WGA West 2011 Elections

WGA Candidate Questionnaire 2011

 

Today’s date: August 19, 2011

Name:  Michael Oates Palmer

Specify WGA East or WGA West:  WGA West

Position that you’re running for:  Board of Directors

Current officer or Board/Council position, if any: n/a

Your website(s), if any: http://www.mopforwga.com

Website(s) for your slate, group, party or alliance, if any:

 

Background

• Please describe yourself in a sentence or two.

I’m a working writer; a movie fan; a food and restaurant lover; a voracious reader; a political progressive; a music obsessive; a son of ‘60s anti-war activists; a tall, big lug; an only child; a native Angeleno; a good guy to turn to in a pinch.

• What's your background as a writer: how did you come to writing, what do you like about it, what are some key credits, and can you share any interesting experiences or an anecdote or two?

I grew up right near the intersection of Bronson and Franklin, in the shadow of the Hollywood sign.  But I didn’t grow up within the industry.  My parents met in the anti-war movement, around the time my dad was student body president at Berkeley, and right after my mom had been deputy press secretary for Eugene McCarthy. After earning a spot on Nixon’s Enemies List, Dad became an employment litigator and now sits on the Superior Court civil bench here in LA. Mom was a reporter and columnist for UPI and then the Los Angeles Times, and then wrote several books while also serving on the board of several gay rights organizations.  She married my stepfather, who in addition to having been a political speechwriter, media consultant, and a chief strategist for two different Democratic Presidential nominees, also is a WGA East member for writing several of the Kennedy Center Honors specials. 

Growing up around that, the deck was stacked – I probably wasn’t going to be a scientist.  I grew up surrounded by books and, an only child.  I was a big kid, but uncoordinated, bad at sports, and from elementary school on, writing was the one thing at which I was good and, a happy coincidence, the thing I most enjoyed.  My mother used to smuggle carbon paper home from the Times, and I wrote little scripts on her electric Smith Corona. 

In college at Brown University, I threw myself into journalism and creative writing, while majoring in history.  After a year in Seattle working within the first dot.com boom, I moved back to LA to attend the American Film Institute for my MFA in Screenwriting.  Over the next several years, while I worked on my scripts and tried to break in, I also worked as a journalist, copywriter, and a political speechwriter – working as the speechwriter for the Democratic nominee for Mayor of New York City in 2001.  I also had my first broadcast credit, co-writing a CBS special called America’s Millennium, hosted by Will Smith and produced by Quincy Jones and George Stevens, Jr.

But what I really wanted to do was write television drama, and in 2002, I was staffed as a baby writer on the fourth season of The West Wing, the last of Aaron Sorkin’s years at the helm.  Following that, I wrote on a series of series, including Blind Justice, from Steven Bochco; In Justice, created by Robert and Michelle King of The Good Wife fame; and Shark, produced by Imagine.  I also along this stretch wrote freelance episodes of basic cable hits Kyle XY and Army Wives.

I wrote a spec pilot in 2006 about war correspondents in Central America in the early 80s.  It sold to AMC in 2007, and that transitioned me into pilot development, and in the past four years, I’ve written pilots for AMC, FX, Showtime, Epix, two for ABC, and am now writing one for HBO (an adaptation of the Carl Hiassen novel Skinny Dip, with Michael Keaton executive producing and attached to star) and one for NBC.  In the midst of my pilot development, I also worked a writer and producer on Rob Thomas’ reboot of his Cupid and on the AMC conspiracy thriller Rubicon.

I love writing because I love reading, viewing, and watching.  I’m a fan of the media in which I work.  And I love writing because I’m curious about the world.  I’ve always felt that people take the credo “write what you know” as an excuse for solipsism, rather than a challenge to expand one’s knowledge and experience base so that one can write about different arenas and settings with confidence and authority.  In that sense, I’m still the journalist’s son, and whether writing about the automobile industry in 1967 Detroit, or about a screwed up public hospital in Bridgeport, CT; or about the dating mores among single thirtysomethings in Chicago, I like popping open the hood and figuring out how things work – and walking a mile in someone else’s shoes.

• What guilds or unions (including the WGA, of course) are you a member of, and when did you join?

I joined the WGAWest in 2002.

• Please list your WGA service experience (boards, committees, etc.), if any. Also, list any awards or honors you’ve received from the WGA that relate to service to the Guild. Feel free to also list service experience and service awards or honors relating to other unions, guilds or entertainment industry organizations. Please omit awards for writing work, such as WGA Awards, Oscars, Emmys, etc. (see below for these).

I served on an Article X Trial Committee in 2009, which were the panels that oversaw trials of writers accused of scab work during the last strike. 

I was selected to be a member of the third year of the WGAW Showrunner Training Program, a terrific program spearheaded by Jeff Melvoin and Yvette Lee Bowser designed to help better train television writers to be managers and leaders.

• What WGA contracts and in what media do you frequently work: theatrical, network TV, pay TV, basic cable, daytime dramas (soap operas), new media, animation, nonfiction/documentary/reality, other?

