SubscribeGrowing scandal threatens to upstage the Drama Desk Awards
On the eve of its awards being presented this Sunday, the Drama Desk is engulfed in a growing scandal that erupted following the resignation of a member who was booted from the nominating committee.
Initially, president William Wolf pooh-poohed "the total nonsense and patently false" charges made by Tony Phillips of Edge Publications against Barbara Siegel, chair of the nominating committee, as "the biased and disgruntled rant" of someone who'd been fired, but now other prominent members of the Drama Desk have not only substantiated some of Phillips' charges, but evidence has emerged that Wolf may also be guilty of one of the most serious allegations against Siegel — bullying nominators into changing a legitimate award nomination that he didn't like.
Wolf and Siegel hold leadership roles of dubious legality since neither may technically qualify for membership in the Drama Desk organization. In the past few days Wolf — whose media outlet is his own website, WolfEntertainmentGuide.com — revealed that old bylaws are still in effect that don't recognize Internet writers. Siegel's media credentials are TalkinBroadway.com and TheaterMania.com. Also in question is the legality and authenticity of this weekend's awards, which were voted upon by the many Internet-only writers in the Drama Desk.
Several prominent members describe Wolf and Siegel as kingpins of an entrenched leadership that rules forcibly, hides scandals and key issues from the general membership, and makes it difficult for rivals to become officers or members of its board of directors. Among controversies they're accused of hushing up: Last year there was such serious dissent over management of the nominating committee that two of its six members resigned in protest just a few weeks before nominations were to be decided.
"If Tony Phillips hadn't mentioned that fact in his resignation letter, many general members would never have known that it happened," says Matthew Murray, a former member of the nominating committee. "Why weren't people told?"
"There's something seriously wrong with the Drama Desk Awards when, three weeks before the nominations are due, two people resign," adds Andy Propst of American Theater Web who writes for Back Stage, Village Voice and Time Out NY and has served on the nominating committee in the past. "And now this year, Tony Phillips' allegations — we've got real problems."
Also kept secret from general members was a radical change made recently in award eligibility that bolsters a serious charge against the Drama Desk — that they're awards that pretend to honor off-Broadway and off-off-Broadway shows on an equal basis with Broadway fare, but are really rigged to favor the latter so that they lure big stars, major attention and influence the Tony Awards. It's widely presumed that the Drama Desk Awards are bestowed just days after Tony nominations are announced so that they can have maximum impact upon Tony voters as they receive their ballots.
Drama Desk leaders recently disqualified all productions under the Actors Equity's showcase code, which constitutes about 90% of off-off-Broadway fare.
The change infuriates Leonard Jacobs, national theater editor of Back Stage, who believes that the Drama Desk should do more, not less, to reward off-off-Broadway shows. But the leadership made this change "under the radar," he says, "and perhaps in violation of bylaws. Shouldn't the whole organization have a say in something as fundamentally basic as what qualifies for a nomination? I don't know how this change happened. I never received an email or any other communication. If they can make a change (as huge as this) through stealth and the withholding of information, what else are they not telling the rank and file about?"
The secret way the rule change was handled "is the most distressing thing" about all recent controversies, insists Propst. "To me that's the most scary. I had no idea they did that. The bigger issue of entrenched leadership and not communicating with membership about something as important as changing what is eligible for this award — that's where I go, 'Hey, wait a minute! This is an organization careening!' "
"I found out about the rule change from a publicist," says Murray. "I was horrified. I think this whole thing is abominable. Some of the best theater I see every year is off-Broadway. Why weren't we given a chance to vote on this?"
When such serious new charges were lodged against Drama Desk leaders after the New York Post theater columnist Michael Riedel broke the news of Tony Phillips' allegations in mid-April (read his full resignation letter - CLICK HERE), Gold Derby made repeated attempts to interview Wolf and Siegel to get their perspective, but they refused to speak.
