Toughest Decisions Are Behind the Scenes

The task of assembling Emmy Awards nominees begins in earnest today--with the deadline to return ballots--but recent intrigue surrounding the organization that determines who takes home those coveted statuettes rivals any prime-time drama.

That would be the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, whose inner workings no doubt remain a mystery even to most of the 11,000 members--with a small core having become embroiled in bickering and politics at a level that appears inordinately contentious for a nonprofit operation.

At the center of the maelstrom has been academy Chairman Meryl Marshall-Daniels, an independent producer completing her second consecutive two-year term overseeing the academy.

Marshall-Daniels’ dedication to her elected but unpaid position has over the years led to charges of micro-managing, caused friction with the paid staff and, with her term ending, raises questions about the organization’s future. Some feel the academy would benefit from having a high-profile TV executive at its helm--as was the case when former Walt Disney Television President Richard Frank headed the group--but none has stepped forward, a fact some attribute to the academy’s internal politics.

Beyond a framework that diffuses power among 27 peer groups, from animation and art directors to title design and writers, the academy has been plagued by clannishness and conflict within its hierarchy--giving rise to heated exchanges at meetings, personal attacks, anonymous memos and charges that certain officers have been rude or abusive to the staff.

“That’s the hard thing with volunteer organizations,” said one academy veteran, who asked to stay anonymous. “It’s very hard to fire volunteers.”

Moreover, whoever replaces Marshall-Daniels faces several major challenges--the foremost being the negotiation of a new broadcast deal for the Emmys, which currently rotates among the four major networks, whose fees provide a key revenue source for activities and programs.

Academy President Jim Chabin has publicly noted that the Emmys receive far less than awards shows such as the Oscars and Grammys--which garner $50 million and $20 million a year in network licensing fees, respectively--proposing a deal that will both expand the academy’s creative control over the show and quintuple the $3 million the networks pay annually.

Network executives say while an increase is likely, it will be far more modest. In addition, because the Emmys rely on network participation, any effort to sweeten the deal by signing with a single network runs the risk that bypassed networks will boycott the ceremony--as they threatened to do when the academy struck exclusive deals with Fox in the 1980s and ABC in the early ‘90s. Bowing to that pressure, the academy has since adopted a wheel involving the four major networks. Even so, there has been talk of mounting a competing awards show, a maneuver viewed as unlikely given the Emmy’s prestige within the creative community and its 53-year history.

The awards themselves remain no stranger to controversy. The latest involves CBS, which will televise this year’s Emmys on Sept. 16. As the home of “Survivor,” the network is angry that two new “outstanding nonfiction programming” categories--introduced to recognize programs such as “Survivor” and “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”--won’t be presented during the main televised ceremony but, rather, a separate event devoted to craft awards, such as editing and costume design. The Emmy nominees will be unveiled July 12.

The academy also continues to wrestle with its role beyond the Emmys. In 1994, Frank orchestrated an “Information Superhighway” summit, and though academy bylaws prevent the organization from taking a political stance, many see it as a logical forum to explore issues important to its members--from runaway production to the impact of new media technologies.

Against this backdrop, it’s notable that the choices to replace Marshall-Daniels are somewhat unconventional. The candidates are Jeff Cole, a college professor and director of the UCLA Center for Communication Policy, who sits on the academy’s executive committee; and Bryce Zabel, a writer-executive producer (his credits include the series “Dark Skies” and “The Crow”) representing the academy’s writers branch who also serves on the Writers Guild of America’s board.

Cole would be the first academy chief from outside the production community, Zabel the first writer to guide the group since “The Twilight Zone’s” Rod Serling in the 1960s. (It was Serling, in fact, who conceived of holding judging panels to select Emmy winners, thus insuring that people watched shows and didn’t cast votes based solely on reputation. After years of criticism that those voters were out of step, the procedure was amended last year to allow at-home viewing, enabling the academy’s busiest members to participate in the judging process.)

