UPDATE: This just in… Here’s the rebuttal from opposing WGAW slate Elias Davis, Tom Schulman, and David N. Weiss, to Scott Frank’s support statement of John Wells, Howard Michael Gould, and Chris Keyser:
If Scott Frank had attended more than six board meetings (of the 22 held during his two year term) he would know how much he got wrong in his statement.
He would know that the “millions of dollars” he thinks were spent on organizing reality were actually only a few hundreds of thousands of dollars that resulted in WGA coverage for hundreds of writers working on Comedy Central shows, broadcast game shows, independent films, new media webisodes, and even a few reality shows like Dancing With the Stars, Intervention, and Extreme Makeover (all of whom make direct contributions to the pension and health plans about which he would worry even more if those projects weren’t under contract).
He would know that, despite a downturn in the Hollywood economy, the Guild’s residual department is now collecting more money than ever, with an uptick of $18 million in enforced collections over the past year, due largely to enhanced member-staff interaction. He would know that the PAC he derides (which has yet to endorse any candidates in any race in Kentucky) has made our union a player in political circles in Washington and Sacramento where our employers have enjoyed a free reign for too long when it comes to influencing communications law and media-ownership policy that gives them the anti-competitive advantages to force one-step deals and reduced quotes on us.
He would also know that the leadership that’s guided the WGAW for the last four years doesn’t issue rose-colored propaganda, but delivers actual results from hard working volunteer members who’ve sacrificed their time, energy, and even careers to better the lives of our fellow writers. We once thought Scott was one of them, but it appears that he had a change of heart.
—
Scott Frank was a member of the WGAW Board of Directors from 2005-2007
A MESSAGE FROM SCOTT FRANK
In 2005, I ran for the board with the original Writers United slate, including Elias Davis, Patric Verrone, Tom Schulman and David Weiss. At the time, I obviously agreed with much of what they had to say about the way the guild was run, and the way the guild should interact with the town and with the other guilds.
Since then, I have had a serious change of heart.That is why, as a former member of Writers United, I am asking you to support John Wells, Howard Michael Gould and Chris Keyser.
“Organize organize organize” was the original Writers United campaign slogan. It meant we should organize those programs—reality in particular—that weren’t under Guild jurisdiction. That we should organize within our own guild in terms of member/member and member/staff communication and, finally, it meant that we should better “organize” our relationship with the other guilds.
We did one of those things incredibly well. We organized within our guild. The way information was disseminated before, during and after the strike was breathtaking to say the least. Staff communication with members also improved.
The other two have been abject failures. We have, to date, not organized any significant reality program, though we have spent several million dollars on the effort. Our relationship with IATSE is completely broken, and our relationship with the DGA, the union that will be going first when the next round of negotiations begins, has been seriously damaged.
The three Writers United members running for Guild office are all great people, but I do not believe their views and relationships are enough to help see us through another negotiation. It’s time to admit that a well-organized guild is only part of the equation; we need to show strength and smarts when negotiating, not just philosophical purity. A balance of opinion on the board is crucial.
I am more worried about our Pension and Health Fund than I am about leafletting American Idol auditions. I am more worried about the proliferation of one-step deals, slashed writing budgets and reduced screenwriter quotes than I am about a PAC supporting congressional candidates in Kentucky. I am more interested in the true strength required to successfully bargain than in the false strength of outrage and sloganeering. And I am more interested in how our shrinking income will affect services for our members than I am in the steady parade of rose-colored propaganda telling us that everything is better than ever at the WGA.
Writers United accomplished much, but we were far from perfect. Adjustments are necessary in order for our Guild to succeed. We need diversity in leadership now, and we need a change of tactics.
John Wells, Howard Michael Gould and Chris Keyser are the right candidates to lead us. I’m also supporting Ian Deitchman, Jeff Lowell, Steven Schwartz, Mick Betancourt, Billy Ray, Howard Rodman and Dan Wilcox for the Board. I hope you join me.
Best,
Scott Frank
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
If Scott Frank had attended more than six board meetings (of the 22 held during his two year term) he would know how much he got wrong in his statement.
In 2005, I ran for the board with the original Writers United slate, including Elias Davis, Patric Verrone, Tom Schulman and David Weiss. At the time, I obviously agreed with much of what they had to say about the way the guild was run, and the way the guild should interact with the town and with the other guilds.

This is a perfect indication of what we will get with the Elias slate. Reactive, snide, sharp, with lots of bold statement and very little facts to back up the rhetoric. Good at striking, bad at accomplishing what matters most to writers. We’re operating at a deficit for the first time ever. Reality has not been effectively organized. They blew the actual negotiating contract itself, and created the circumstances that led to a paradigm shift for writers getting laid off and note getting their quotes. It’s harder than ever now, and it’s a direct result of the Verrone/Elias slate.
If that’s our definition of success, then I’d hate to see failure.
“If Scott Frank had attended more than six Board meetings. . ” That’s the start of the WU rebuttal.