Gold Derby made it emphatically clear to Drama Desk PR spokesman Les Schecter that the issues we wished to raise with Wolf and Siegel include serious new ones from prominent members that far exceeded the initial claims of impropriety made by Phillips — including one that indicted the ethics of president Wolf — but they refused to comment. Wolf even banned Gold Derby from attending the Drama Desk's nominees reception — which we attend every year — unless we promised not to discuss the recent controversy with any member. We couldn't make that promise, we noted, because to do so would permit a media organization to censor the media.
Wolf will only address the Tony Phillips hubbub, which he considers "old hat" after sending an e-mail with an official statement from the Drama Desk board of directors, stating, "We wish to make it clear that we totally support Barbara Siegel in the face of the outrageous charges by Tony Phillips, whom Ms. Siegel and William Wolf, Drama Desk president, dismissed from the nominating committee. We have complete confidence in her committee leadership and her integrity, and we can attest that at our Executive Board meetings Barbara asks for and is given policy guidance for the work of the Nominating Committee."
Wolf and other Drama Desk leaders have also been sending out e-mail blasts containing extensive testimonials hailing Siegel and her leadership. Among them are endorsements from current members of her nominating committee such as Gerard Raymond and Richie Ridge, who also refused to be interviewed for this article. Propst –- who does talk candidly about what he knows –- writes one of those letters to salute the "passion and drive (she) brings to the process." Former Drama Desk president David Sheward, executive editor of Back Stage, who served on the nominating committee alongside Siegel years ago before she became chair but never with her in charge, offers his "sympathy and support."
However, some of those endorsements are seriously questionable.
A letter of support from Jack Cummings, artistic director of Transport Group, is "a little weird," Phillips says, "considering he just got a special award from Barbara last season."
Many observers are surprised by the inclusion of a letter from Vince Gatton, former star of "Candy and Dorothy," who addresses Siegel, saying, "You were on the committee that nominated me for Outstanding Actor in Play for the 2006 Awards, for a performance in an Off-Off-Broadway production that had made a brief run earlier that season. High-profile actors like Ralph Fiennes and David Schwimmer didn't receive nominations for their work that year -- but I did . . . (My) personal experience gives me no reason to doubt your commitment to recognizing outstanding work at all levels."
Ironically, Gatton's nomination wouldn't be possible now that Siegel oversaw the disqualification of showcase productions.
Murray says it's strange that Siegel is promoting a letter of support from "someone who's saying that, 'If it wasn't for Barbara, I never would've gotten on the ballot.' To which I say, 'Well, because of her you may never get on it again.'"
Phillips alleged that Siegel used her power as chief of the nominating committee to skew at least one vote result to reflect her personal taste. When off-off-Broadway show "Twist" — a sexually kinky spoof of "Oliver Twist" — was legitimately nominated as best musical, he says Siegel denounced it as "a potential embarrassment for the Drama Desk" and railroaded it off the ballot.
"Twist" author Gila Sands confirms to Gold Derby that Siegel may have had a personal reason for wanting to nix its legitimate nomination: "I heard that Barbara absolutely hated the show."
Phillips asserts that Siegel "replaced 'Twist' on the ballot with 'Mary Poppins'" — a big Broadway show lambasted by critics — adding, "It was at this point that I knew that Barbara Siegel was corrupt and an imminent danger to the integrity of this organization."
Wolf counters in a follow-up public statement: "I know from personal experience on the committee last season that Phillips' accusations against Barbara are total nonsense and patently false. All decisions are made according to votes within the committee."
Phillips agrees that a vote was taken, but claims that its outcome was "rigged."
"She basically coerced another member to change her vote," Phillips says. "This member went from a number six –- which is the highest score you can give something –- all the way down to a one. That's not how this process is supposed to work. Barbara's not supposed to have that kind of power."
Gold Derby e-mailed that voter, Glenda Frank, of Plays International and nytheatre-wire.com, to ask for comment, but she did not reply.
"People won't talk because Barbara has cultivated this culture of fear where people are basically afraid to speak out," Phillips asserts.