Both candidates say they want to bring better communication to the academy as well as a clearer relationship with the TV industry and public.

“The academy has the legitimacy to be a real leader in television, a place where [significant] issues are brought forth,” Cole said. “I think we ought to be in the middle of those discussions.”

They have also cited a need for greater civility, which, insiders say, has often been in short supply. Several months ago, for example, an anonymous letter circulated among governors regarding what was viewed as an attempt by some governors to discredit Chabin. Much of the board, however, has been won over by Chabin and his fund-raising skills, subsequently voting to renew his contract for another year.

There has been much speculation that Marshall-Daniels, whose production company now operates out of her home, is interested in assuming a paid position at the academy--a move that might have become more achievable if the campaign to undermine Chabin proved successful.

Marshall-Daniels said she is committed to the academy but that her future level of involvement will be up to the new chairman. As for any desire to become a full-time employee, she said, “The timing has never been right for me to seriously consider it.”

Ironically, Chabin replaced Executive Director James Loper, one of several old-guard members gradually pushed out after Marshall-Daniels was first elected. According to the chairman, her determination to bring new blood and ideas into the academy met with greater resistance than she anticipated.

“I didn’t go into this position thinking there was going to be upheaval to the extent that there was,” she said, adding that she felt the organization has become more diverse, contemporary and responsive “to a larger constituency in the industry and the audience.”

Zabel nevertheless sees an immediate need to foster a freer exchange between the leadership and governors, who--in an illustration of how the group has been managed--generally aren’t told what’s on the agenda at meetings until the night they occur. Zabel is promising to disseminate information in advance so governors can show up ready to weigh in on issues.

“A lot of what needs to be straightened out is really simple. A lot of it is procedural,” Zabel said. “I think [the problems] can be turned around relatively quickly.”

As for a perception the academy has become tangled in internal politics, he added, “Isn’t that why you run for things? To clean up big messes?”

In a sense, the academy’s structure itself has proved a source of divisiveness--placing peer-group governors from crafts such as makeup/hairstyling or sound on equal footing with producers, executives and the directing, writing and performing guilds.

However democratic it might sound, that approach has frustrated some industry leaders--one reason they have shied away from the chairman’s post. “This job is pretty tough for somebody who has a [day job] in which they don’t have to submit their decisions to a vote,” Marshall-Daniels conceded.

Other executives who have been involved in the academy complain about the organization getting bogged down--often by members in the twilight of their careers who, as one former member put it, have too much time to spare debating minutiae and “show up for the chicken dinners.”

Despite such criticism, Marshall-Daniels stressed the academy has accomplished a great deal during her tenure, from educational programs to securing a cable TV deal for the craft awards, highlighting those contributions.

“I feel during the time I’ve been here as I’ve made a difference,” she said.

Zabel suggested the role of an executive producer actually mirrors the challenge posed by the academy: taking a diverse group and bringing it together to fulfill a common goal.

Cole, meanwhile, indicated he has an advantage in being beholden to neither the crafts nor the guilds, though that neutrality has also left him open to questions about his qualifications to represent a group that limits membership to those who are or have been “actively engaged in activities related to the production or distribution of audio visual works.” Cole addressed that point in a letter to governors, detailing his participation in the academy and TV production, as well as his relationships with industry leaders.

On Wednesday, a committee chaired by Marshall-Daniels nominated Cole as its candidate for chairman, one of a half-dozen officer slots. Zabel and others left off that slate must petition to run for the various positions.

Although each peer group chooses its governors, only board members, officers and a half-dozen appointees to an executive committee vote for the chairman and officers. The election will take place Aug. 8, with winners to be installed in October.

Based on some of its recent history, those within the academy say they look forward to pursuing a proactive agenda and putting further pettiness and infighting behind them.

“There have been factions in the academy,” said Bruce Bilson, a representative of the directors peer group. “We’re all hoping this election will give us a new board [and] new officers, and we can get back to honoring excellence.”