"Oh, you really got everybody angry!" a member told me afterward. "You should've heard what they were saying about you!" But at least Lael Loewenstein agreed to talk to me about the request afterward and she answered my questions, albeit with some shocking replies.

Back when Helmut Voss was president of HFPA, he graciously offered to show me the articles submitted by members of the foreign press. I haven't asked any official since. Broadcast Film Critics Association president Joey Berlin is always eager for me to check the group's files to see proof that members are meeting the minimum requirement of film reviews per year — the highest of any critics' group, by the way — eight per year. There's no need to check on members of the New York Film Critics Circle. In order to be a member, they must have a staff job as film journalists.

So when I submitted my request to LAFCA, I didn't think it was a big deal, frankly, but it sure sent fur flying. And no wonder. Loewenstein told me, "Members are on an honor system. Every year they give us a list of what outlets they write for and we trust them."

But no one checks on the list? Or asks to see the proof?

"No," she said. I reminded her that the honor system didn't work in the past. That's why LAFCA finally enacted standards after it was revealed it had none. Why should anyone presume that an honor system would work now? The history of film-critics groups is filled with scandals erupting over unqualified members hanging on under lax leadership. I should know. I've written a book about them — CLICK HERE

For example: Just recall how the Golden Globes used to get yanked off TV when it was revealed that unqualified members were voting. Often fiercest criticism of HFPA came from members of LAFCA, a group equally guilty.

I recently started taking a new look into the membership of the L.A. Film Critics Association, I asked Jeff Wells of Hollywood-Elsewhere.com — who's worked the film beat in Hollywood for decades — to review its member list and tell me if he could vouch for them. He didn't recognize nearly a dozen names. To see the list. CLICK HERE

Jack Mathews has been away from the L.A. journalism scene for a while so he can't be expected to know all members, but when I asked him to review the list today, he voiced sharp criticism about many he does know.

"A lot of these guys are people writing reviews on their own websites," he said. "That's not legit." He also questioned the credentials of other members, adding, "Sure, they may write occasionally about film, but members should be people who make their living reviewing movies full time for established media organizations. Remember, the group is called the Los Angeles Film Critics Association."

Mathews is also highly critical of the fact that LAFCA contains some semi-retired members who may meet the minimum standard of writing four reviews per year, "but I can guarantee you that they're not seeing all of the movies they should be, so how can they honestly say they know what the best is?"

When I discussed some of these issues with Loewenstein last month, she said, "We consider critics who write for their own websites to be credible and I see nothing wrong with members who aren't full-time critics — as long as they're writing about film." But when I asked her how she could approve of their work if she and other LAFCA officers don't see it — or even know for a fact that it exists — she shrugged off the question.

She also sees no problem with one LAFCA practice that Mathews denounces as "virtual extortion" — selling ads in their awards program to film studios. "Journalists should not be selling ads or taking money from the studios whose movies they review," Mathews insists. "It's an outright conflict of interest." But Lowenstein says the practice is necessary in order to fund the awards gala that it refuses to permit outside journalists like me to witness.

"LAFCA should simply charge a per-person or per-table admission price to cover costs," Mathews says. "Going to studios and asking for money for ads is virtual extortion. How can the studios refuse?"

So, given all of the above, I'm not too surprised that LAFCA refuses to let outside journalists with an expertise in awards like myself to see what they're up to. Apparently, they must have something to hide, especially considering all other film critics' groups permit open access.

But it's hypocritical. As journalists, they request open access when they write stories. How can they refuse open access when other journalists wish to write articles about them?

I don't have the answer to that because Lael Loewenstein refused to discuss the matter today when I asked to speak to her. "She'll take a pass," a rep told me, dismissing my request cavalierly. Specifically, I wanted to get her responses to many of the serious issues brought up today in conversation with a famous film critic who wonders if she and her colleagues are measuring up to the high ethics of their noble profession.

"It really is outrageous that LAFCA would refuse to let you, of all people, cover their awards show," Mathews told me today. "Wow."