The screen writer (June 1947-Mar 1948)

REPORT & COMMENT Report and Comment ABOUT GUILD MEETINGS ARNOLD BELGARD : The purpose of this article is to present a procedural plan for Guild meetings. The article itself is the culmination of a series of letters between myself and our Executive Board. On the premise that Guild meetings are poorly attended because of the tedious, bitter, minor arguments attendant on each subject under discussion, I offered my plan to the Board in the form of a letter. I am no parliamentarian. I do not know the feeling of the Board in regard to the idea. I know only that they have requested me to present it for membership review through the medium of our magazine. Before proceeding I'd like to offer the impressions I take with me after each of our meetings. I think the meetings are: 1. Boring. In that every subject, no matter how innocuous, is argued pro and con by a group of die-hards who see it as stemming originally either from the Kremlin or the peripatetic bailiwick of Gerald L. K. Smith. The same arguments pertain, no matter what the subject happens to be ! 2. Intolerable. In that there is no ending these discussions. 3. Frustrating. In that out of sheer desperation we often find ourselves voting on questions that have been touched only on the fringes — the real issues having been neatly skirted by the bevy of speakers. 4. Insulting. In that we, as thinking adults, can make up our minds on the average run of questions without the earnest, enduring chant ARNOLD BELGARD, a member of SWG, recently outlined this proposal to the Executive Board. of the innumerable speakers who belabor us with their oft-reiterated phrases. It is because of these four factors that a large group of normally interested writers abstain from sitting in at meetings they would otherwise be eager to attend. They send in their proxies, and they vote as preordained by the proxy holder — not as they might have, had they been present to hear intelligent debate. I have no real quarrel with our vociferous chums. I believe them earnest, sincere crusaders. A good many of them are my friends. I quarrel only with the fact that what they say is not necessary in the least, although under the democratic way of life, they are entitled to, and take, the floor from now on and forevermore. But you who have attended meetings know that when Mr. Lavery reaches the breaking point (his tolerance is much greater than mine), he rolls up his sleeves, sets everyone straight as to the issue in point, gives us a quick summary of the pros and cons, and again takes his chair. Rarely after this, is there further discussion. There is no need for any. So, at long last, here is the structure of our meetings as I want to see them conducted. I want to see a thoroughly planned and prepared agenda. Prepared is italicized because it is the keynote of the plan : A Forum Group in Action, rather than a hodge podge of word makers. Here is how it would work: Let us say that our agenda is made up of a series of Committee Reports. It usually is. I want to hear the committee chairman's report in full — complete with recommendation^, instead of ad lib discussion, I next want to hear the views of the opposition from within the committee itself. This speaker is eminently qualified to give us the reasons behind the original dissenting votes. Again, instead of ad lib discussion, the committee chairman will present the reasons why the dissenters were voted down. And if there were not final unanimity within the committee, the opposition would be entitled to a final rebuttal. Now we are ready to hear from the floor. If there is room for further discussion, let it come from the floor through the chairman (as moderator) to the debater in the form of a question. These people on the rostrum have been through the subject at great length. They know the answers. Their responses, instead of being ad libbed, will be the result of considered thought. And from here on, any individual who presumes to add weight to a completed argument had better have something solid to place in the scales or else think twice before speaking. I believe the forum group to be as democratic in principle as our present meeting form. This plan is presented on the assumption that we have elected our officers and Board in the good faith that they will carry out the desires of the membership. That the trust we place in them and the committees to which our various problems are thrown does not end with the mere submission of a report. As with practically all bodies democratic, there is a fair split of those who think on the left, in the center, and on the right. All three ideologies are to be found among our officers, our Board members, and our every important committee. Either we trust them to do the ground work or we, as a body must do it. There's no sense in wasting their time — and they use up plenty of it — if we disregard what they have to report upon completion of their work. Let's not make up our collective minds at the last minute after having been detoured away from the original report by the hot-tongued orators of the night. Let's do things right. Let's have full membership attendance. They'll come to meetings that maintain a lively interest, and that don't run off on divergent tangents every two minutes for hour after bitter hour. Let's have our meetings be forum in shape. Let's not step on our toes any longer. Let's progress as a body. 39