NAC PESP 7 OUTCOMES
NAC Must Communicate With Applicants Who Never Reached Adjudication
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
As the arts and culture sector waits for the expected announcement of the National Arts Council’s (NAC) PESP 7 funding outcomes, there is another important issue that deserves attention: the applicants whose proposals were screened out at the compliance stage should be formally informed before the final outcomes are announced.
Receiving a decline letter is painful. For many artists and organisations, funding applications represent months of preparation and, in some cases, hope for the survival of a project, organisation or livelihood. However, a clear and timely regret letter is far better than allowing applicants to wait anxiously for an outcome date when their applications never even reached the Adjudication Panel.
This is not a new expectation. The NAC has, in previous funding cycles, communicated declines to applicants whose applications did not proceed beyond compliance screening. It is therefore reasonable to ask: why has this practice seemingly changed?
Every year, artists and organisations raise concerns about compliance requirements that appear to involve relatively minor administrative issues — an undated or unsigned reference letter, an outdated supporting document, or an identification document that may have expired or not been submitted in the required format.
There is an important distinction between administrative shortcomings that can potentially be corrected and fundamental compliance failures. Institutions such as the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF), for example, have mechanisms where applicants may be contacted and asked to clarify or submit missing documentation. Requirements such as a valid tax number, tax compliance documentation, an appropriate bank account or valid South African identification are understandably more fundamental.
Perhaps the NAC needs to reconsider how it approaches compliance.
The National Arts Council is a national arts funding institution NOT a “National Arts Compliance” institution. Its ultimate responsibility should be to facilitate the development and sustainability of South Africa's arts sector while maintaining proper governance, accountability and fairness.
If an application is rejected because it failed a compliance requirement, applicants deserve to know this before they are left waiting for a funding announcement. Transparency is not only about publishing successful names; it is also about communicating clearly with those who were unsuccessful and explaining, where appropriate, why their applications did not proceed.
Today, many artists and organisations are understandably anxious as they wait for the PESP 7 outcomes. The uncertainty becomes even more frustrating when applicants do not know whether their applications reached the adjudication process at all.
There are also broader questions about the institutional environment at the NAC. Are there disagreements or unresolved matters between the Council, management and officials that could be contributing to delays? If such issues exist, the sector deserves transparency about them. If they do not, then clear communication would help prevent speculation.
Ultimately, only time will tell what is happening behind the scenes.
But one thing should not be difficult: applicants deserve to know where their applications stand.
A regret letter may hurt, but silence hurts more particularly when an applicant is waiting for an outcome that their application was never eligible to reach.
Perhaps the PESP 7 process is an opportunity for the NAC to review its compliance procedures, improve communication with applicants and restore confidence in the funding system. The arts sector does not expect every application to succeed. It expects the process to be fair, transparent, humane and accountable.
.jpeg)
Comments