 |
Open Dialogue IXSan Jose, California
|
Panel Processes
Convener: Betty W Switzer
Recorder: Yolanda R Alameda
Participants:
Maria Dadgar, ATLATL–Native Arts Network, Ronnie Jessie, City of Dallas, Office of Cultural Affairs, Wun Mark, Cantonese Opera Association–Silicon Valley, Adrianne Devereux, WESTAF, John Seto, California Arts Council
The Key Question:
How do we keep panels and panelists comments on track, targeted and constructive?
Discussion:
Panelist's training is important and distinction between staff and panelist's roles is crucial.
Staff should provide organizational history with funding, policy feedback, clarify and redirect panel process when it gets off track.
Remind panelists that not all recommendations will go forward.
Perhaps adopt practices of recording only comments as restated by the recorder and agreed upon by all panelists.
Question/Point:
Is there a way that we can do away with the panel process or radically change the way we review applications?
Panel process is a requirement for disbursing public funding and should take into account panelists that reflect the discipline, ethnicity, gender and geographic diversity.
One Example of a Different Approach:
Assign an odd number of panelists to review the application (i.e. three members, not the entire panel) and have only those panelists discuss and vote on that application. This allows for a more thorough review.
Example Two:
Perhaps each panelist concentrates on reviewing only certain criteria or aspects, again to shorten the focus and perhaps allow for a more thorough review.
Question/Point:
Should TAAC provide guidelines/ground rules for panel process?
Point/Question:
Is legitimate selective focus still necessary to apply to organizations of color or at some point should veteran organizations of color be expected to diversify boards?
What is the directive to funding organizations from TAAC? Does the field need a directive? Yes!