On Monday 29 June, the House of Representatives will discuss the opinion of the Council for Culture. An opinion that, as noted the Volkskrant Friday 26 June, rightly, received far more criticism than previous opinions. In doing so, the paper reaffirms what we had already said immediately after its release on 4 June written up: there is a total lack of transparency, a suspicion of conflict of interest and official arbitrariness. Not in one case, but in many: the festivals, the (pop) music, the dance, and last but not least: the development institutions.
Just under 50 of those institutions, all of which applied for money and were not granted in all cases, are surprised at the way the advice was arrived at. 'A majority of the institutions that signed this letter see large amounts of inaccuracies in their advice. In addition to minor technical errors, sometimes Council statements are demonstrably based on a superficial reading of the relevant applications.'
No building
Thus, the drafters observe a form of arbitrariness, although they do not use that word: 'Some institutions are praised for their talent policy while others with a demonstrably better track record are approached hypercritically. For some applications, the lack of a building was immediate grounds for rejection while other applicants were given a positive recommendation on the condition that they would still provide accommodation. For some, diversity rules are applied more strictly than for other applicants.'
It goes further: 'In its opinions, the council does not always seem to be able to distinguish between a superficial approach and a diversity policy well thought out on all fronts. There seems to be no proper distinction between institutions that have only very recently started working with inclusiveness in some way and organisations that have had this process in their DNA from their inception and those that are going through this process more honestly and deeply.' Not to mention the horse-trading (sic) surrounding Oerol and the curious state of affairs surrounding Joop van den Endes MusicalMakers.
Priceless
Had the Culture Council been an applicant to be assessed, it would have been hopeless. The question now is how it could have come this far. A quick look back shows that the Council owes it entirely to itself, and to minister Ingrid van Engelshoven. Last year, the latter issued a starting point letter outlining a basic infrastructure that no longer had anything at all to do with the BIS as it was set up in 2008.
Years of fussing in the House, incomplete lobbying and cherrypicking created a visionless hotchpotch. Meanwhile, the differences between the have's and have-not's grew and we got a premier league (the BIS) and a second garnish (The Funds). The system was never meant to be like that. The system was meant to secure a base of nationally important 'functions', where flexibility and development would be guaranteed through the cultural funds.
Enough has been said about it, including here, but so that system has been turned upside down and what we get in return is a system in which arbitrariness and conflicts of interest are built in, as it were.
Lobby
What should the Chamber do on Monday? We are going to see in the debate how much success the lobbyists of the various sub-sectors have had in feeding the culture spokesmen. The PVV will start talking about Afrikaans and want the Netherlands above everything, and all the serious parties will together, via motions, make the vague patchwork that the BIS has already become even more vague. Will the requested (at least 40) millions be added structurally? I don't think so. It will stick to some occasional goodies.
All we can hope for is that the Chamber decides on a transition period, until 2024 at the latest, during which a totally new subsidy system can be designed. I said in a previous message already provided a starter. Free. Still, saves a few tonnes of expensive consultants. Take advantage of it.
If not: donations are very welcome!
Good to know
English (UK) 
Nederlands 
Français 
){kind=link}