If you're a member of the Writers Guild of America, west, you're just now receiving your packet for this year's election of three officers and eight members of the Board of Directors. If you're not a WGA member, you're missing out on the fun of seeing a batch of articulate, dedicated people who essentially agree on almost all the key issues waging a bloody battle against one another. Every one of them is in favor of strengthening the guild, increasing minimums, protecting and rebuilding the health insurance and pension funds, extending WGA jurisdiction to non-covered areas like animation and reality programming, etc. Still, in the guild, we never like to let the fact that we're all on the same side keep us from having a nice, divisive fight.
The guild election mailing, which I received this afternoon, contains candidates' statements and also what they call "non-candidates' statements" where various members write or sign letters of support for certain acquaintances who are running. My pal Carl Gottlieb, who's seeking what must be his eighty-thousandth term as Vice-President, usually gets some exciting names on his. This year, his endorsers include Steve Martin, Buck Henry and Rob Reiner. No one has any reason to think Steve, Buck and Rob — none of whom are particularly active in guild politics — have any insight into who'd make the best veep, or that they're signing for any reason other than that Carl's a friend. Still, if I were running for office and I could get Steve Martin to endorse my bid, I'd use his name…and so would you.
This current battle pretty much comes down to two slates of candidates. There's the "New WGA" slate, which is toplined by presidential candidate Patric Verrone, and then there's the "Common Sense" slate, which has Ted Elliott as its presidential candidate. I'm friends with some folks on both slates, think highly of all of them, and know of no one on either who'd be a disaster if elected. To the extent there is a difference of issues between the teams, it's that the "New WGA" crew wants to drastically increase the amount of money the WGA spends on organizing efforts, getting non-guild TV shows and movies under the guild umbrella, along with new technologies. The "Common Sense" candidates endorse the goal but not the strategy, arguing that the "New WGA" guys are looking at a very expensive organizing model that might work for non-creative unions but won't work for writers. I have no idea which side is right on this one. I'd like to think that whichever combination of these candidates gets in, it will be possible to look at the proposal and select the proper course. My guess is that most members will figure that a vote for the "New WGA" slate is a vote to get more militant about organizing and that all or most of their slate will prevail.
Lastly, this is a minor point but I'll mention it anyway. I agreed to add my name to a non-candidates' statement which, I thought, merely endorsed Patric Verrone's bid for the presidency. The "New WGA" website lists me as endorsing his entire slate and in the election mailing, I find my name signed to a page for not only Patric but also the gentlemen running for vice-president and secretary-treasurer on his ticket. Maybe I was confused or maybe someone else got things mixed-up. Either way, it's wrong. I'm voting for Mr. Gottlieb as v-p, I haven't made up my mind yet about secretary-treasurer, and for the other posts, I expect to take the Chinese Restaurant approach, selecting some from Column A and some from Column B. So don't be surprised if when the election results are in, our Board of Directors includes Cashew Chicken and the Yang Chow Fried Rice.