Andy Propst was a member of the nominating committee when the "Twist" vote occurred. He admits that the show was fairly nominated for best musical, that Siegel targeted it for removal from the ballot and that one voter changed her vote from six to one to accommodate its removal, but he says, "A re-vote of 'Twist' was taken because it didn't adequately reflect the landscape of that year."
Probst and Murray are among past members of the nominating committee who assert that re-votes rarely occurred, but one of the two members of the committee who resigned last year — Greg Bossler of the Dramatist Magazine — claims Siegel forced re-votes "again and again and again" in order to get a result she'd specify ahead of time.
"She would claim that we had to accommodate a groundswell of support for a show she was hearing about from other Drama Desk members," he says. "Who knows if what she was telling us was true?"
Bossler says Siegel was so demanding that "she insisted that we have a meeting on Easter morning even though one member of our committee was the writer for the Catholic Transcript," he says.
That journalist, Bernard Carragher, resigned from the panel along with Bossler on the eve of voting for nominations, thus throwing the balloting process into deliberate turmoil.
Bossler says Siegel "alienates anybody who's got any serious connection to the theater," he says.
"Look back through lists of publications that used to serve on the nominating committee years ago, back before Barbara took it over," he says. "Major ones. Playbill. The New York Daily News. Now look at it. Pretty soon Barbara's going to start asking the Punxsutawney Piggyback Shopper to be on the committee."
To see a rundown of who was on the nominating committee prior to, and during, Siegel's tenure as chief, CLICK HERE!
Siegel is not the only member of the committee accused of bullying members into torpedoing a legit nomination that they didn't like. There are reports that Wolf— who joined the committee to fill up one of the vacancies caused by Bossler's and Carragher's abrupt exits — was so outraged that a 12-year-old star of "Privilege" at Second Stage, Conor Donovan, was nominated in the best-actor category opposite famous, older leading men that he forced Donovan's bid from the ballot.
Even though the nominating meeting had already convened way past midnight, Wolf is accused of stonewalling the committee for hours until members finally got rid of the nomination.
When Gold Derby asked Andy Propst — a member of that year's committee, who is generally supportive of Wolf and Siegel — if that report was true, he hesitated, sighed and finally said with obvious reluctance, "I can confirm that."
He added in an effort to support Wolf, "Bill voiced some concern whether or not this was an appropriate nomination."
Donovan ended up winning a consolation prize that year: a Theatre World Award. Read a review of his performance in "Privilege" HERE
Technically, neither Wolf nor Siegel may qualify to be on the nominating committee — or even to be members of the Drama Desk organization, for that matter since both are chiefly Internet writers.
A few days ago Wolf dropped a bombshell revelation after some members demanded a copy of the Drama Desk's bylaws so they could see their rights. There's a strong suspicion among a growing rebel faction that the officers and board of directors were in violation of bylaws by not having the full membership vote on the rule change disqualifying showcase productions from award eligibility. What members found out when Wolf finally responded to their request — three months after it was first made — turned out to be more shocking than they suspected.
Wolf admitted, "The bylaws were created for the Drama Desk so very long ago that they had become hopelessly antiquated. For example, online writers wouldn't be eligible for membership . . . . Now the Drama Desk Executive Board (is) working on the finalization. As soon as that happens, the revised bylaws will be submitted to the entire membership for inspection and a vote on ratification."
Many members hope that the occasion will be one when radical changes can be made to the overall leadership of the Drama Desk, which they don't believe is open or truly democratic.
"Members get a preapproved ballot that you can vote up or down, so it's kind of like: do you approve of the politburo or not?" says Back Stage national theater editor Leonard Jacobs. "There is a spot to recommend someone for the board, but there's no way for someone to win at that late point when you're voting. So in that sense it's pretty rigged. I don't participate in the vote for officers because I don't think it's democratic. I've been very offended at the way that's perpetuated."
Murray calls the current election process "unconscionable" and voiced his objections to current chiefs, but got rebuffed.
"I said to Barbara, 'You know, I might be interested in becoming a member of the board and I mentioned that there's a place on the ballot for write-ins, but she admitted that no one could ever really be elected that way," he says. "She said that the only real way to get on the board is to be invited by current members.
