Why you should vote for Jeff Kleeman
I’ve been largely silent on the upcoming WGAw elections, because it all seemed like a bit of a forgone conclusion. The Writers United (WU) slate, headed by Patric Verrone, will almost assuredly be re-elected. WGAw voters tend to be both apathetic and disinterested in switching horses midstream, and we’re certainly about as deep midstream as you can be right now.
But there’s one non-WU that really deserves your attention, not only because of what he’s saying, but because of what WU is saying about him.
He sent out a mailing recently. Here’s what he said.
Hi,
Not being on the WU slate, I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself…
I’m Jeff Kleeman, the ONLY member running for the board who was a former studio executive.
Having almost 2 decades of experience sitting on the other side of the table, I can bring the kind of real world knowledge to our guild that will not only give us a much greater advantage during the upcoming negotiations, but will also help the Guild navigate difficult issues such as free rewrites, late payments and how ancillary markets can be fully exploited.
There’s been an implication in some election materials that not voting for the entire Writers United slate would somehow weaken the guild during negotiations. In my view that’s both untrue and unworthy. I hope you’ll agree with me that the way to strengthen the guild is to elect the strongest possible board, and that the way to do that is to evaluate every candidate on his or her own merits.
Take a careful look at the WU candidates and ask yourself if there’s some redundancy. If they represent the fullest possible range of industry experience and knowledge. And then please consider finding the room to vote for me. I’ll inject new life into the Board and provide fresh perspectives while still maintaining the unity that’s so important as we move forward.
I can make a claim that few others can: almost all the writers who’ve endorsed me have worked with me. They’re not only attesting to my personal qualities, but also to my professional knowledge. Here are their names:
Daniel Petrie Jr.
John Wells
Ron Bass
Aaron Mendelsohn
Irma Kalish
Marshall Goldberg
Craig Mazin
Dennis Feldman
(and the list goes on…)
Thank you for taking the time to read this and to consider voting for me.
All the best,
Jeff Kleeman
Okay, back to Craig.
Seems pretty reasonable. His basic position is that he’s a writer like you and I, but he also has experience seeing things from the other side of the table. That’s useful. Furthermore, he can serve as a bit of diverse and challenging thinking in a room that’s otherwise full of march-in-lockstep WUers.
The list of names supporting him includes such geniuses as myself…but more notably…politically diverse but highly respected Guild pols like John Wells, Dan Petrie Jr., Dennis Feldman, Aaron Mendelsohn, Ron Bass, Irma Kalish, etc. Interestingly, Wells has supported Verrone in the past, as has Feldman, Mendelsohn and even Bass.
In other words, this guy ain’t some nut.
He also takes issue with one of the WU’s most odious political tactics—their insistence that either you have to vote for the entire slate, or you’re somehow against “unity” and “strength.” This is pretty much tantamount to the “either you’re for the Iraq War or you hate America” school of thinking (and I’m a guy who has supported the war while very specifically refraining from questioning the patriotism of those who don’t).
Standing up in the middle of a democratic election and challenging the very validity of a diverse political body is, well, nuts. It’s nuts, it’s insulting to the electorate, and it’s also just plain wrong. The companies don’t think that a monolithic Guild leadership is more of a problem for them. I honestly don’t think they give a damn what the WGAw Board does at this point (which is largely the result of poor leadership decisions by the WU group), but the idea that the election of one dissenting voice to the Board will somehow cripple our union is flat out hysterical.
It’s so hysterical, I must say it’s intellectually dishonest…and yes, Phil and Tom, even though I consider you friends, c’mon. This kind of all-or-none rhetoric is far more divisive than the thought that your total hegemony should be challenged.
Phil and Tom wrote the response for the WU group. Here it is.
