OPPOSITION ro REVrsroNS coNcERNrNc srArEMENrs By PARTICIPATING WRITERS TO THE CREDIT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

The undersigned have all been involved in WGA credit arbitrations, where we are thrust into a competitive process intended to produce "a true and accurate statement of screen authorship." Each credit arbitration is conducted by three anonymous arbiters, whose experience, familiarity with the rules, and willingness to invest the necessary time and effort are only one part of the process. For a multitude of financial and career reasons, the stakes are incredibly high, and statements constitute a participating writer's only chance to speak on his/her own behalf and contribute to the task of thoroughly and accurately evaluating all the material, so that nothing is mis-attributed, given improper weight, or left unconsidered. These statements not only give writers a voice while their fates are being decided, but, if properly crafted, can help mitigate unintentional oversights or confusion on the part of arbiters, many of whom are just as oven¡rhelmed as the writers are, by the guild's extensive rules regarding credit, and by what is often a truly staggering amount of literary material.

Writing a thoughtful, comprehensive, and objective statement is always a formidable challenge, and for writers unfamiliar with the process, the learning curve can be quite steep. Simultaneously having to become familiar with the Credits Manual, read and effectively analyze a daunting volume of literary material, and then synthesize this massive amount of information into a cogent, helpful, and readable statement is an arduous task for any writer, particularly if she/he happens to be in the middle of another stressful writing assignment. A writer needs to carefully read, frequently for the first time, the source material (e.g., novels, plays, newspaper articles), all of the relevant drafts (which, depending on the duration of development, can be voluminous), and the fínal shooting script; analyze each writer's contríbution; and then explain why he or she has met the applicable percentage requirement for credit (and why all or most of the other writers have not). As noted above, many writers have a day job or a delivery deadline on a current project and are not ín a position to drop everything to read and analyze hundreds of pages of material and draft a cogent statement on a moment's notice.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Credits Review Committee is proposing a revision to the Screen Credits Manual which would dramatically shorten this already challenging process. Specifically, in the event of a protest, the proposed new rule would require that statements be delivered within 72 hours from notification that all the literary and source materiat has been submitted to the WGA by the Studio (not even from the time actually received by the participating writers!). Further, this deadline "will be strictly applied and NO extensions will be granted." By making this change, the following language in the Credits Manual would be deleted: "At the request of a participating writer, additionaltime to submit a statement may be granted by the Screen Credits Administrator within the time constraints for determination of credits. Such requests will not be unreasonably denied." The Committee's proposed deadline is onerous, unwarranted, inconsistent with the MBA, and against the interests of every screenwriter who participates in a credit arbitration.

WHAT'S THE RUSH?

Theatrical Schedule A of the WGA MBA requires the Studio to send a Notice of Tentative Writing Credits (NTWC) "as soon as practicable following completion of principal photography," a standard which gives the Studio broad latitude in the timing of its submission, in sharp contrast to the brevity of the proposed 72-hour deadline. lf Studios actually complied with this obligation, it would be at least 4-5 months before any post-production schedule would require credits to be shot. lndeed, many films already have a release date scheduled for more than a year after photography is completed. This means the studios are almost never in a hurry, and there is no valid reason for our own Guild to stand in the way of a deliberate and thoughtful credit determination process.

Yes, the MBA provides for a decision on credits 21 business days (that's a month, by the way) after a protest, but in direct contrast to the Committee's proposed deadline, the MBA explicitly provides as follows:

lf the material is voluminous or complex, or if other circumstances beyond the control of the Guild necessifate a longer period in order to render a fair decision, and the Guild reguesfs an extension of time for arbitration, the Company agrees to cooperafe as fully as possrb/e.

