In Search of the Caucus

I'm sorry that I was unable to attend the recent Caucus meeting, but I have read the transcript which was distributed. Although the conversation seems to have been somewhat incoherent, one point stands out very clearly to me.

The focus appears to have been on the question of term limits and the restructuring of the election of the Steering Committee and officers, but I believe that a much more vital question must be addressed first. I have admittedly been a Caucus member a relatively short time, and perhaps it is presumptuous of me to be critical so soon; however, the most serious deficiency that I have found with the Caucus is the lack of clear purpose for its existence.

I speak from a background of considerable experience as a member of organizations made up of disparate segments. In particular, I refer to the Television Academy, of which I have served as chairman and currently as a member of the Executive Committee and president of the Foundation. The Academy has an even more diverse membership than the Caucus. The Academy suffers in its governance from the chauvinism of its various branches, but in the final analysis we do have an avowed purpose. The Academy is known primarily for its Emmy Awards functions, but the Foundation also engages in significant educational and archival activities. In the end, we speak with one voice for the benefit of the television industry as a whole.

I do not think that the Caucus, though made up of producers, writers, and directors, should concern itself with the specific problems of those groups. Those matters, such as the questions of the proliferation of credits, for example, are better left to the representative Guilds of those groups. The Caucus should find ways to speak for the overall betterment of the industry and the creative community. It should enjoy the respect and clout due it as an organization speaking for those who have earned their position through their past and present experience as leaders of the industry.

The question of "term limits versus past experience" will never be satisfactorily resolved, and there are valid arguments for both sides. I believe that term limits, combined with judicious use of those with experience, is probably the best alternative. It encourages new blood and new ideas, and it gives more people a chance to participate in a meaningful way. Two two-year terms with the right to return after a two year hiatus is a viable and useful approach. Keeping those who are on hiatus, and who wish to continue to participate - on special committees or on an Executive Committee - would allow us to continue to benefit from their experience.

None of that really means anything, however, without the Caucus having a clear and valid purpose for being. That is what we should concentrate on and resolve first, and the rest of it will ultimately fall into line.