"When I suggested that something was wrong with our vote-of-confidence ballot, Bill and Barbara took offense," he adds. "Barbara and I actually got in a feud about it that lasted the better part of six months because I didn't appreciate being stonewalled."
Later, Murray posted a comment on the Drama Desk's Yahoo e-mail service, telling fellow members, "I didn't think it was a good idea to have vote-of-confidence ballot issued before the annual meeting of the general membership so there can be no discussion of who we're voting on. Bill and Barbara really didn't like that. They sent me scorning e-mails saying that's not the kind of thing I should've sent to the whole Drama Desk mailing list because people might see it. My feeling was: if you can't talk about the Drama Desk on the Drama Desk mailing list, how and when can you ever fix any problem?
"The worst part of all of this is that so many Drama Desk members are from such fringe, out-of-the-way publications that the primary reason they're there is to get free Broadway tickets," Murray adds. "Bill and Barbara know that and know how to parlay that into something to keep them where they are. If there are 120 members of the Drama Desk, you'd need an absolute minimum of 60 people to get one member off the board and if that many people don't really care, that's going to be hard. And if there aren't open elections, that only makes it worse.
"Bill and Barbara are doing some weird, really questionable things, but if the membership doesn't care, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it . . . . ," he says with a sigh. "There are many people who'd like to make things better, but they're not given an opportunity. It makes me sad that all of this has happened to the Drama Desk."
Even though Propst remains a supporter of Wolf's and Siegel's and acknowledges that Siegel "serves well and serves passionately, there comes a time, as with anything, you need to change," he asserts.
I want to clarify three things about the article and its comments. First, Tom took some literary license with the quotes attributed to me, though they remain close in spirit to the points I made. Second, I left the committee before the final ballot, but contrary to Richie Ridge’s claim, I was present from July to April for each of the numerous votes and re-votes for the shortlist ballot. Third, and most distressing, was Richie’s claim about my departure, since I never talked with him about it. I explained my reasons to Barbara in a personal letter – and they certainly didn’t include that I "couldn't handle the demands." I am saddened, having read Tony’s letter, to see those concerns don't seem to have been addressed.
Posted by: Greg Bossler | May 19, 2008 at 08:27 AM
Richie Ridge -- As I explained to you in an email (sent to the correct address), I made the mistake of believing that you refused my invitation to be interviewed because you didn't respond to my repeated emails to a wrong email address. Sorry. Now at this point, if you'd like to say anything more than what you've said here in these blog comments, I will look forward to talking with you and reporting those views.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | May 18, 2008 at 05:57 PM
Being a producer of three Off-Broadway shows, I did some analysis of just how often Off-Broadway shows have won a Drama Desk award.
Read it on my blog here:
http://kendavenport.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/its-a-nice-awar.html
Posted by: Ken | May 18, 2008 at 02:20 PM
Being a friend of both Tony Phillips and Barbara Siegel for many years, I think Tom O'Neil would do well to do a little objective research on Mr. Phillips and his accusations.
The comely Mr. Phillips, who can be charming and amusing and almost witty at times, can also be an extremely "vicious queen" when he feels slighted. As a gay man who's known many vicious queens in his lifetime, let me note Mr. Phillips owns a pretty big tiara. He's adorable, but you should have seen him freak out when the studio releasing the film "Rent" came down on him.
Now Mr. Phillips has told me that he was "out to get " Barbara Siegel when he was kicked out of the Drama Desk Awards a few days after his letter was first printed in the New York Post. He then told my friend, a lesbian of note, a week or so later he "was out to destroy Barbara Siegel."
Mr. O'Neil, who constantly fantasizes he's a real journalist—read all his columns on the legitimacy of the Golden Globe Awards (oy vey!)—has now written a ridiculously twisted and snide column fueled by a man whose ego was damaged.
(As C.K. Chesterton once noted, " “One may understand the cosmos, but never the ego; the self is more distant than any star.”)