It’s so sad to see current WGA officers and Board members go after someone personally who disagrees with them. They did this during the last campaign too, castigating Jeff Kleiman because he had worked at a studio and believed he could offer some insight into management’s thinking. But going after Scott Frank, who is the finest Hollywood writer of his generation and a prince of a human being. . man. We need statesmen for leaders, not capos. These guys are thugs.
then again, it would be nice to have board members who actually attend the meetings. Fine writers and princes can be celebrated at panels and other events. If you’re going to be on the board, you should show up and do the work.
What they did to Kleenman was wrong, but if Scott Frank only attended 6 out of 22 board meetings that says a lot about how seriously he took his duty. We need fewer A-list prima donnas on the board and more regular working writers who give a shit.
The “finest write of his generation”? Okay, that was a giveaway. “Saddened Guild Member *IS* Scott Frank.
You stay classy, Writers United.
Tom Schulman was one of the WritersUnited guys who gave Scott the full-court press to get him to run. He told them he’d be in prep on a movie, and so was worried about the time commitment. They said, no problem, any time you can give is enough. So he agreed to run.
And that’s the mud they chose to sling.
Re: Ted Elliott’s comment -
Yes Ted, that’s the mud they chose to sling. AFTER Scott Frank decided to publicly talk a bunch of sh*t he was misinformed on because he wasn’t really in the loop.
I don’t have a problem with someone missing a bunch of board meetings. Let’s face it, we need to have A-listers on our board in some proportion. I do have a problem when those same people talk out their ass later.
I don’t always agree with the bluntness of Writers United’s communications. But I always find myself agreeing with the sentiments behind them.
For example, I was a bit disappointed with their handling of the so-called “blacklist email”, but I believe the people listed deserved what they got (actually they deserve worse).
I know that Writers United stands up for working writers like me, and I know that, in the past, John Wells has not. And several people close to me have worked on his shows. They’ve told me all I need to know.
I was voting for Elias and then I read this rebuttal. To go after Scott Frank is just reprehensible, and then to churn out the commenters to dismiss him as an “A-List Primadonna” is preposterous. I would expect more from the WU slate, especially Howard Rodman.
I feel like this is now a national presidential election — the vituperation from both sides makes me feel like not voting at all.
Scott criticized WritersUnited policies and track record. In response, Davis-Schulman-Weiss led with an ad hom attack on Frank’s attendance at Board meetings — making an issue out of something they told him would not be an issue in order to convince him to run in the first place; and implying that in some way prohibits a Board member from knowing what happened at Board meetings or being knowledgeable about matters of WGAW policy.
Why do that, if they had a substantial rebuttal to Frank’s criticisms?
I’m voting for Scott Frank.
They did have a substantial rebuttal to Frank’s criticisms, if you read the rest of the post, it came right after the sentence attacking his Board meeting attendance. I think part of their criticism is that, if you’re not going to show up to Board meetings, at least educate yourself as to what the Board has been doing before you make up facts to support your candidates.
(I should say I don’t know Scott Frank, though he and I overlapped on the Board for a year.)
Ted,
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:”argument against the person”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument, the content of the discussion or producing any evidence against the claim.
Pointing out that a board member made it to six out of 22 board meetings is not an ad hominem attack.
Regardless of whatever he was “promised” in a back room conversation unheard by anyone but the principals, I expect EVERY elected board member to attend EVERY meeting of the board. I don’t care if Frank was writing, directing and producing 3 simultaneous films, there’s no excuse for bailing out on 73% of the job he ran for.
Ted,
Can what’s your rebuttal to this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/arts/26WEST.html
The head of a union of writers working hard to cut the salaries of writers. And doing it in such a fashion that writers who just got screwed won’t be able to easily leave to find another job.
How can any writer ever trust this guy? You seem to know the issues. Please explain.
Ted,
What’s your rebuttal to this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/26/arts/26WEST.html
The head of a union of writers working hard to cut the salaries of writers. And doing it in such a fashion that writers who just got screwed won’t be able to easily leave to find another job.
How can any writer ever trust this guy? You seem to know the issues. Please explain.
Wells and friends have no women or minorities that they are endorsing for board seats. Elias and friends are endorsing women and minorities for the board. They understand what this guild is about. Wells and Co will not get my vote. We need to stand behind this. We have to be a united guild for all writers.
–They are part of the old boy regime where men run everything. Hollywood is changing and they are clearly showing their age.
“John Wells, Howard Michael Gould and Chris Keyser are the right candidates to lead us. I’m also supporting Ian Deitchman, Jeff Lowell, Steven Schwartz, Mick Betancourt, Billy Ray, Howard Rodman and Dan Wilcox for the Board. I hope you join me.”
Yes I hope you join me in supporting 10 men who are committed to making this a better union for guys like us. LOL. It’s disgraceful that you guys can’t sit in your hollywood offices and realize how bizarre that sounds. WAKE UP IT’S 2010! THIS AIN’T MAD MEN.