We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
streamlined and brought up to date, as factories and airports and everything else in America is being streamlined?
Let us be modern enough at least to conceive that a revision of the form of the Guild might be a more effective organ. Let us face the fact of our particular Guild and ask ourselves specific questions.
Does it make sense for the officers and Board of the Guild to be elected for only a year? The problems of administration of the Guild are highly complex. Under our present system it is conceivable that a new Board may consist of members with no continuity of experience. This is manifestly absurd and something that has to be changed. Perhaps we should elect a Board for two or three years; perhaps only part of the Board should stand for re-election each year.
The same thing holds for committee chairmanships. Television and the Economic Program Committee require, for instance, knowledge that takes prolonged study. No new man, heading up these committees, can hope to have quickly the knowledge and judgment of the incumbent. Further, should there not be a complete revision of requirements for meetings? The quorum must be changed. The number of signatures necessary to have a special meeting must be changed. Special rules for meetings must be instituted. We cannot waste our time indefinitely moving business from one place to another on the agenda, spending an evening on a parliamentary wrangle, instead of Guild business. Are Roberts Rules of Order and Procedure satisfactory for us, or should we not make our own house rules? Should not chairmen of all committees be present at all Board meetings — or perhaps, going even further, should not committee chairmen and the Executive Board constitute a council of the Guild? How can we broaden out responsibility? How can the entire membership become aware of all the problems all the time? Is The Screen Writer a waste of money? Would not a house organ be of more value to us in this year of decision?
Let us consider overhauling the organization of the Guild in order that we may better serve our purpose in the coming year. Victory, of course, cannot be achieved through administrative machinery alone; it can, however, be considerably aided. The retiring Board asks your earnest consideration of these reforms, with the knowledge that no writer, to whom the Guild is a vital force in his professional life, will ignore any means to make that Guild more effective and more certain of victory.
^
The Screen Writer, October, 1948 is