I have predominantly worked in television, but my TV work has varied – I have written episodes of both network television and basic cable, and I have written pilots for network, premium pay TV, and basic cable.  Most of my work has been in hour-long drama, but I’m now writing my first half-hour pilot, for HBO.  My first televised writing credit, though, was co-writing a CBS special in 2000.

• What kind(s) of work do you frequently do – original screenplays/teleplays, adapted screenplays/teleplays, assignments, rewrites, staff writer, other?

For the first five years of my career, I worked up the ranks as a writer on staff of hour-long series.  The last four years, my focus has been primarily been on writing pilots for ABC, NBC, AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime, and EpixHD, which have included blind script deals with WBTV, ABC Studios, 20th Television, and Warner Horizon.

• Do you frequently (or ever) act, direct, produce or play other roles in theatrical, television, new media or other projects?

No.

• Are there other aspects of your life you’d like to share with voters – political involvement, community or charitable service, teaching, other creative endeavors, other employment experience, educational background, hobbies, etc.?

I grew up here in Los Angeles, attending Carpenter Avenue Elementary and Walter Reed Junior High, both in the San Fernando Valley, and then Loyola High School, near Downtown.  I then graduated magna cum laude and with honors in history from Brown, writing my thesis on the congressional attack on popular music in the 1950s.  I later received an MFA from the American Film Institute.

I’ve worked a good amount in politics – most prominently in 2001 when I worked as the chief speechwriter for the 2001 Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, Mark Green.  I also served on the speechwriting team of the Democratic Convention in 2000.  Since then, my political involvement has been mostly rested in fundraising – I organized a Writers for Kerry fundraiser in 2004, and am currently helping with the Senate campaign of City Year co-founder Alan Khazei to challenge Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

Both before and after I started writing for television, I’ve also worked and contributed to new media and old media journalism.  I briefly worked in 1996 in Seattle for the company that would later be called Real Networks, which spearheaded development of streaming audio and video for the Web.  As a journalist, I wrote or contributed to such publications as US Magazine (before it became Us Weekly), George, the San Francisco Chronicle, and Food and Wine.  Food journalists recently pointed out to me that I was the first restaurant blogger in Los Angeles, for a blog I wrote as a hobby in 2002-2003. 

In addition to food and restaurants, I love music, and every February, I compile an annual two-disc mix CD of my favorite music of the previous year and give it out at a party.  I love architecture, art, politics, travel, movies, and books.

I recently joined the board of My Friend’s Place, a terrific day center for homeless youth in Hollywood.  (http://www.myfriendsplace.org)

• Please list any awards or honors for writing work, such as WGA Awards, Oscars, Emmys, etc. Please specify the project and type (TV, theatrical, etc.) and indicate the type of award, such as original screenplay, adapted screenplay, etc. Please list any other awards or honors, such as for community or charitable service.

I have a framed certificate hanging on my wall from the TV Academy as a member of the writing staff for the fourth season of The West Wing, which won the Emmy that season for Best Drama.

Candidacy

• Why are you running?

I’m running for the WGAW Board of Directors because I believe the next two years are a great opportunity for our Guild.  Because there isn’t a contract negotiation these next two years, we can focus on ways to strengthen the Guild so that the next time we come to that negotiating table, we’re in as strong a shape in possible to push for a better contract for all of us.  I believe that the best way we can strengthen our Guild is by improving member support, investment, and engagement with our Guild.  The best way we can do that is by expanding and improving the services our Guild provides its members by improving the communications of what the Guild does for us.

• Are you running as part of a slate, group, party or alliance? Why or why not? If so, which one(s)?

I’m neither running as part of a slate or, as some are running this year, as part of a de facto slate, where though a slate isn’t explicit, the same people seem to be endorsing each other in their candidate statements.  Even if it’s to my disadvantage in this race, I don’t believe there’s a place for slates or parties in Guild elections.  It’s important – it’s essential – to elect a Board of individuals who can then build varying coalitions depending on the issues at hand, and it’s ideal to have a board as diverse as the union it serves.

• Have you previously run as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance? Which ones, and when?

This is my first time running for Guild office.

• (a) If you’ve previously run as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance at any time from 2005 onward, and are now running as part of a different slate, group, party or alliance or as an independent, why the change? (b) If you’ve previously run as an independent at any time from 2005 onward and are now running as part of any slates, groups, parties or alliance, why the change? (c) Otherwise, just write “Not applicable.”

Not applicable.

• Has your candidacy been endorsed by anyone (other than your slate, group, party or alliance, if any)?

Yes – I’ve received close to 90 endorsements from WGAW members from across the spectrum – from writers of big budget blockbusters to writers who wrote critically acclaimed indies, from TV showrunners to staff writers, from sitcom writers to hour-long drama writers, from radio news writers to late night comedy/variety writers.  There are nominees and winners of Oscars, Emmys, and Independent Spirit Awards, and there are veterans of both the Board of Directors and the Negotiating Committee.  All of my endorsements can be seen on http://www.mopforwga.com.