As for the showcase productions, I really can't speak knowledgably on this matter, but how many of these productions are reviewed by any major publication in New York City? Sadly, the answer is probably next to none. And, by the way, how many showcase productions has Mr. O'Neil ever written about?
And if what you say is true about this new Showcase Rule, find out why. Possibly, the number of shows are too burdensome for every member of the group to see. How many shows can a person see in one year?
And why doesn't Mr. O'Neil hold the film industry and their awards to the same standards he's holding the Drama Desk Awards to? How about an Oscar for Jonas Mekas? Or Jenni Olson?
But to be honest, may I state both Mr. Phillips and Ms. Siegel both champion small shows. They have both dragged me to tiny, tiny, tiny little plays in little flea-bitten theaters, and they have both stayed on at productions that I was zooming out from at intermission.
But let's discuss Ms. Siegel's character for a moment. Here's a woman who has given her life to supporting theater and cabaret. She goes to at least three or four events a day. And she's been doing this for decades. And decades.
As for her being scary or domineering or evil, this is a teeny, itsy, bitsy, little woman who has a great sense of humor, extreme intelligence, and a fashion-sense that at one time was a little boa heavy. She's a loyal friend and a stoic critic, who will go to shows even when she's coming down with pneumonia.
Mr. O'Neil's and Tony's current portrait of Barbara is one ridiculous lie. Ask Tony how he felt when Barbara got him on the committee.
I could go on, but I've truthfully had enough. This is an attack by someone who loves theater on another person who loves theater, and the Drama Desk Awards seems to be getting tarred and feathered by journalists who should be writing for the National Enquirer instead being linked to the Los Angeles Times.
Posted by: imnotcocteau | May 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM
As someone not affiliated with the Drama Desk, who has worked in the industry but does not have a particular show in contention this year -- that the Drama Desk have long had a reputation for being unscrupulous and self-interested. The truths coming to light now have long been known and discussed inside the industry. I'm not sure that their reputation can be saved at this point. If awards are not transparent and above-board, what good are they?
Posted by: Truthfulness | May 17, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Have you no shame, Mr. O'Neil? Don't you know that you are basing this ridiculous attack against the Drama Desk on the words of someone who is widely known to be out to destroy Barbara Siegel. Tony Phillips has used those words exactly. I was in a room when he spoke them. He has a personal vendetta and you are helping him at the cost of the reputation of a lot of good and decent people. These issues that you call scandalous, when read by any thoughtful person, are a joke. You can't possibly believe that anyone in the Drama Desk or the theater community in general takes them seriously. Most of the people you quote are either former Drama Desk members who were either booted or quit, or they are well-known cranks with chips on their shoulders.
Posted by: Keith Chapman | May 17, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Concerning the Drama Desk controversy, as the old Greek saying goes, "The fish rots from the head." Its current leadership has lost all credibility, and it's time they were replaced.
Posted by: Palonius | May 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Richard Ridge- Drama Desk Nominator and proud Drama Desk Member response to Tom O’ Neil:
On the eve of the Drama Desk Awards I find it very sad that Tom O’Neil’s one-sided negative attack on the Drama Desk, its president William Wolf and its nominating committee chairperson Barbara Siegel, has come out from under a rock. Most of the people, these so-called prominent members, who were contacted and quoted for this article have their own personal axe to grind with Mr. Wolf and Ms. Siegel because they either asked to be on the nominating committee and were refused, or they were let go from serving on it again. Also some just want to harm and cripple the administration and the organization for personal reasons. In an organization this size it’s not hard to find a few bad apples.
In any case, the article is full of inaccuracies. Mr. O’Neil states that I refused to be interviewed for the article. I was never asked. I believe the reason he didn’t contact me is because I don’t have anything negative to say. He could have contacted me through my weekly television program Broadway Beat or through Broadway World. I have served for the past few years on the Drama Desk Nominating Committee with Ms. Siegel and am proud to have done so. I have also been the committees’ secretary for those terms. After Tony Phillips was fired from the committee, I was told by an ex- nominator that he was calling around town and contacting anyone who would help him try and destroy the Drama Desk, Mr. Wolf and Ms. Siegel, which I think is really sad. He knows why he was let go. Couldn’t he just save his dignity and let it be? I served on the nominating committee the same years as Tony Phillips, Matthew Murray and Andy Propst. My take on these accusations are considerably different from theirs.
