I'm not sure why being an active screenwriter is a vital prerequisite for being a WGA officer -- especially for someone like Vicky Riskin who, through her husband, her personal background and her recent-enough work history is surely intimately aware of what it is to be a working writer. What I'd really like to know is why this story broke now. The Times made brief mention of the tipster -- someone I've never heard of and whose motive as we begin a volatile contract negoiation period is arguably a more interesting part of the story than Riskin's indiscretion.

But she doesn't have much of a resume (outside of Mom and Dad), and in a time when more and more shows are non-union, I think the president should know what's going on in the trenches. I think she wanted to be the president so she could guide the WGA inso even mroe"social activism" stuff--in a time when reality-tv has sucked union jobs away.

The response of "Eric" is wonderful. First off, Vicky Riskin and the WGAw staff that has disenfranchised thousands of Guild members has no leverage in any upcoming negotiation, and the studios no it. Think Custer at the Little Big Horn when you think of Riskin "leading" the WGAw into collective bargaining.
Eric is a writer who wants to shoot the messenger. He wants to blame the "tipster" for Vicky Riskin's problems. Well, Vicky allegedly committed election fraud. The charges are just as serious as the old charges against George Christy for SAG pension fraud. As I recall, someone tried to shoot the messengers back then, too. Call journos David Robb and Anita Busch if you disagree.
Here's a tip for you newshounds. Why did the Guild management staff do some staff "housecleaning" before the current NLRB investigation? Why has the new WGAw general counsel, handpicked by Vicky Riskin and her husband, just had to reactivate his bar card after years of inactivity as a lawyer? And what is the real history of Charles Holland, the man slated to succeed Vicky as the guild's president?

dave -- I didn't say anything about shooting any messengers. I do find it suspicious, though, that this issue has torpedoed the Guild at this time, and I thought that should be a part of the story.

As for the babble at the end of your note, I have no idea what you're implying by calling into question the ethics of the WGA's general counsel, or by questioning "the real history" of Charles Holland, a man I've worked with and so can understand why he's universally well respected within and outside the Guild.

What is your agenda, dave? And while you're warning us to suspect everyone else's motives, maybe you can tell us why the name you've posted here indicates that you're male, while your email address would suggest otherwise?