The organization that won the “Silver Crane” did not receive strategic LKT funding: raises the question of transparency | Culture

“Lithuanian Shorts” was among those who did not receive a strategic investment in culture from LKT this year. However, the main question for the head of the organization, Rimante Daugėlaitai, is not the lost competition, but several important details.

“We submitted a report of all the work we did, won the Silver Crane, won funding from a private patron who selected six out of 113 organizations. What else do you need to show to prove that you are an efficient organization?” – 15min said R. Daugėlaitė.

Personal archive photo/Rimantė Daugelaitė

“Lithuanian Shorts” is a distinguished organization in Lithuania, an important part of the cultural ecosystem.

It focuses on the creation of cinema and film culture through various activities aimed at raising the competencies of novice filmmakers, mentoring and empowering women, presenting the works of filmmakers in Lithuania and abroad.

The organization works in the field of cultural education in the regions of Lithuania, paying great attention to children and seniors.

“Lithuanian Shorts” also organizes the particularly popular Vilnius Short Film Festival.

The decisive word was given by the members of the council

Prior to that, Lithuanian Shorts received strategic funding for six years in a row, but this time there was no success.

“We also submitted an application this year,” commented R. Daugėlaitė. – In the LKT itself, there are two stages that you need to go through in order to get on the list of funded organizations.”

Initially, the application is evaluated by a group of anonymous experts, then their chairman presents his evaluations to the council, which consists of 10 people.

“In our case, the experts recommended financing “Lithuanian Shorts”, but the council members did not support it. Now we have received a consolidated assessment from both experts and council members,” said the founder of the organization.

According to her, the received comment from council members caused the most questions: “It makes us question how decisions are made at LKT meetings.”

According to R. Daugėlaitė, the letter submitted by the members of the council states that “Lithuanian Shorts” did not receive funding because “the principle of balance of diversity and equality of fields was followed”.

In total, two film institutions sought strategic funding. “If they had financed two organizations in the field of cinema, it means that there would be 100 percent. the area’s need for funding was met, which, according to LKT members, would be unfair to other areas,” the interviewer explained.

I am convinced that if there are such principles and decision-making criteria, they must be properly communicated.

From R. Daugėlaitė’s point of view, is such a decision of the LKT fair? “Such a principle on which LKT members base their decision not to approve the experts’ recommendation is not written anywhere in the LKT guidelines, nor in the rules of the strategic funding program, nor was it communicated when inviting applications,” she said.

“I am convinced that if there are such principles and decision-making criteria, they must be properly communicated. I myself work as an expert of the EU program “Creative Europe” and I have not come across such cases when evaluation criteria and principles are introduced during meetings”, the interviewer continued.

R. Daugėlaitė repeatedly emphasized during the interview – “we do not question which applicant is worthy of funding”. The most important thing for her organization in this situation is to raise the question of how transparently LKT makes decisions on strategic funding.

“Aren’t they accepted behind closed doors?” asked the interviewer.

The manager of “Lithuanian Shorts” also had other questions, such as how LKT members measure the impact of the organization, what constitutes an efficient organization, what indicators should show it, who decides that it is so, etc.

When asked if he will look for alternative sources of financing, R. Daugėlaitė said that there are currently no alternatives for stable three-year financing in Lithuania.

Knocks at the Lithuanian Film Center

During the interview, R. Daugėlaitė raised another problem – in her view, some representatives of the cultural field do not understand the situation in which film culture organizations find themselves due to funding.

“Representatives of the cultural field often poke at the Lithuanian Film Center (LKC), pretending that what we want from the LKT, if we have a separate funding institution. In many cases, those who speak like that have not even read what the LKC specifically supports”, said R. Daugėlaitė.

According to her, there is no chance of getting funding from the LKC as an organization: “We are applying to the LKC for the Vilnius Short Film Festival and film distribution projects.”

Irmantos Gelūnos/BNS photo/Lithuanian Cinema Center

Some activities will be suspended

When asked what plan he promises to take without receiving strategic funding, R. Daugėlaitė said that for now he is sorting out his priorities.

“It is already clear that a significant number of activities can be stopped. This would be a great loss for the entire field of cinema and film culture: there will no longer be programs where beginners can improve,” she commented.

“It sounds sad and we feel strong bitterness about such decisions, the question remains whether the decision-makers take responsibility and whether the impact of such a decision on the field of film culture has been evaluated,” continued R. Daugėlaitė.

Asta Pakarklytė: the decision was made by voting

To the questions 15min LKT manager Asta Pakarklytė also answered.

According to her, “Lithuanian Shorts” did not get on the list of strategic funding, because LKT sought a balance of fields: “In the list recommended by experts, LKT members identified that only 25 percent of the expectations of the field of visual arts are satisfied. (out of four organizations it is recommended to finance only one). As for audiovisual organizations, their expectations were met 100%. In other words, two organizations applied and they received funding.”

A. Pakarklytė also answered R. Daugėlaitė’s question regarding the transparency of the situation. So how does the LKT ensure that decisions are not made “behind closed doors”?

Žygimantos Gedvilos/BNS photo/Asta Pakarklytė

“Closed doors” is rather a metaphor, A. Pakarklytė responded. – I would suggest paying attention to the discussion on Justė Kostikovaitė’s Facebook account. It asked why the LCT does not further leverage diversity and review the list recommended by experts. In other words, there, on the contrary, there was a demand to make even more use of all these principles of diversity and balance, which are not discussed and spelled out, but it is expected that the LKT is intended for that, to make use of them.

According to the head of LKT, in order to avoid the “closed door” effect, protocols were presented to organizations that did not receive strategic funding: “The entire process and logic are explained there.”

However, how do LKT members measure organizational impact? What are the selection criteria?

“This is a difficult question. First of all, it is necessary to review whether the impact is measured according to the criteria. Do you see that this is about evaluation during the process? During it, it is evaluated according to the presented criteria”, explained A. Pakarklytė.

She highlighted that one of the criteria is the organization’s past performance, while all other criteria are related to what it intends to do in the future. And whether funding is awarded is decided “by comparison”.

When asked if there was a mistake that “Lithuanian Shorts” did not receive funding, A. Pakarklytė said: “In general, there are very big issues for discussion here. Each organization wants to talk about itself, but council members see the overall context from their own perspective. For example, could the council have funded another five organizations that achieved a passing score but did not make the list? That’s what the discussion was about: how long that list could be, how much money we have, what amount to allocate, etc.

“Has there been a mistake in the case of Lithuanian Shorts?” You see, you’re just calling me, I should be asking at the councilors’ meeting. But I would like to point out that we decided on the most elementary voting method. The majority,” she said.

Is Strategic Funding Addictive?

However, at the moment A. Pakarklytė and the members of the council are in “broader considerations” regarding strategic financing.

“We are noticing some very uncool trends,” she said.

As the interlocutor said, the program is losing its original optimism – the number of applications is decreasing, which means that newcomers no longer expect that they will be able to overcome the leaders of the list, whose positions are very strong.

Therefore, this program does not strengthen, but deepens addiction. Then questions arise as to whether we are heading in the right direction.

In addition, from A. Pakarklytė’s point of view, the program has developed “excessive dependence”: “All the communication that I hear is quite strong, because organizations that are not included in the list communicate that they will possibly be liquidated. Previously, there were no such communications after general tenders. People were just disappointed, but they had hope to continue working.”

“Therefore, this program does not strengthen, but deepens addiction. Then questions arise as to whether we are heading in the right direction. Perhaps such large sums are inappropriate? Maybe they should be reduced and the list of organizations extended?” – asked A. Pakarklytė.