How to focus ACTT's struggles

The following is a discussion post I created on the ACTT's NAPA facebook group.  Check there for additional comments from fellow group members.

Dear ACTT and fellow facebook fans,

I am not an artist. I'm a consumer who appreciates the arts and I support your struggle. However, there are some things I find distracting as an outsider and would like to use this discussion to generate constructive criticism for you.

I read the original PDF report where you laid out the problems with NAPA and have followed whatever was published on the three dailies' websites and discussions on C TV's First Up.

Here's what I like so far:

• The report laid out the NAPA Centre's faults and ACTT's concerns
• The report mentioned an example of how construction with consultation would work (Shaw Park)
• Your interview on First Up was very clear, to the point, and passionate without being overly emotional
• You're keeping the public informed through traditional and new media (Internet).

Here are some of the things I don't like:

• Your passion is important, but it needs to be controlled in your writing; uppercase text is used to emphasise, but overuse of uppercase text is considered shouting or ranting online.
• Your original report had a lot of typographical and formatting errors. Maybe you were trying to hasten its publishing, but at times it looked very sloppy.
• You are producing a lot of documents/notes/reports, but there is a lot of copying between them; e.g. your recent facebook note about Pat Bishop is 11 paragraphs long, but Pat is only mentioned briefly in the last two paragraphs; from the title, I expected a summary of what happened to Pat and a concise explanation of why she needs to be re-instated, not wholesale copying of an earlier note on the State of Play.
• As a result, the quality of your message is being drowned in the quantity of words you use.
• Some of the original report wasn't clear, e.g. who's involved in the Shaw Park project, how is ACTT involved, who was in the tour of 17 Jan 2010
• There is no single clear website for ACTT, which has the organisation's constitution, a statement of purpose, the names of the organisations it represents, a summary of how it came into being and representative members (this info is either lacking or on several websites, so appears disjointed)
• Like Junia Regrello, ACTT is claiming a figure for repairs, but none of the people on both sides appear to be properly qualified to calculate those figures: it undermines your credibility.
• While the public needed to be informed about the issue, shaming the government continuously in such a public manner won't endear you to them as partners.
• In your facebook note on Pat Bishop, you said the publishing of articles this past weekend confirming some flaws put the first phase to bed, but it really hasn't: we still need to get all of your accusations confirmed, and a proper analysis of how to fix them.

So here are the initial recommendations that I'm raising for discussion:

(1) Clarify your foundation
As an outsider, I don't know what makes the ACTT a credible mouthpiece for the artists. Your fellow artists may know the history, but the general public doesn't. So ACTT needs a proper website to describe who they are, when were they created, how they came about, what they stand for and how the leaders were selected. The ACTT facebook page has a link to www.generationlion.com, but the website is www.generationlion.org - correct this. I felt Generation Lion is really Rubadiri Victor's organisation, not ACTT's. ACTT needs their own website. That is propbably why some folks outside the community are wondering if this is really an artist-driven group or a Rubadiri-driven group. It appears as though you will create separate facebook pages for each ACTT cause (starting with NAPA). Don't copy reports to both websites - either put the reports on the ACTT website and links to them on your facebook page or vice versa. Remember, though, facebook is a walled garden - you have to be a member/fan to access stuff posted there, whereas any Internet user can see your website.

(2) Clarify your message
Stop padding your posts by copying large parts of your earlier reports unnecessarily. On TV/radio, you need to repeat yourself often, but on the Internet, such repetition angers readers, since they will start thinking any new notes/reports are just rehashed old ones and a waste of their time. When you produce a new note, include links to the old notes and focus your text on what new information you would like to share. If a report is long, put a one-page executive summary at the start. You need to respect your Internet supporters by giving them control of how much info they read - the average web user only spends a few minutes browsing a website. Clarify your post regarding Pat Bishop, and pull-out the Shaw Park example as a short but proper case study of how it can work. For your readers' sake, don't copy huge bits of the original report and try your best to get someone else besides the author to proof-read it so you don't have distracting errors.

(3) Improve your credibility
When you quote a number, explain how you came up with it. The court of public opinion used to accept groundless figures, but no more. ACTT's repair quote of TT$80 million is as bad as Junia Regrello's quote of TT$20 million, and one of his technocrats saying "We're still working out how much it'll cost, but it isn't $80 million." Lies undermine your credibility - figures without clear bases look like lies. You need to clarify who calculated the figures you claimed and what qualified them to make those estimates. Also, you complained that the government hasn't done enough to record the knowledge of the elder artists, and that 17,000 of them have died. The number 17,000 may as well be 17 - the public doesn't know who the 17,000 people are, so why should we believe you? You may think 17,000 seems incredible, but really it looks uncredible. Put their names, their role and their date of death on the ACTT website. Clarify what the ACTT has been doing without government help to solve the problem (e.g. the Generation Lion magazines). Put authors' names and dates on reports, and state who was consulted while producing them.

(4) Get the government on your side
Now that the Culture Ministry has been publicly shown to be wrong, ACTT needs to partner with them. Like industrial strikes, prolonged embarassment will not solve anything - it will only entrench bad behaviour and negativity. Meet with the Ministry; when you speak about the issue, start with at least one thing that the government did right in the project, or things that the government is doing right for artists so you show you appreciate the good and the bad. Pretend you are the government - what would you have liked to achieve, and how would an ACTT stakeholder help achieve that? If you can show the government that you appreciate their views and are willing to help them achieve mutually satisfying goals, then you would have a base for progress. Otherwise, they can't be faulted for thinking ACTT is just a bunch of no-help complainers. Don't let government's immaturity discourage you; rise above it and demonstrate the respect you wish to receive.

(5) Get other stakeholders on your side
Do you have a better idea of how government can contribute to the arts and maximise their investment? Then get some finance professionals to help draft a proposal and meet with the Finance Minister. Unit Trust has consistently invested in the arts; get their help. Now that you've made your displeasure about the lack of media support at the start of the struggle, you can stop mentioning it - the media is giving you their support now, so no need to keep kicking them. Get someone from US arts councils or overseas academies to speak about how they were formed, the benefits they bring and the risks involved.

(6) Address the root causes
To be honest, I think the central root cause is that government is too isolated in determining how its funds are spent; they haven't got enough expertise to make the decisions, and appear to be allergic to criticism. If they fear criticism so much, show them how they can get all the benefits without all the criticisms. An independent arts council, with government, artist, legal and financial representatives would be better placed to make those decisions. It would allow the government (and the private sector) to provide funding in a structured manner, and facilitate independent auditing; no-one would be able to accuse the government of misspending funds (since the decision won't be theirs alone) and they can share in the successful completion of projects. How can ACTT help create an arts council?

What do you think?