The complaint, currently being evaluated by the Director of Grants for the Arts, is being treated at stage one of Arts Council England’s published complaints procedure, with a decision expected on or before December 9th, 2011. In the event of Interlitq’s complaint not being upheld by Grants for the Arts’ chief executive, recourse can be made to an independent complaints reviewer (ICR) or Ombudsman. Peter Robertson informs the Director of Grants for the Arts about “a less-than-cordial relationship between ‘Interlitq’ and ‘3am’ dating back to 2009”, with documentary evidence to bear out this claim.
By Ana de Biase
In a week at the most, by December 9th, 2011, Peter Robertson, the President of the on-line literary review, Interlitq (www.interlitq.org) will know whether Interlitq’s complaint to Arts Council England, on the grounds of a “possible conflict of interest” will be upheld.
Peter Robertson lodged an official complaint on November 25th, in light of the fact that the “Assessor” in ACE’s funding decision has acted as a Contributing Editor for the literary review, “3am” and in late November 2011 was tweeting on a site reserved for “3am” editors.
On November 29th, 2011, Peter Robertson wrote to the Director of Grants for the Arts, “I am somewhat concerned about this matter, in view of the fact that the ACE ‘Assessor’ in this funding decision has a strong affiliation with another literary review and, as a result, I believe that a case could be made for ‘a possible conflict of interest’. I am aware that the ‘Assessor’ was as of February 2010 a Contributing Editor for another literary review, ‘3am’. I am not aware of this individual's current affiliation with ‘3am’ but, extrapolating from the fact that he was tweeting on the ‘3am’ Editors' page less than a week ago, it is clear that he is still identifying himself with this editorial position, and projecting himself as a ‘3am’ Editor to the public.
I do not think that it is correct that an Editor for one literary review, or an individual who has a strong affiliation with such a literary review, should be accorded due authority to adjudge the merits of another review, and be in a position to decide to withhold funding from this review.”
I do not think that it is correct that an Editor for one literary review, or an individual who has a strong affiliation with such a literary review, should be accorded due authority to adjudge the merits of another review, and be in a position to decide to withhold funding from this review.”
In response to this e-mail, the Director of Grants for the Arts stated: “I will be investigating the specific issues that you raise over the next few days and if I find that the assessment process has not been applied appropriately to your application I can ask for your application to be reconsidered. You will receive a written response to your complaint from me by 9th December.”
On November 29th, 2011, Peter Robertson also informed the Director of Grants of background information relating to “a less-than-cordial relationship between ‘Interlitq’ and ‘3am’, dating back to 2009” and asked that this be taken into account, while pointing to documentary information in Interlitq’s possession that will bear out this claim.
Ana de Biase teaches at the Universidad Europea in Madrid, where she is also a freelance writer and literary translator.
No comments:
Post a Comment