Dear Fellow Members,
In a recent email one of the candidates for the board characterized Writers United’s position as “unworthy.” We’re sorry but we take umbrage at that. Recommending that Guild members re-elect all the incumbents who have done so much to organize and strengthen our Guild is hardly “unworthy.” What’s unworthy, if anything, is the suggestion that our Guild needs someone “from the other side of the table” in our leadership. The candidate making that suggestion, self-described as serving almost two decades in management, has been a Guild member for only two years, so perhaps he should be excused if he doesn’t know or remember recent Guild history. But here’s the fact: our former executive director, who spent two decades in management, spent six years in our boardroom and on our negotiating committees reminding us of his kind of “real world knowledge” — and he left our Guild weaker than at any time in its 67 year history. In the unlikely event that the companies invite a writer into their leadership, maybe we’ll reconsider. But until then, we think our Guild has had quite enough of management’s point of view, thank you very much.
There are some great people running for the board. Some are part of Writers United, some aren’t. In any other year we might urge you to vote for any of them. But even someone from management would have to admit that in this election - in the middle of some of the most important negotiations in decades - the most powerful message we can send to management is a strong endorsement of our current direction and leadership.
Please join us in sending the strongest possible message to management by re-electing the Writers United candidates.
Phil Alden Robinson and Tom Schulman
“Well,” as Quentin Tarantino famously wrote, “allow me to retort.”
Phil and Tom say that recommending that Guild members re-elect all the incumbents who have done so much to organize and strengthen our Guild is hardly “unworthy.”
I disagree on a number of points. First, they haven’t done that much. I give the WGAw credit for getting our television showrunners to stand tough, and I like the results with the Comedy Central shows. But honestly…how are we in any different a position than we’ve ever been? The companies aren’t playing ball with us right now in the way we want. We will almost certainly work past our contract deadline (a strategy first introduced by the guy these dudes hate the most…John McLean), and once again, we’ll be looking to other unions to shake the tree loose for us. In the last two years, we’ve spent millions on reality with nothing to show for it but some very public black eyes, we’ve lost scads of top-level staffers with an enormous amount of institutional knowledge…
…so, sorry, but I don’t think we’re “stronger” than we used to be. I just think we’re all more pissed off than we used to be, but it’s not WU that’s accomplished that. The companies pulled that one off all on their own.
So yeah, insisting on the basis of track record that every single one of the WU candidates be reelected is definitely unworthy of the integrity and intelligence I know Phil and Tom to both possess (certainly in greater quantities than a few of their slatemates).
Then, Phil and Tom really blow it.
They go after the fact that Jeff Kleeman has only been a WGAw member for two years. How dare he question them! The little pisher!
Hey, guys, he qualified for membership. He paid his initiation fee, he pays his dues. WU is the group that keeps saying we should represent more writers, including hundreds of writers who aren’t even writers, but reality editors, and yet we’re supposed to look down on Jeff because he’s a recent member?
That’s just hypocritical and mean-spirited. Deserving of an apology, frankly. Phil is as good as anyone at giving a speech about what it means to be a union and why more writers should be in our union. How sad, then, to read him shoveling dirt on a guy because he’s a short-timer. How is this the spirit of unity? Isn’t this just the spirit of “unity, as long as you agree with me”? Where’s the interest in consensus? Where’s the belief in the value of collective wisdom and a plurality of viewpoints?
Argh.
Then, it’s back to the usual grindstone. John McLean. Just as George W. Bush kept blaming Clinton, and just as Clinton blamed Bush Sr. before him, Phil and Tom keep beating the dead horse that is John McLean. First of all, they fired him two years ago. It’s enough already. Secondly, if they honestly believe that the Guild was at its weakest point ever in 2004/5, they need an MRI.
Weaker than we were in 1985, after a strike crumbled in two weeks under internal pressure from a large group of writers threatening to go ficore? Weaker than we were in 1988, after the longest strike in our union’s history failed to reverse rollbacks? Really? You know, I don’t mind a little bit of hyperbole, but this much of a whopper is delegitimizing, and makes me wonder why their pitch is so high (I have a theory, natch, but that’s coming in a bit).
Next, their central thesis.