In the article O’Neil accuses the Drama Desk Awards of being rigged in favor of Broadway. If you look back at the past few years of nominations you can see that this just isn’t so. For the years that I have been on the nominating committee, The Drama Desk has looked at and evaluated Broadway, off- Broadway and off- off Broadway with equal enthusiasm. During the process, discussions can be very heated and people don’t always get their way, but the actual voting process is a very fair one.
O’Neil goes on to say that many email blasts have been sent out containing extensive testimonials hailing Siegel and her leadership. You can only get to it from a link in the article. I suggest that readers go there and review them. He also states that some of the endorsements are seriously questionable. Tony Phillips says that the letter from Jack Cummings, artistic director of Transport Group, ‘is a little weird, considering he just got a special award from Barbara last season.” This is an all out lie. Barbara can’t just give an award. They, too, are discussed and voted upon by the entire committee. We all took great pride in giving Transport that award. I should know I was there.
As for the allegation that it was Ms. Siegel who replaced ‘Twist’ on the ballot with ‘Mary Poppins’, that also is a lie. I was there in the room. She just can’t take something off and replace it with something else. Phillips accuses Siegel of coercing another member to change her vote. We had a discussion and a revote. It was done with a vote by the entire nominating committee. I would also like to say to the shows author, Gila Sands, that it was Ms. Siegel who was one of the shows biggest champions. You were obviously misled by someone with a negative agenda. I went to see Twist on Barbara’s recommendation! If Mr. Phillips was so appalled by the ‘Twist’ situation, why did he agree to come back for another year on the committee? And why did he wait to complain about it until after he was fired?
To continue on the false accusations of changing votes, throughout the process committee members could re-visit categories and ask for a discussion and revote. That's why the attack on Bill Wolf is also unwarranted. The issues were discussed and regardless of what any one person thinks, the outcome can only change if the majority of the committee agrees. That's true for every vote in every category; that's why these charges are so malicious. It’s unfortunate when someone doesn’t get their way in a revote but what readers are seeing here isn’t a manipulation of the process, it’s people complaining because they didn’t get their way. The final result has always been a ballot agreed upon by the entire committee
Greg Bossler, who was one of the nominators who resigned last year along with Bernard Carragher, claims that Siegel forced re-votes “again and again and again.” I don’t understand why he would say that. He quit before we began voting. O’Neil also states that they walked out because of serious dissent over management of the nominating committee. They both told me they walked because they couldn’t handle the demands of the actual voting process which takes place over a long weekend. Bossler also goes on to attack Siegel by saying that she stacks the committee with writers from small, obscure publications. Maybe his was small, but as far as I know many of the nominators write for well known outlets.
What is even worse in the article is Matthew Murray’s derogatory comment about the Drama Desk members and that Bill Wolf and Barbara Siegel, ‘keep them there because they know how to parlay that into something to keep them where they are. Does Mr. Murray, who wanted to be a board member, really think that the members he has so little regard for, would actually vote him onto the board? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
It is very sad that an organization that has been around for so many years honoring
quality in the theatre has to be subjected to a few rebel members who aren’t happy because they can’t get their way. I along with many other Drama Desk members will be celebrating at Sunday nights award show and will be applauding an administration and organization that I am proud to be a part of.
Richard Ridge
Broadway Beat T.V.
Broadway World
Posted by: rjridge | May 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
An award given by liars and bullys and cheats... Tacky.
When did third rate critics start acting like Republicans during an election?
Advertising that a show has won this award will no longer be criteria for me buying a ticket.
Posted by: NicNacName42 | May 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Already heard from Andy Propst and Matthew Murray after they saw this piece. Andy thanked me for a "balanced and hopefully useful article."