So, even though the studios rarely have a pressing need for an immediate credit determination and are almost always amenable to extensions, the Credits Review Committee is nevertheless proposing a 72-hour deadline for the submission of writers' statements with no possible extensions. This will certainly facilitate "fast," but shouldn't the Committee be more concerned about "fair" and 'Just"? lronically, in the MBA, the Studios keep open the possibitity of extensions for the sake of maintaining fairness, but when it comes to WGA members - whose interests the Guild ostensibly exists to protect - the Committee proposes to deny the same fairness. Finally, the Guild regularly grants arbiters 2-3 weeks to carefully evaluate the material and render a decision. Reducing this time frame an¡l instead giving an Arbitration Committee only 72 hours would be unthinkable, as it would fundamentally compromise the arbiters' ability to do their jobs meaningfully and carefully. Participating writers have the same amount of reading and analyzing to do, and they are also committing their evaluations to the page in much longer and more detailed statements than arbiters typically generate. lt 72 hours isn't enough time for the arbiters to do their jobs, then it certainly isn't enough time for the participating writers to do theirs. VOTE IINOII ON THIS PROPOSED REVISION

The voting members of the Guild have consistently supported the participating writers' ability to write clear and helpful statements on their own behalf during credit arbitrations. We believe the Credit Committee's proposed changes to the Credits Manual would unfairly and unnecessarily discourage participating writers from writing statements to explain their positions and make their best case for credit. Certainly, the proposed revisions would damage the effectiveness of statements and inevitably diminish the writer's participation in the credit determination process. lnstead, the Committee should encourage writers to dig deeply into the material and analyze it as carefully as the arbiters will. The Committee's proposed revisions should be rejected, the existing language reinstated, and a more writer-friendly set of rules adopted.

We propose that the WGA enforce the MBA requirements (a) that a NTWC be delivered shortly after production wraps and (b) that, "immediately" upon receipt of a protest, the Studio must send the Guild 3 copies of the final shooting script, all available materialwritten by the participating writers, and all available source material. The sooner this occurs, of course, the more time writers will have to write their statements before the Studio needs to shoot the titles. We further propose that, upon delivery of these items, the credits staff communicate directly with the Studio executive in charge of credits to determine when, as a practical matter, the studio actually needs credits to be determined, and, based on that date, when writers'statements reasonably need to be submitted.

ln conclusion, there are various stakeholders in determining the process by which statements should be written and delivered. lt is imperative that the WGA recognize that by far the most prominent stakeholders, the stakeholders always to be favored in every possible way, are the participating writers. These are the individuals who have contributed their work, their talent, and their hearts to the project. These are the people whose careers and financial well-being will be affected by the outcome of the arbitration. The interests of Guild employees, the arbiters themselves, and any other third party should be subordinate to giving participating writers enough time to prepare the best statements possible, because it is only those statements which can help the arbiters analyze the contribution of each writer in a manner most likely to reflect "true authorship."

J.J. Abrams o Ron Bass o Henry Bean r Mark Boal o Peter D. Buchman Jez Buttenruorth o John-Henry Butterworth o Karen Croner o Peter Dunne Laurence Dworet o Robert Eisele o Jonathan Marc Feldman o Rodrigo Garcia Susannah Grant o Joby Harold ¡ Carey Wayne Hayes o Brian Helgeland Nicole Holofcener o Gavin Hood o Jeremy lacone ¡ Rick Jaffa o Patty Jenkins Dave Kajganich o Nick Kazan o Gloria Calderon Kellett o Sarah Kernochan Callie Khouri o Peter Landesman o Andrew Lanham ¡ Allan Loeb ¡ Jenny Lumet Michael Mitnick o Becky Mode o Jonathan Mostow ¡ Jessie Nelson ¡ William Nicholson Kimberly Peirce o Evgenia Peretz ¡ Jason Reitman o Doug Richardson o Eric Roth Allison Schroeder oTom Schulman ¡ Amanda Silver o Evan Spiliotopoulos Danny Strong o Robin Swicord ¡ Chris Terrio o William Wheeler o Scott Williams Erin Cressida Wilson o Kurt Wimmer o Linda Woolverton o Rafael Yglesias Christopher Yost