But even someone from management would have to admit that in this election - in the middle of some of the most important negotiations in decades - the most powerful message we can send to management is a strong endorsement of our current direction and leadership
Absolutely incorrect.
The most powerful message we, the writers of the WGA, can send to management is a HIGH TURNOUT for this vote.
Dig that?
A high turnout.
Not a landslide for Patric. Not a landslide for Jeff Kleeman.
A high turnout.
What the companies fear are strikes. Strikes are the function of the whole membership. They know that the whole membership votes on strikes. Only 20% of the membership bothers to vote in these dog-and-pony elections. If 80% of us voted in this election, then mark my words…no matter what the results, the companies would be shaken to the core.
Phil and Tom know this. I wish they wouldn’t write otherwise.
So what gives?
Why the hysterical response to a single, off-slate candidate’s email?
This is WU’s greatest weakness. The group of them, comprised by some terrific people (like Tom and Phil and Robert King), has far too thin a skin. They hate debating, they hate being disagreed with, they hate compromising. They want to talk to each other or people who already agree with them. They don’t want bad news. They don’t want to hear that maybe their plans are wrong. They appear to be a faith-based organization, and they believe that the key to their success is mass-belief. If we all believe in them, if we all agree with them, if we all vote for them….then they will get us what we want.
Naturally, I disagree. This may be, in part, because I’m not an idealist, I’m not religious, and ultimately, I’m pretty much devoid of faith.
I’m a pragmatist. I’ve always felt kindred spirits in guys like Robert King and John Bowman, who are also pragmatists. Robert and I disagree on a lot, but I like the way he tackles problems. Same for John. Same for Ron Bass.
And, in a funny way…same for Patric Verrone.
I think Patric, in fact, devised this “vote for us all if you love your Guild” as a pragmatic strategy for winning elections, and it’s been working.
Good for him.
Good for all of them.
All I ask is that they not use their non-idealist cudgel of Fake Idealism to beat up one of the few frickin’ people that dared run against their political machine. Rather, show Jeff Kleeman the respect he deserves as a brother in our union, and as a writer with both the opinions and the balls to run for office.
He put his finger right on the hypocrisy of the “us or weakness” baloney that WU likes to peddle. Don’t crush him for it.
Hell, welcome him into the fold. He’s intelligent enough to read the WU strategy for what it is, and with the stakes as high as they are right now, we need all the smart, perceptive, analytical brains we can get.
Vote Jeff Kleeman for the Board!
Seconded. I’ve worked with Jeff. He was always a strong advocate for writers, even as a producer. And he’s smart. Vote for Jeff Kleeman.
I had already sent back my ballot with a vote for Kleeman prior to reading this. Presumably my vote somehow counts less, though, since I’ve been in the Guild an even shorter amount of time than Mr. Kleeman has.
I am not in the WGA, so I guess it does not really matter what I think. But shouldn’t they be discussing policies and the ways they are going to get a better deal for writers rather than just saying “Dont vote for him, hes a loser”? That goes for both Kleeman and Verrone.
It seems strange to me that Verrone seems to be a bit of a bastard. He wrote some of my favourite Futurama episodes, how can be that bad?
Jeff Kleeman is a terrific guy, EXTREMELY smart (Yale grad), very personable, very skilled, and totally, totally un-flappable. With twenty years experience in the biz.
I read his sit-com pilot, too—it was funny.
He shouldn’t have qualified his experience by referring to it as ‘real world’—I understand why Tom and Phil put that in scare quotes in their response. But I like the idea of having a former studio exec on the WGA board—and Jeff was a biggie. He supervised the Pierce Brosnan Bond films, among many others.
He’ll have lots of informed, penetrating insight that writers wouldn’t necessarily have. He’ll know when the studios are BS’ing and when they’re telling the truth because he’s seen and worked with ‘creative accounting’ first hand.
He’d do awesome, no question.
Anonymous:
That’s one of the more mystifying bits of objection from the WU folks on this.
I get the John McLean thing. He worked for the companies negotiating against labor unions. While the case could be (and was) made that he therefore could effectively negotiate the other way around, it’s also fair to say that maybe he just couldn’t get old biases out of his bloodstream.