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | May 17, 2008 at 05:13 AM
I will say at the outset that I was contacted for this piece, albeit in a roundabout way that was not communicated to me till days after the fact. Competent bloggers should realize there are easier, web-based ways to contact individuals, starting with Google.
But as I knew not to expect competency from this article, I declined to respond. Anyone who came here via the hysterical "All That Chat" posting about it, no doubt made by the author or someone affliliated with the site, knew not to expect anything rational or nuanced, and they were not disappointed.
A bit about myself. I write on theater primarily for two publications, Live Design and New York Theater News. Live Design magazine has existed in some incarnation for 40 years, and has had a web presence since the mid-90s. The New York Theater News newsletter is the local offshoot of a 20-year-old London publication, and has a growing web profile. While these may not have the cachet of other publications they have lasted considerably longer than most, and they have prestige and an impact. They are not "obscure" to the people who read them, in print or online, and I find it puzzling that someone with nominating experience should belittle smaller publications at a time when magazines and newspapers large and small are contracting. We all play our part and should be proud of what we accomplish in difficult times for publishing. Being a nominator is no small task, and those nominated should know we take our duties as seriously as someone from a higher-profile title.
Readers should bear in mind that some interviewed for this piece were not really nominators. They started out that way, but they are ex-nominators, dismissed from our ranks or unable to fulfill their obligations. Perhaps never-nominators is a better term. They never made it to the final deliberations. I find it difficult to take their gripes and potshots seriously, and readers should, too. Why the catalyst of this friction chose to stay on the committee for a second term, despite the seeming horror of the first, is a mystery.
After seeing hundreds of plays, on, Off, and Off Off Broadway, attending numerous necessary sessions and participating in a final week of intense and scrupulously fair deliberations that went long into the evening--yielding a widely varied selection of nominations that no one questioned in this piece--I have earned the right to complain about skulduggery and mistreatment. But I have nothing to complain about. The experience was thoroughly rewarding, and I can assure Drama Desk voters that a) the controversy that erupted as we sat down to deliberate did nothing to sway our votes on, Off, or Off Off Broadway and b) their own suggestions were seriously considered.
Within the piece you will find a link to letters made in support of this year's committee and its conduct. Mine is among them. I urge readers to review them. I was distressed to find the motivations of theater professionals who contributed letters of their own questioned by the author and his sources in the main article. Alienating representatives of the community we profess to honor when they come to our defense is shameful.
I would at least hope that fellow members and former nominators who contributed their quotes are having second thoughts, whatever they feel is their personal stake in their matter. Like it or not they are defending harmful and indefensible actions. The mooted "change from within," a campaign invisible to me and I would assume much of the membership, is now happening from without. It was initiated by a disgruntled former member, who in resigning to the New York Post placed it in the hands of writers whose only motivation is to get eyes on their site.They would like to see more headlines. I would like to see the show go on, in defiance of their aims, and so should we all.
Robert Cashill
Drama Desk Nominator 2007-2008 season
Posted by: Robert Cashill | May 17, 2008 at 01:04 AM
Gracious, this is all a wee bit over-dramatic. Some of the people interviewed have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills (oh, theater people). I'm a DD voter. Barbara called me personally last year just to inquire if I would like to be considered for the nominating committee. I've talked to her numerous times at shows, and she's simply one of the nicest people around, genuinely and passionately devoted to theater. Most people have no idea how much work goes into a position like hers (she sees EVERYTHING, including tons and tons of Off-Off-Bway). It's very possible that new leadership is needed for the DD, just because it's always good to change things up every once in awhile in an organization. But I hate to see a decent woman dragged through the mud in the process.
Posted by: DD Member | May 16, 2008 at 10:04 PM
The manipulation to remove Conor Donovan and Twist is very disturbing. I did not see Twist, but Conor Donovan is an excellent actor and should not have been excluded because of age. (BTW, Tom, Conor Donovan won the Theatre World Award, not the World Theatre Award.)
Posted by: mike | May 16, 2008 at 09:51 PM