I’m proud that I’ve earned the support of a broad coalition, people who are supporting Chris Keyser and people who are supporting Patric Verrone. I’m running to serve as an independent voice, and would seek to build similar coalitions on the Board of Directors, to find solutions that work for all of us. 

• Who, if anyone, is financing your candidacy? How much money do you anticipate raising or spending on your campaign?

I’m financing my own candidacy.  I spent $200 on my non-candidate statements – the endorsement lists – that will be running in the WGAW campaign publication.  I spent $25 on a registering my campaign website.  I’m considering sending out an e-mail blast to the voting members, and that would be an additional $100.

• If you’re running as part of a slate, group, party or alliance, who, if anyone, is financing its activities? How much money does it anticipate raising or spending on its activities in 2011?

Non-applicable.

• How can voters learn more about you (in addition to the website(s) you listed on p. 1)? Feel free to provide an email address if you’d like, but remember that this document will be publicly available and will be posted on the Internet.

In addition to my website, I have both an official candidate’s page on Facebook (Michael Oates Palmer for WGA West Board of Directors) and also a private page where I can be easily contacted.  I have a Twitter account that I haven’t been using too much -- @OatesPalmer. 

But a Google search for my full name will turn up a lot – my professional activity in articles in the trades, other writing I’ve done, interviews with me, and yes, probably a couple of things that I’d love to take back.

Wages, Working Conditions and Contracts

• What forms, if any, of downward pressure on writers’ wages are prevalent, if any? If any, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?

In both features and television, we’ve seen a discouraging trend the last few years, where companies are sometimes not meeting or honoring writers quotes or bumps.   Some might claim that this is a direct result of the Strike; while the Strike did have averse effects on our industry, I’m not so sure that in this case the Strike is to blame.  In every business in America the last few years, the bid to increase profits for shareholders and owners has led to systematic efforts to reduce costs.  It’s why manufacturing moved from the Industrial belt and the Northeast to the so-called “right to work” states over the last thirty years, only to then go overseas to developing countries where work could be even cheaper.

Our industry hasn’t been sheltered from this.  We’ve seen production move to Canada, or to states with greater production incentives – or in some cases, Australia or Eastern Europe.  But one of the few parts of the process that can’t be so easily outsourced is the writing.  Sure, you could find writers in Croatia; but odds are, they’re not going to turn out a quality English-language product.  And for all of the occasional treatment of the screenwriter as the redheaded stepchild, the companies know just as we do that your odds of making a quality film – or a successful one – are much harder without a quality script. 

But since they can’t outsource or turn to non-Guild writers in an effort to reduce costs, companies will then try to lower the rates for Guild writers.  In basic cable, where a television season is an average of thirteen episodes, the folks in Business Affairs have increasingly claimed that a season is technically 23 episodes – and so won’t give a basic cable writer a bump in title or salary until they hit 23 episodes, even if that’s two years worth of work, and even though in cable a writer has much more time between seasons where they aren’t working or earning a salary.  I know a writer on an ABC Family show where the series is claiming that the season is 30 episodes, even though they will split those episodes into two “half-seasons.”  This is funny business. It’s time to stop.

In fairness to the companies, there have been trends that have encouraged contraction.  A downside of the proliferation of new niche channels on cable – and the increase in the number of outlets paying for original programming – is that while the venues for watching content have exponentially increased, the audience itself has not.  So instead of taking a pie and cutting it up into four or five pieces, it’s now cutting the pie up into a hundred slices.  True, we’ve also simultaneously seen the development of new means to monetize content and product – the explosion of the foreign markets, and the slow but eventual and inevitable monetization of video-on-demand and streaming Internet – but that’s also been offset by other streams of revenue slowing down, such as the collapse of the DVD market. 

But I believe that when it comes to wages, we can’t even consider any decrease in our minimums – our beginning and rank and file members shouldn’t and can’t take the hit here.  And as basic cable series now sometimes get higher ratings than network shows, we need to make sure that the cable series achieve parity upward, rather than watching network series minimums fall. 

With the shrinking of residuals due to both the collapse of the DVD market and the evaporation of re-runs on network television, while we still wait for Internet residuals to become anything substantial, we’re going to see other streams of income that we previously counted on shrink – and so more than ever, we need to maintain our quotes.

• Are there fewer jobs now (compared to the past) in various areas? Which areas? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?

Writing staffs of most shows have been shrinking in the last decade.  Shows that would have once had writing staffs of twelve now commonly have seven or eight.  And some segments of television – soap operas and movies of the week, for instance, have almost completely disappeared.

As for features, the numbers of the last two years show a large decline in the number of working writers – there’s much less money going in to development of scripts or assignments, and while writers at the upper levels in features may see their quotes not being met, they’re at least still working: the mid-level and lower-level feature writers are seeing much less in the way of assignment work. 

