Thoughts from a Los Angeles Theater Producer

Several weeks ago, I emailed the LADCC and asked if they would sit down with me and discuss their awards shows.  Hanging in the air was also my concern that there are conflicts of interest within the LADCC, so I asked them to speak to me about that as well.

Here is the LADCC’s response to my requests, in its entirety, at their request:

Mr. Culbertson,

Now that this year’s awards show and accompanying business matters have concluded, the Circle is addressing the e-mail inquiries left on our website. We understand that you seek information regarding the voting procedures for the LADCC Awards.  This information is public knowledge; we have explained our process from the stage at previous Awards Shows, and briefly summarized it in the program for this year’s ceremony.

The LADCC Awards recognize theatrical excellence.  We do not award the “best” in any category; we simply award excellence.  For this reason, there are often multiple award recipients in any category.  In general, we aim for 30 award recipients out of 60 nominees, although those numbers are invariably higher as, in all cases, we resolve ties in favor of additional nominees and recipients (and, sometimes, add additional categories).

To be eligible for nomination, a show must invite all members of the LADCC to attend.  A number of critics equal to approximately one-third of our current membership must see said show (for last year, that number was five); for shows in Orange County, Ventura, and Long Beach, the eligibility number reduces by one.  The eligible year runs from December 1 through November 30.

Each category has a predetermined guideline number of nominees.  Each critic submits lists of their proposed nominees, ostensible for no more than the total guideline number in each category.  After compiling the nomination ballots, each critic votes “yes” or “no” on each proposed nominee that the critic has seen.  In each category, the guideline number of proposed nominees with the highest ratio of “yes” to “no” votes becomes our nominees, with the proviso that there are a minimum percentage of “yes” votes necessary to make the ballot.

Once the nominee list is established, each critic votes for 30 nominees across the ballot.  Awards go to those nominees with the highest number of votes, with the understanding that the Circle shall have no category in which there are no award recipients. 

The Circle reserves the right to modify the Awards voting process at any time.

As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members.  The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.

This e-mail is a unified document. Should you wish to refer to its contents in a public or private forum, it must be quoted in its entirety.

Sincerely,

The Los Angeles Drama Critics Circle

 The most important paragraph in their response is the following:

As to the remarks about conflicts of interest, you have made the specifics known to several of our members.  The entire Circle subsequently reviewed and investigated each incident mentioned. Although our voting process is public, the internal governance of the Circle is, and will continue to be, a private matter.

The disappointing part of this paragraph for me is that the LADCC seems to think they don’t have to be transparent.

The best way to combat perceived conflicts of interest is either to eliminate them or to be transparent about them.  But the LADCC has clearly said that it is none of the theater community’s business.

Personally, I think it is our business.  As I wrote in my last post, winning an award has implications for a producer’s ability to raise money.  Additionally, as some have commented, awards affect an individual artists career and reputation. There is a lot riding on these awards for all of us.  The community, therefore, deserves to participate in an awards process that offers transparency. Certainly, we do not have the right to know who voted for what production, etc– that is understandably a private matter. But the process by which awards are granted is another matter. We absolutely have the right to know that this process is fair and free of conflicts. We have the right to request that the results are independently verified.  And if we see conflicts, we have the right to point them out.  And the response that we, in turn, receive should be rooted in the ethic of transparency.

The reality is that there is a lot of ambiguity in the LADCC’s process, especially as it relates to conflicts of interest.  What are the membership criteria for the LADCC?  Their awards are not peer judged, but rather, decided on by a committee.  Shouldn’t they then have a policy preventing peers from being members?  Specifically, what is their policy toward actors?  Certainly, it has happened in the past when Travis Michael Holder (who is an actor-critic) was simultaneously acting and a voting member of the LADCC. What was the process of the voting for his productions?  Was he eligible for an award?  Was his show eligible?  Could he vote for his own show?  What about a show that he may have auditioned for but was not cast in?  Was he allowed to vote on those shows?  Is this type of situation currently happening?  Shouldn’t we be told if any of the members of the LADCC are also trying to work as actors?  If the LADCC doesn’t see actor-critics as presenting conflicts of interest to their process, then they ought to be upfront about their position and let us know who among their members are actor-critics. If this hybridization isn’t a problem for them, they should be transparent about that.

There is a lot in the LADCC’s letter about the process of vote tabulation, but what about the physical task of tabulation?  Who is responsible for the tabulation?  Do all the members know all the votes?  Are votes conducted at a meeting? Or are they emailed around and one person is in charge of adding it up?  Could that one person change other members votes?  What are the controls in place that prevent fraud and vote changing?  Is there an independent person that oversees the voting process? If the votes are publicly tallied within the group, there is a strange situation where some of the members are the editors that other members rely on for assignments.  There is a possibility that members will vote along with the editors that give them assignments hoping to curry the editors favor.  Is there a control in place to prevent this?

When do the critics submit their lists of nominees?  Is it at the end of the year?  If so, then isn’t it possible that at the end of the year there is a tendency to nominate a production seen recently over productions seen in the beginning of the year?

In fact, over the last five years 50% of the productions that won the production award were either still running at the end of the year or had closed in October, November, or December of that year.  This clearly indicates that the probability of winning an award is greater for a show that ran later in the year than a show that closed early-on .  Is there any policy in place to help prevent this from happening?

In the end, it is clear that there are many complications and conflicts that could arise within the LADCC.  When I pointed out a few specific examples to them, they responded with a position of no transparency.

We have a lot of work to do in Los Angeles theater.  We need our producers to organize so that Equity, USA, SSDC, and the musicians union can figure out a new version of the 99-seat plan and HAT contact that works with all unions.  We need our theater owners to build and maintain better theater districts.  We need to figure out how to support critics so they can remain a relevant part Los Angles Theater.  We need the LA Stage Alliance to create a citywide theater marketing campaign.  We need our awards organizations to be transparent and fair about their processes.

But none of these things can happen if our community is going to build walls and simply say, “none of your business.”  If we aren’t even allowed to point out areas that could use improvement, how will anything ever improve?  If we don’t have the ability to look at ourselves, hear feedback and take criticism, then we will never realize the true potential of our theater community.

The LA theater community deserves better.  We all know we have problems to deal with.  If the leaders of the LA Theater community don’t want to be challenged and will try to stop criticism by hiding behind a veil of non-transparency, then we are all in trouble.