Panel beating is wrong

ArtsProfessional’s article ‘Time and budget running out for ‘Column’ on the Mersey’ (AP260) about the North West’s Artists Taking the Lead commission contains a number of inaccuracies in relation to the judging panel and process which I’d like to clear up for the benefit of readers.
None of the panel members had any prior relationship with Anthony McCall or any of the applicant projects prior to the selection process. Panel Chair Geoff Wood and panel member Stephen Snoddy did not ‘join the project team’ but, as your article later says, became external advisors and it is untrue to say this type of relationship didn’t develop in other parts of the country. As the Arts Council informed AP on 3 December, all of the selection panels went on to advise and support the projects that they had selected. Those panel members were attending as individuals, not representing an organisation or statutory body, and were paid a flat fee (by the Arts Council) in recognition that they were giving up their time and providing valuable expertise to the various artist teams. Tanya Bryan left her post at the Arts Council in March 2010 and was subsequently contracted as Programme Director for Column in May 2010.

None of these relationships could be considered improper and all are a matter of public record. I therefore fail to see how AP can conclude that they ‘raised questions about the independence of the judging process’.

The individuals concerned acted with integrity and professionalism and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Editor’s response: 1. At the time of writing, Geoff Wood and Stephen Snoddy were named on the ‘Column’ website as being part of the project’s Delivery Team. Since AP received this letter, the description of their roles has been changed on this website, removing reference to their being in the delivery team.Tanya Bryan, who was originally listed as Programme Director and a member of the Studio team, is now listed among the contractors. 2. Arts Council England is right to point out that AP was informed that all of the selection panels went on to advise and support the projects that they had selected. This information was included in an email that was misread in the reporting of this story, and we apologise for this error. We asked ACE why the two consultants were selected to perform their role and what was the application process for selecting them. ACE has replied that it holds no records in relation to either of these questions.  There was no separate selection process. 3. Regarding questions about the independence of the judging panel, AP has merely reflected concerns about a number of aspects of the ATTL project in the North West that have been raised by various sources during our investigations. 4. As we have said before in relation to other investigations, AP’s intention in its news reporting is to present key facts around the issues that are drawn to our attention. If our factual error (see point 2) has in any way cast doubt on the integrity and professionalism of those named in this piece, then again we apologise unreservedly to those concerned, as it was not our intention to do so. Read Editor Liz Hill’s blog ‘Jobs for the boys?’ for her reflections on this point.