But that’s not this. Being a studio exec doesn’t mean you bargain against a union. Furthermore, unlike McLean, Jeff Kleeman is a working writer who now makes his living doing the job. How can anyone question where his interests currently are?
And how can anyone not see that someone with management experience is useful?
And how can anyone not see that SHOWRUNNERS are producers…who hire and fire writers…meaning MANAGEMENT?
Same for directors.
So how is Jeff Kleeman different than Tom Schulman or Phil Robinson, who have both directed and produced films? Why is his experience hiring, firing and managing writers disqualifying, but Tom’s or Phil’s isn’t?
“Don’t change horses in midstream” is the WU slate’s rallying cry. Rhetorically insipid and practically lame when the horse is gimpy and the waters they’ve chosen are decidedly upstream. Perhaps “stay the course” would have been a more appropriate modern rhetorical model. Or they could merely hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner in the Organizing Committe offices.
The WU’s mind-numbing ploy for team spirit is uninspiring and insulting. How shall we all suffer if we don’t fall in line? When that line cuts across rock bottom, I belive the answer is: we shall not.
The informed Guild voter should clearly follow their information. You’ve done your homework and reached your rational conclusion. To the largely uninformed voter who has had less time, energy, or devotion to the election matters at hand, I’d suggest that when an incumbent seeks to direct your gaze away from their record and toward the mindless banging of their gong, it is time to reject that official with the only real voice you have in the Guild — your vote.
As someone who has known Jeff Kleeman for almost 20 years, I feel I can safely vouch for both his personal and professional integrity. Though almost anything else I might say about him will no doubt be an understatement as “intelligent” just barely speaks to the rigour of his analytical thinking, or the breadth of information he tends to bring to that analysis; likewise “ethical” is but a pale description of the ways in which Jeff’s conduct defies every version of personal and professional compromise this business tends to evoke in even the best of us — not the least of which is run-away ego… These qualities, combined with his history as an executive, to my mind, make him not only an “alternative to the WU slate,” but an ideal contribution to any negotiating table. That he has seen fit to offer himself to this particular table at this particular time is a blessing none of us should take lightly. I can only agree with Craig, that the over-loud protest against him by members of the slate begs the question — they “doth protest too much?”
I voted for him, but I’ll feel sorry for him if he wins because he’ll be outnumbered in the board meetings with WU stacked against him, what…15 to 1? Unless some other non-slate candidates get elected.
I’m glad Kleeman’s willing to give it a shot, however. We need alternative perspectives.
I agree, Marianne. As Kleeman isn’t presenting a huge ideological threat, we can only assume the threat is personal. And that’s where attacks on decent folk have a way of backfiring.
I’m betting that if elected, the other board members might actually come to like Jeff Kleeman.
First, thank you Craig and everyone else who has posted here.
This election has become far more dramatic than I ever could’ve imagined and the reasons are confusing, or at least disillusioning.
Whatever threat I seem to pose to the WU isn’t ideological. Never in my Campaign Statement, postings or emails have I ever disagreed with their goals. My only issue has been whether their brain trust could use some additional perspectives and possibly new tactics based on knowledge of parts of our industry that they simply don’t have. Well, I’ve also argued with their slate approach to stocking (stacking?) the Board, but in a way that’s the same idea: what’s the point of a multi-person Board if they’re all coming from the same place?
If elected, and it’s a very long shot, I will have some bridges to repair. I wish that weren’t so, but once they attacked me I felt that hiding — particularly because I don’t have their visibility — was the wrong response. I don’t plan on holding grudges. I’d much rather move forward and accomplish something, so I’ll keep extending my hand until it’s finally taken.
If I lose, but get a significant number of votes, I’ll still feel like I’ve accomplished something important. I suspect the WU went into this election thinking it was a lock. Their campaign was a victory lap. But if I can prove a significant challenge, then maybe they’ll work a little harder and be a bit more open knowing that the membership is paying attention and they aren’t guaranteed a free ride back into office in 2008.
