFM, I would’ve said (ala Sarah Pailin) to Skaggs or
any other such grantor with such interfering suggestions, “Thanks—but no thanks!” By
the way, the fund-raising dinner benefit for John Williams raised, I believe, about
$20,000.This of course would help to pay for the salaried Executive Director position that
was created in part to foster public relations-style fund-raisers. Although, once again in
an ideal situation, the responsibility for fund-raising should not squarely and solely on the
shoulders of the Executive Director (paid or not). Perhaps there should be a general
Committee in charge of that. Call it the Financial Committee, or the Fund-Raising
Committee, or whatever. The primary focus on SPFM shouldn’t have to be on how to
make more money! Then it begins to sound more & more like a for-profit business
corporation!
And in my personal experiences as delineated above, my complaint was that
current SPFM at the time seemed to practice a standing joke reference circulating
164