Some of this, yes, is due to the seismic aftershocks following the Strike.  But some of it is also a corporatization of the entertainment industry, that just like any other business, is aiming at driving down costs while driving up profits.  In features, we weren’t helped by the ballooning for a time of the A-list actors’ salaries – which also had the result that an entire community of below-the-line guest stars and character actors have seen their yearly income collapse, too. 

• Are theatrical writing deals more likely today to be single-step rather than multi-step deals? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?

It’s a practice that has grown greatly in the last few years – and not just among beginning writers, but A-list writers, too.  And it’s happening through a miscalculation on the companies’ side.  They believe that it’s a money-saving move, so that they don’t have to spend more money on a bad script – that if they get a draft in that they don’t like, they’re not then on the hook for the additional rewrites and polishes.

But this is penny wise and pound foolish, and ignores the fact that the multiple draft process is all about collaboration.  Sometimes, a producer or executive doesn’t know what they want until they see what they don’t want.  Sometimes, you need that first draft as a foundation to then work off of.  Assignment work is not like a spec sale.  Generally when one has sold a spec, one has written many – even dozens – of drafts, received notes from his friends and colleagues, before it’s landed on that executive or producer’s desk (where it will then get additional notes after being purchased.)  One-step deals doesn’t acknowledge that in our process that first draft and outline are often the beginnings of a conversation, and so truncate and inhibit the collaboration that’s so often necessary for a positive script. 

Recently, there were fruitful, mature dialogues between feature writers and Warner Brothers – Warner agreeing to pull back on the one-step deals, in exchange for WGA writers fulfilling their side of the bargain by delivering their scripts on time.  I want to say this: I think if we’re pushing for better enforcement of our contracts, we need to deliver our end of the contracts, too, and that means delivering the work we’ve been contracted to do on time.   But I think these Warner Brothers dialogues give us a positive template for future conversations, and I think it’s smart that they’re done studio by studio.  If a studio doesn’t want to engage in such productive dialogues, then they’ll have to suffer from not being known as writer-friendly a studio as some of their competitors. And unlike the AMPTP affiliations, studios are not bound here to what each other does in the way of practices like one-step deals.

• Are there fewer TV writer-producer deals (overall/housekeeping/development deals) than in years past? If so, why did this happen, and what can or should the Guild do about it?

Writers who seven years ago would have been fixed up with large overalls now instead find themselves lucky to get a couple of blind script deals or “showveralls” – overall deals tied into a writer also working on staff on one of the studios’ existing series.  Writers who would have received blind script deals seven years ago now are surprised to be offered if-come deals – deals where they only get paid should the particular project they’re pitching sell.

Some of this is just the market naturally sorting itself out – there was a time when enormous development deals were given out haphazardly, and they didn’t always yield fruit.  And the biggest overalls these days are given as rewards to those who have created hit series – especially those who have hit series currently on the air.

But an unfortunate trend of the last decade has been the choice many studios have made to invest not in overalls or development deals with writers, but with non-writing producers, borrowing a page from the feature world.  The idea here being that a non-writing producer can deliver and develop many more scripts in a year than an individual writer can. But those POD deals are costly, and for every Jerry Bruckheimer, Mark Gordon, or Wonderland that have landed multiple shows on the air, there are many that don’t.  Sony is an example of a studio that recently cut down on their POD deals, instead investing in development deals with writers with winning track records. 

That said, there can be drawbacks to blind script deals or development deals, too, as many writers in such deals can attest to after having pitched idea after idea to a studio, only not to be allowed out to pitch something they’re passionate about.  The proliferation of if-come deals – where the studio doesn’t have to make any commitment to the writer unless a specific idea actually sells – is a frustrating one.  But I’m not sure that fighting for more development deals, overalls, or blind script deals would be a worthwhile effort for the Guild to be making.  Instead, we should focus on making sure that whatever way possible, the largest number of our writers are getting paid the most to develop. 

• Are residuals checks paid and processed quickly enough? If not, who is responsible for the delay, and what can or should the Guild do about it?

They’re not paid and processed quickly enough at all.  The delay rests more on the shoulders of the companies and studios, but the Guild has to be more aggressive in terms of monitoring and collecting those funds. 

If that means putting more money into individuals whose job is to track down those moneys, fine – I think all members would feel that money for collection and enforcement efforts, to get the money that’s rightfully ours on-time and accurately, is money well spent. 

When I’ve spoken with writers at all levels, the number one issue that keeps coming up is enforcement.  Pushing for on-time and accurate pay, residuals, and back-end is essential. 

• How can or should the Guild help members better understand how their particular TV, theatrical or other residuals were calculated, so that members will have more ability to determine whether they’ve been paid properly and on time? Should the Guild create a web page, accessible only to members (and perhaps their agents and lawyers) that will allow members to see the calculation in a step by step, explanatory fashion?

Yes, the website is a good idea, but we also have to push the studios and companies to do a better job of accounting and tabulating these residuals.  It shouldn’t require private forensic accountants to make sure that we’re getting paid what we’re due, and one step is for the Guild to provide intelligible, easily understood, and easily accessed information for members.