Thanks, Craig, for making sense out of Guild politics yet again. I always learn something.
The quote, “including hundreds of writers who arent even writers, but reality editors” made me curious. What’s your view on reality “writers” and whether they should be in the guild. I never fully understood the arguments in favor, which always seemed to hinge on protecting the rights of these writers, but as you mention, they aren’t writers. Why so much attention to reality writers and so little relative attention to say, animation writers, who actually write and who use the exact same skill-set used in writing live action.
Mr. Kleeman is among the brightest executives I’ve ever met in 15 years being in this business. But where do his loyalties really lie? Has he been paid by any studios for executive services in the last year, rather than writer services?
Well, I’m guessing that since he’s running in the WGAw elections, he’s trying to help writers. Or are you insinuating he’s some sort of a spy, hired by the studios to infiltrate the WGAw executive and weaken it from the inside. Wait, or was that the plot for a thriller I recently wrote…
For me this hearkens memories of our board elections for my sorority’s “Nationals” when I worked at the HQ. Some things never change, even if the industry does.
I want to address Anonymous’ question about my income and loyalties.
In the past year I’ve been paid by ABC and Touchstone to write a pilot and I’ve also been paid (at least told the check will someday arrive) to rewrite some webisodes.
Currently, as a writer, I’m pitching a couple TV projects, one feature project and working on a spec in the remaining hours of the day.
I do, also act in a producerial capacity. I’m an Exec Producer, i.e. showrunner if it ever gets made, on the ABC pilot and I’ve been doing some producerial consulting — which may turn into an actual producer position — on “The Thomas Crown Affair 2” as well as a few lesser profile projects.
I don’t consider producing films for studios the same as being an executive. And neither do many of the WU officers who are producing Studio films as well.
None of my services, writing or producerial, are exclusive to any Studio. I work from my home. No office, no assistant, no expense account.
My health insurance is WGA. I’ve not only been primarily relying on my work as a writer for my current income, I’m doing everything I can think of to insure that it also provides me with future income and well being. Which is the reason I’m running for the Board. Since the WGA represents my interests, I want to take my shot at insuring that they’re represented to the best of my abilities. It’s that simple.
If I was part of some insidious plan to destroy the WGA from within I wouldn’t be running for a position in which my voice is only one of many. If I were to ever propose something that was truly harmful, all the other Board members could easily vote me down.
The idea that my studio background and friendships might be harmful rather than helpful is silly. There are enough checks and balances as a BoD member to insure that I can never run wild, but I do believe my “insider” knowledge can be of tremendous use regarding most of the issues facing writers today.
One of the issues that needs to be addressed is the future of the business in general. I don’t mean profit participation, that’s a no-brainer, we need more. And we must have a strong new media position. I mean development.
Because of new financing structures it’s becoming harder and harder for the WGA middle class to get work. New writers (also known as cheap writers) and A-list writers get assignments. But many of the solid workhorses are finding themselves priced or profiled out of the market. This coupled with the absured way that Studios handle open writing assignments and development is going to become an increasingly dire issue for both the WGA and the Industry at large.
Once the MBA’s renewed (and eventually it will be) we need to figure out a plan to address this and that’s going to take knowledge of current film financing — both Studio and Indie — as well as relationships with those entities to figure out ways not only to get all of us the great deals, but to insure that there are deals for all of us to get.
I’m curious, Craig, and others, in light of the elections, the up coming contract negotiations, strike and/or lock out, how do you feel about the Guild’s recent (alleged) enforcement of working rule 8?
With the guilds lack of saturation in reality and cable production, do you think it a postive move? I can understand it if a show has been struck, but (and I don’t know ALL the details of the most recent enforcement) but I think with the big budget Organizing department, we would have heard if another show had been struck.
Just curious as to what others think.
Anonymous:
I guess I’m out of the loop on this. Can you describe how the Guild is now enforcing #8?
