Film academy Trips over Its own rules, racing to answer calls for diversity

A restructuring of the film academy’s board must pass muster at its next session, which will occur after Sunday’s Oscars broadcast.CreditChris Pizzello/Associated Press

(THE NEW YORK TIMES) In announcing diversity-oriented institutionalreformsafter a special session of its governing board last month, theAcademy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciencesgot ahead of its own rules: In fact, some of the deepest planned changes have not met procedural requirements in the group’s bylaws, and have yet to be enacted, a spokeswoman for the group acknowledged on Monday.

A contentious move to purge the academy’s Oscar-voting rolls of members who have not been active according to certain guidelines would not be affected by this procedural hiccup.

At issue, however, is the academy’s announcement on Jan. 22 that its 51-member governing board would “immediately increase diversity” byadding three seats, to which members would be nominated by the president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, and confirmed by the board. Traditionally, nominees stand for election by the individual branches of the academy, such as the acting, directing and design branches, among others. The academy did not follow its procedural timetable for making that change.

Envelopes and award announcement cards for the 88th Oscars to be held Sunday.CreditRobyn Beck/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The hitch undercuts the academy’s earlier announcement of what seemed a fait accompli — significant structural changes meant to address a wave of criticism over its membership’s lack of diversity. While it appears rather unlikely that the board will reverse course, it remains exposed to the possibility that a restructuring could fail to garner the two-thirds majority requirement for bylaws changes. That could happen if a substantial number of governors, besieged by member complaints, were to reverse what was described as a unanimous vote.

The procedural misstep also lends credence to claims by some that the sudden restructuring proposal was an ill-conceived public-relations maneuver meant to disarm a boycott call that was provoked by the announcement of anall-white slate of acting nomineesfor the second straight year.

“The ‘sweeping changes’ that the academy announced to increase diversity among members were anything but ‘sweeping,’ ” Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, said in an email last week.

“The goal was to snatch lots of favorable P.R., give the appearance of change and make the protest go away,” he said.

Changing the process of adding new board members requires a major revision of the academy’s bylaws, which specify the board’s makeup and electoral procedures. But any such revision, according to bylaws approved last June, can occur only by a vote of the membership, or at a governors meeting for which notice of particular changes has been provided at least 10 days in advance. That notice was not provided for the special meeting.

Now the board restructuring, and perhaps other changes, must pass muster at the board’s next session, which will occur after the Oscar broadcast on Sunday.

In acknowledging the need for another board vote, the academy spokeswoman, in a statement, said the two-step process was typical of action by private organizations and consistent with the adoption of “prior amendments and resolutions.”

The academy’s emergency session convened on Jan. 21, seven days after the Oscar nominations were announced, and left no time for full notice of a bylaws revision.

As late as the day before the special meeting, people briefed on academy dealings, speaking on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality strictures, said the group would defer changes at least until a regularly scheduled board meeting, which occurred the Tuesday after. Those people also said the board would look more closely at Oscar balloting procedures than at deeper structural changes, at least for the moment.

But as criticism of the academy's largely white membership and choices mounted, there was a push for immediate action, driven byPhil Alden Robinson, a governor and the academy’s secretary, according to people briefed on the process.

In an email on Saturday, Mr. Robinson, a writer and director perhaps best known for the film “Field of Dreams,” referred questions to other academy officials. “I feel pretty strongly the academy should speak with one voice,” he said.

In its Jan. 22 statement, the academy identified Mr. Robinson as having “led the efforts to enact these initiatives.” Speaking on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality strictures, people briefed on the board’s actions said Mr. Robinson’s insistence on a special session superseded more deliberate timetables envisioned by Ms. Isaacs and by Dawn Hudson, the academy’s chief executive.

The academy spokeswoman declined to address those deliberations.

Less clear than issues around the restructuring of the governing board are issues that touch on a promise to add new members to internal committees. Each branch within the academy has its own executive and nominating committees; but the president is empowered to appoint the chairman of each committee, unless that power is assigned to another officer. The bylaws, as revised last June, do not specifically authorize Ms. Isaacs or the board simply to add women or minority committee members to bolster diversity.

In announcing the board and committee changes on Jan. 22, Ms. Isaacs said the group’s intention was “to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up” with diversity efforts. The statement also said the committee reorganization was intended to “identify and nurture future leaders.”

Those declarations were consistent with Ms. Isaacs’ call, at a banquet in November, for an effort by the group to “encourage and to push the industry to examine its hiring practices and to begin to make changes.”

Still, the group, under existing bylaws, faces limits on steps that any of its officials might take to change industry hiring — for example, a change motivated by the political leanings of one or more members.

“As the academy is nonpolitical, it shall take no part in public issues regarding economic, political or religious questions,” reads one crucial bylaws provision. Under this provision, any two members of the governing board can table an action that is seen to represent a political view, or that might affect the economic interests of members in any labor dispute.

The academy spokeswoman said the prohibition against dealing with economic issues barred involvement in labor disputes, but it does not prohibit “taking a position on issues crucial to the industry’s future.” Those, she says, are actually required by a mission statement, in the bylaws, that charges the group with “shaping the future of motion pictures.”

Threading its way through such issues, the academy’s governors will also be facing calls for greater transparency and member engagement.

In a letter to the governors last week, for instance, David Horowitz, a longtime publicist whose own voting rights are secure thanks to decades of activity, suggested that the academy, like public corporations, should consider annual membership meetings.

“I don’t feel it’s too late this year to quickly gather a group, in Los Angeles, at least, and let members voice their concerns before new details of the changes are decided and announced,” Mr. Horowitz wrote. “I think it could go a long way toward making members feel included and not excluded, as many seem to feel now.”