• Is it appropriate that the Guild is collecting and disbursing foreign royalties? Why or why not? (DGA, SAG and WGA are doing this. On behalf of members and non-members. Foreign royalties are different from residuals, and are not mentioned in the collective bargaining agreements.) Is the Guild doing a good job at this? Why or why not? What if any improvement is needed?

Yes, it’s appropriate – if the Guild doesn’t do it, who should provide that service instead?  Who can provide it?  The studios and companies sell our programs for re-use to other markets, and so just as in with syndication or DVD sales, we should have a cut of that.  Foreign royalties can be an even thornier thicket in terms of accounting systems, but our Guild should do a better, more aggressive job of enforcement here, too.

• What are some key concerns of specific categories of members – theatrical, network TV, pay TV, basic cable, daytime dramas (soap operas), animation, nonfiction/documentary/reality, other? How well is the Guild addressing those issues and what changes, if any, are needed?

Let’s first start with the writers who are right now most in danger of their work collapsing upon itself: daytime dramas.  We’re about to see the same disappearance of an entire medium of programming that we previously saw a generation ago with the near-disappearance of the movie-of-the-week.  You have dozens of writers who have worked for years in a medium that, if the current trends continue, will shortly not exist. 

At the same time, radio news writers are facing similar contraction due to the consolidation of the radio business.  The Guild must do a better job of helping these and other members from becoming casualties of a rapidly changing media landscape – and I propose that we attempt a workforce training initiative, to help these members transition into not just temporary employment but more secure, lasting jobs that will draw from their previous ones.

Feature writers are facing not just the aforementioned one-step deals and fewer assignments, and not having their quotes met, but are also more and more being forced to do free work – both additional drafts for producers or studios that aren’t part of their contract or, even worse, having to do huge amounts of free work as part of the audition process for the job – with no recourse should the ideas that they pitched to producers then get pitched back to the writers who do get the gig. 

Animation writers have seen great strides in being covered by network prime-time.  But there is still huge progress to be made in both the daytime and cable animated fronts, and especially in animated features.  It’s absurd that a Pixar movie makes $500 million dollars, yet the writer sees no residuals for it – but it won’t be necessarily easy to get a Pixar film covered by our Guild.  Feature animation writers are covered by the Animation Guild, part of IATSE, a carryover from the era where Uncle Walt and Chuck Jones were marquee names.  But as complicated a situation as it is, we must work to make animated features covered by WGA – because the more and more that CGI animation and motion-capture are used in features, the more and more blurred the definitions of animated and live-action will be.  Writers are better served by the WGA than IATSE.

Finally, television, the field in which I’ve worked most of my career.  As noted above, despite cable opening several new venues for written work, staffs are getting smaller, and residual monies are collapsing due to fewer re-runs and shrinking DVD sales and, so far, little monetization of digital purchases, rentals, or streaming views. And when it comes to minimums, when the next contract negotiation comes up, it’s important for us to fight for more parity between broadcast, pay cable, and basic cable – and not the kind of parity where they all meet the lowest possible numbers.  As residuals continue to shrink, we need to push for an increase in minimums to offset the impact on those who have the least. 

• How well is the Guild addressing issues of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and diversity for women, people of color, LGBT people, people with disabilities, older writers, and others? What changes, if any, are needed?

I believe the Guild does work to address these issues. The question is whether the means in which they address them is effective or not. 

Diversity isn’t just an ideal; it’s in our best interests as we try to reach as much of an audience as possible.  On this question, I’m going to speak more to what I’ve seen and experienced in television, and leave it to the candidates who have worked in features to speak to their own unique take.

My mom worked for years as a journalist at the Los Angeles Times, and had all-too many horror stories of sexual harassment; I have female veteran writer friends who have similar stories of the times before Anita Hill tore the curtain back on issues that everyone chose to ignore. There has been great progress over a generation, but there’s still so much more to be done.

The hiring disparity in sitcoms is still sizable, such that when a showrunner like Dan Harmon of Community makes it his policy to hire half men and half women, it’s big news.  I hope for a world where that won’t be big news, but instead the industry standard.  In hour-long shows, it’s better, but there’s still a ways to go, primarily at the top of staffs. 

At one point in the last few years, the two top hour-long shows in the country were run by women – Carol Mendelsohn of CSI and Shonda Rimes of Grey’s Anatomy.  And yet, even if women are allowed to be in more leadership positions than a generation before, if you ask most writers in television, female showrunners and creators are held to a much tougher standard than their male counterparts.  Female series creators are more likely than male ones to be paired with a showrunner to “help run things,” and a male creator is much more likely to get a second (or third) chance after a failure.  