For those following along, Working Rule #8 essentially states that WGAw members can’t do “covered” work for non-signatory companies. In other words, I can’t write a live action theatrical film for a non-sig.
I’ve been told that writers have been pulled from a non guild show, under the auspices of working rule 8. I fully believe the source, as they are certainly ‘in the loop’, but I invite any interested parties to take it up w/ guild officials to confirm, or dispense w/ as rumor. There are far better sources than I on this topic.
I may be wrong, but i’m led to believe that Working Rule 8 can also be enforced on any show, ‘covered’ or not that guild members are working on.
Wanna hear a hoot? Last night at Meet the Candidates Night three of WU’s incumbent candidates swore that their slate has NEVER asked the membership to vote a “pure” WU slate. That got a laugh.
Not only that, but VP David Weiss closed his comments by stating that the Guild needed WU and didn’t need Jeff Kleeman. Out of all the candidates, specifically Jeff Kleeman?!
What the fuck are they scared of by Jeff? Like others here I’ve known Jeff for 20 years beginning back when he was Gary Lucchesi’s guy at Paramount. He is a total class act, both as a man and a member of the Entertainment community, and the Guild would be damn lucky to have him on the Board.
But what really pisses me off re: Tom and Phil’s attack email comes from my having sat on this year’s Board Nominating Committee. As a group we had to beat the bushes like crazy to come up with enough people to run against the incumbents. Jeff, however, came in on his own. Truth is, I didn’t even know he’d made the switch to our glorious profession and was thrilled when I saw he was coming in to talk to the Committee.
So how is any future Nominating Committee going to pull in members to run for office when they know they’ll most likely have to expect unfair attacks by the Powers That Be? Like you, Craig, I like Tom and just about love Phil and am floored that they took such “umbrage” at being called on running machine politics in the Guild. Though the “machine” appellation was laughed off by WU incumbents Lefcourt, Wilcox and Rodman last night(Robert King, the mensch he is, didn’t comment) I’m afraid it’s smack on the money and is a dangerous and new anti-egalitarian movement in our Guild.
As an aside, I was disgusted at the pitiful turn-out for Candidates Night — and not only among the membership. There were several candidates who didn’t show up. Among them? Tom Schulman and Phil Robinson! Okay, Jeff couldn’t make it either being in Spain but he sent an incisive statement which was read by Steve Chivers in his stead. (Phil and Tom also had statements read.) What shocked me, and most everyone else whom I spoke to last night, were the candidates who didn’t show and didn’t even bother to have a proxy read a statement. And they want to lead our union? Wow…
While my serving on the Nom Com and being on the Election Committee blocks me from officially endorsing any candidate I urge anyone who hasn’t filled out their ballot to vote for JEFF KLEEMAN. I mean, it’s not like anyone reads your blog, right, Craig? ;^)
All my best,
Clifford
If Working Rule 8 is being enforced, good. Why have it if it’s not enforced?
I’m not a guild member (yet), but learning that Jeff Kleeman is running for the Board inspires me to sell a damn script already so I can join.
I’ve known Jeff a comparatively measly six years, but it doesn’t take long to realize what kind of person he is. I echo the comments made above and add that Jeff is positive, reasonable, and easy as heck to get along with. If and when he’s elected, I have no doubt he’ll quickly become a welcome member of the group.
Kelly
Presuming you’re talking about West members, the Guild could contacted writers and remind them that Working Rule 8 prohibits members from working for non-sig Companies in covered area, subject to disciplinary action. But, absent the Board initiating disciplinary procedures per Article X of the Constitution, if the writers then terminated their employment, they’d be doing so voluntary.
Board minutes going back the last six months show no disciplinary procedure having been enacted.
Working Rule 8 states:
It seems pretty clear it can only be applied in the case of non-signatory (and, so, non-covered) show.
However, that’s not to say you haven’t been led to believe otherwise. That would certainly fit the modus operandi of the current leadership and staff.
[b]test[/b] [i]test[/i] test 2 test 2
Test.