When it comes to people of color, the situation is even more mixed at best.  The networks and studios have made good faith efforts to support diversity, by setting aside funds independent of a series’ budget for hiring staff writers of color.  The problem with such programs is that when the showrunner is making his decisions for the next year, they aren’t incentivized to promote the staff writer to story editor, where his or her salary does become part of a budget instead of coming from the outside.  The showrunner will often choose instead to let that writer go, and hire another diversity staff writer in his or her place, continuing to get the benefit of a free writer not taken out of his budget.  The result?  I’ve met writers of color who had to spend two, three, even four years at the staff writer level, while equivalent writers who weren’t hired as part of a diversity program were promoted to co-producer in the same span of time. 

If the problem is a lack of diversity on writing staffs, the solution doesn’t just lie within the companies and studios.  (They can do a better job encouraging the hiring of writers of color, and they could do a much better job of developing showrunners and show creators of color.) When it comes to television staffing, most of the blame for a lack of diversity lies with us, the writers themselves.  I have a good friend, an upper-level drama writer, African-American.  Losing jobs is part of the business, but he told me that more than once when he lost a job, an employer gave as a reason the fact that he was “outspoken.”  Now, I’ve gotten fired more than once, and I’ve had it all slagged against me, but “outspoken” is as much of a racial code word as when someone compliments a black person as being “articulate.”  Our Guild must do a better job of instructing and advising showrunners to hire more writers of color. 

Especially since the more writers on staffs who are of color, the more possibilities will be moving up the ranks who can one day become the showrunners of color.  For while there are a few showrunners of color – Pam Veasey, Veena Sud, Ali Leroi, and a handful of others – there are not near enough.  And that has to change.

As for LGBT, we’ve seen significant progress. This is an issue for which I have a special sensitivity.  My mother’s best friend is a prominent gay rights activist, and my mother herself served on the board of the Human Rights Campaign, and then later had an award named after her by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Openly gay and lesbian showrunners and show creators have blazed trails – often winning more opportunities for others through their series’ successes.  I believe that the most work that needs to be done is helping both LGBT writers and writers interested in exploring LGBT issues break down network and feature executives’ hesitation to explore this subject matter --hesitation due in some part to the bully pulpit that fundamentalist religious groups have wielded with advertisers, scaring off some executives.  If we know one thing from the work of the Trevor Project and other organizations, this is one area where our work has made a hugely positive impact on the lives of youths who may not have otherwise known another gay person in their lives, and a gay character on a series or in a movie gave them comfort and confidence in their identities. 

Finally, ageism.  The prejudice that dare not speak its name.  I’ve had hopes that in television this would abate some in an era comedy writers over 40 have created some of the best comedies of the last few years – Greg Daniels’ The Office, Mitch Hurwitz’ Arrested Development, and Chris Lloyd and Steve Levitan’s Modern Family. I had a similar hope when The Sopranos changed television, with a writing staff where the average age of the writers was upwards of 50.  The Guild should continue and expand its efforts to fight ageism, especially through stepping in and identifying talent and material when talent agencies are shying away from representation simply because of age.

• What is your opinion of the current WGA Basic Agreement – strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, etc.? (Omit new media provisions; these are addressed in the next section.)

I believe that minimums should be raised, in part because of the overall collapse of the residuals system.  Basic cable and pay cable minimums should be raised to match network minimums, and the windows for reruns in pay TV are still a disaster. 

• Should WGA make it a priority to obtain a larger residual in physical home video (DVD / Blu-ray)? Why or why not?

This is a case where if we’re being prescient, in looking ahead to where the business is going, we have to acknowledge that spending our efforts on improving our DVD and Blu-Ray residuals – especially DVD – may be like fighting for Betamax in 1982. 

I’m a guy who his CDs and loves his DVDs, but I also recognize that increasingly I’m like the guy in the funny glasses and Ramones shirt sitting there with the vinyl collection claiming it really does sound better.  Streaming video and digital purchases aren’t just the way of the future – they’re increasingly the way of the present, and I believe that’s where our focus must go.  Those are the residuals that will matter through the next decades.

• What is your opinion about other WGA contracts that you’ve worked or are particularly familiar with – strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, etc.?

N/a.

New Media

• Do you have any new media credits? If so, what kinds of projects were they, and what was the experience of working in new media like?

I don’t have credits in video new media, but I have contributed in print new media since the early days of the dot-com revolution, having briefly worked for Real Networks in Seattle in its early days, and having contributed to Microsoft’s defunct Sidewalk publication.  I also in the early part of the last decade wrote a music blog and restaurant blog, both now defunct.

• How significant a revenue source for studios and producers today are (a) original made for new media productions and (b) move-over new media (i.e., reuse of traditional product on new media platforms)? How significant do you think they’ll be in 3 years? Do you think that new media as a studio/producer revenue source will eclipse television or physical home video in the next 5 or 10 years?

I believe that original made for new media productions are not yet a significant revenue source.  Does a website like Funny or Die make money?  Sure.  Does it make money for the individuals who create the content and upload it?  Not yet.  As far as I can tell, it uses a Huffington Post model -- they make money off of free content, with the promise of promoting the creators of that content in success.

The best use of new media productions right now are in supplementary materials for old media productions – the original content that one finds on network or studio websites, whether that content takes the form of webisodes, deleted scenes, or EPK type work.

But move-over new media is increasingly a significant stream of revenue.  The circumstances which betray that the companies believe this to be the case already is when they sent out press releases advertising or hyping a show with otherwise dreary ratings as having substantial viewing through Hulu or iTunes.  If that’s something worth their hyping through their press engine, chances are it’s something that’s starting to show more than just a handful of nickels.

• The studios say that they currently don't make much money from new media, whether original, derivative (i.e., based on an existing move or TV show), or move over. Do you believe them?

No.

Okay, okay, a little more of an answer to this one: we know that this is going to be a means of delivery that is only going to increase.  I do believe that they’re right when it comes to original material made for new media – but I find it hard to believe that move-over has not already been generating revenue.  We have a whole generation where their means of watching series or movies has completely changed – whether through their phone, their computer, their streaming Netflix or iTv.  And it’s only going to grow.

• The salaries being offered to writers in original new media are generally low. Should writers accept these jobs even if they're low paying, or decline them – i.e., withhold their services in order to try to increase new media salaries?

Withholding services isn’t going to be effective at a time in new media where producers can still be inclined to go with non-Guild writers.  It’s essential that in new media now, we encourage the idea that whether you’re Google or Facebook or YouTube, you’re going to get the best writing available when you go with WGA writers.

• Are the existing new media provisions (including but not limited to the residuals provisions) in the WGA Basic Agreement acceptable, or do they need modification? In what way?

The minimums need to be increased – even if the increases come in a way where we only make money if they make money.  The 2007 contract did represent progress in getting a foot in the door for new media, but we have a ways to go.

 

Organizing, Collective Bargaining and Strikes

• What types of organizing efforts does or should WGA do with respect to (a) existing members, (b) new media, (c) other types of work that is already covered under the existing agreements and (d) new types of work (please specify) that are not covered under any of the existing contracts?

In terms of existing members, we need to boost engagement.  WGA members will be more engaged if they feel more invested in their Guild – and that can best be achieved by expanding and improving the services the Guild provides us, and by doing a much better job of communications and transparency, so that we all know what those services are. 

With new media, I believe that even though websites like Google and Facebook aren’t yet providing original video content, it’s only a matter of time.  (And Facebook is already about to start screening existing movies.)  It’s going to be easier for us if we make the case now that if they are covered by the Guild, they’ll have access to the best writers out there.  If we don’t make the case now, it could be much harder after the fact to organize.

The Independent Film Committee has done much to make it so that “low-budget” and “WGA film” don’t have to be contradictions in terms.  Those efforts have to continue. Independent cinema introduces writers and writer-directors into the community – and it’s best for all of us that they experience from the get-go the advantages of being in the Guild.

As mentioned above, with animation, we need to somehow straighten out this situation where feature animated films are covered not by the WGA but the Animator’s Guild.  It’s unacceptable that writers of Pixar movies don’t enjoy the same residuals and back-end that writers of live-action films do. 

• What can WGA do to increase its leverage at the bargaining table?

This is a great question: is the only leverage our union has the threat of the strike?  Or are there other means with which we can apply pressure to improve our contracts and resist rollbacks?  I do think that we can be aggressive without being antagonistic; confident without being loud in complaint.  There is a way in which we can engage with the companies, studios, and the AMPTP that acknowledges the power that we do wield in contributing an essential part of entertainment product, while not coming across as a primal scream of the redheaded stepchild long ignored.  I believe that the more we engage civilly yet confidently with companies, the better our chances for advances.

• Should WGA seek a strike authorization vote from members as a standard procedure at the beginning of (or at another point during) each TV/theatrical contract negotiation? Why or why not?

I’m against this the same way I would be against giving my President a blank check for declaring war anytime he feels like it.  Each negotiation is unique, and the significance of a strike – in its potential impact on not just writers, but an industry and a local economy, is so huge that I believe an authorization vote should not occur in anticipation of any vague possibility, but when, instead, it’s clear that we have no choice but to strike. 

• Was the 2007-2008 strike a success? Why or why not? In what ways was it a success or not a success?

I have mixed feelings about the 2007-2008 strike. There were some advances made in the contract we ended up with – specifically in at least beginning a template for the Internet, getting our foot in the door -- but I’m not sure if those advances couldn’t have been achieved without a strike had we built a stronger relationship with the DGA, which ended up setting the pattern, anyway.  Yes, when we met the AMPTP at the negotiation table before the strike, they weren’t interested in negotiating, pulling antics like walking out several times.  But that was also after months of antagonistic saber-rattling on our part that probably didn’t set the table too well.

I think the most successful part of the strike was one which wouldn’t have been reason enough to go on strike, but which I’m glad that we had: it built newfound community within our Guild, something I’d never seen before.  Writers were breaking down the walls that usually separate us – comedy vs. drama, television vs. movie, veteran vs. new members.  And adjacent to that, perhaps the biggest achievement of the strike was that our union was not broken, and compared to the strikes of the mid to late ‘80s, you didn’t have members of the union publicly dissenting, questioning, or challenging it.  I went every day to the Sony lot, and then the Fox lot, and I felt that during the strike itself, we felt proud of our profession and proud of being part of something larger outside ourselves.  That, to me, was that strike’s greatest legacy.

• Were the 2011 negotiations handled well? Why or why not? In what ways were they handled well or not handled well? How can this be improved, if improvement is needed?

We didn’t have much leverage in the 2011 negotiations, given that everyone on each side knew that this couldn’t be a strike year: there would just be no member support, and for good reason, given how our local economy, our industry, and our profession are only recently recovering from the impact of our last strike.  But I do think the Negotiating Committee made the solvency of our health and pension fund a big priority, and at a time when defaults of pensions is everyday news in our country, this was the right priority for our Negotiating Committee to make.  I do think that the area that must needed improvement and didn’t see it was in basic cable, where we need to strive in the future to achieve parity in minimums with network shows.

Relations with/between Members, Producers, Unions and Agents

 

• Does the Guild need to improve relations with the DGA? If so, how can it do so?

We should improve our relationships with the DGA and SAG through finding issues where we have common ground and common purpose to work together.  The fight against piracy, for example, is one that all of our creative Guilds can get behind, and teaming our resources together in lobbying Capitol Hill makes sense. 

• In what ways, if any, does WGA need to improve its relationship with any of the other entertainment unions and guilds in addition to the DGA?

In addition to SAG, and the DGA, we need to put new energy into repairing and restoring our relationships with the below-the-line unions.  In some cases, these were unions who stood by us when we struck; it’s important, even essential, for us to stand by them in their negotiations and efforts in the future.  But even with a union that didn’t stand by us during the strike, the members of these below-the-line unions were the ones most affected by the strike of 2007-2008. 

If we ever are forced to strike in the future, we need as many of the other working unions in Hollywood at our side.  And while repairing and restoring those relationships with below-the-line unions might not immediately affect our negotiation bottom line the way it does with the DGA and SAG, it’s the right thing to do.  

Voting

• WGA (and other entertainment union) participation in voting (elections, strike authorization vote, contract approval) is usually quite low. How can it be increased?

Engagement with the Guild is crucial: the more members are engaged, the more they will support the Guild, the stronger our Guild will be.  Voting is, on some level, the easiest means of engagement, and yet, for whatever reason, our voting turn-out can be low. 

The central belief of my campaign is that the best way to strengthen our union is to expand and improve the services our union provides its members, so that we all feel our union working for us.  The more we feel our union making a difference in our lives, the more invested in our union we’ll all feel.  But what’s also important is improving the communications between the Guild and our members.  When people are confused, people are less likely to be invested and less likely to engage.  By making often opaque Guild matters accessible and transparent, we’ll go a long way to making all of our members feel more engaged with our Guild.

• Should writers who own production entities be allowed to vote on WGA contracts, strike authorization votes or in elections, or serve on the WGA boards?

Sure.  It doesn’t do us any good to discourage writers from expanding into production and other opportunities: we should be a Guild that encourages our members’ careers to flourish.  And while a Board that was just made up of writer-producers would be problematic, WGAW voting members should exercise their own judgment and make their own decisions in what kind of Board they should elect.  Why punish members for being successful, when instead, we should be making sure we all have a home in our Guild.

Other

• Is there anything else you'd like voters to know?

I grew up believing in unions and the good that they can do for people.  My grandfather, Ray, devoted his life to labor, working as an organizer and then an official for the Seafarers and then the Teamsters, founding Local 158 in Philadelphia.  He was a great and good man; spending summers growing up with him changed my life, and I write with my middle name, his last name, as a tribute to the impact he made on me. 

I also grew up around politics and wordsmiths, and so I also know just how in the last thirty years, we’ve seen a systematic, brutally effective effort to roll back the advances and progress that unions made in our country in the last century.   In this past year alone, we’ve seen efforts in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states to prevent public employee unions from having the right to collectively bargain. 

When members of the Nominating Committee first asked me if I’d be interested in running for the Board, I took a beat, and spoke to friends at all levels of this profession, from features to television, from veterans to relative neophytes, and asked them a simple question: how could the Writers Guild work better for them?

I’m convinced that if we expand and improve services and programs for our members, and overhaul the communications through which we distribute the message to all our members, we can make our Guild stronger and better, for all of us.  That will help us at the negotiating table, sure, but it’ll also improve our lives in the process.

I’d love to serve the WGAWest as an independent, honest voice, never shoehorning an issue into a larger agenda, but tackling it as its own unique question, working together with the officers and fellow board members to move our Guild and, more importantly, our profession forward.  For I believe that our union is our best means – our best hope – for protecting our work, our rights, our future.

I’d appreciate your vote, I’d love to have your support in this campaign, and I look forward to having your back and hearing your voice in serving you on our Board of Directors.

Thank you.