Item 14_2026 Eligible Appeals Summary — original pdf

Backup

Eligible Appeals – Working Group Report Executive Summary Overview A total of 88 appeals were submitted across ACME funding programs (84 in English, 4 in Spanish). This report covers only those 6 Appeals identified as eligible based on ACME’s formal appeal requirements outlined in Appendix C: Appeals Process of the Funding Guidelines. Under Appendix C, an appeal may proceed only when it clearly demonstrates: 1. Panel Administration Error 2. Conflict of Interest 3. Reviewer or Staff Error involving information that was correctly submitted but overlooked or misrepresented Appeals cannot proceed when they are based on reviewer disagreement, funding thresholds, applicant mistakes, guideline disagreement, or submission of new information after the deadline. Process Context All appeal requests were submitted through the official ACME Appeals Form. Per ACME procedure: 1. ACME Staff First-Level Review a. Staff screens each appeal to determine whether it meets one or more of the qualifying grounds under Appendix C. b. Appeals lacking specificity, evidence, or qualifying grounds do not advance. 2. Appeals Working Group Review – April 17 (Friday) a. For appeals that pass staff screening, the Working Group will review cases and staff recommendations. b. The Working Group consists of two Arts Commissioners and two Music Commissioners. c. The group will confirm, modify, or overturn staff’s eligibility determinations, and issue formal recommendations. 3. Report Out to Full Arts Commission – April 20 (Monday) a. The Working Group’s recommendations are presented to the full Arts Commission for a vote. b. Final determinations are then communicated to applicants. This report provides cleaned, standardized language for the Working Group’s review and documentation. Funding impact • ALMF – Scott D. McIntosh: Staff identifies a valid +3 point correction based on documented evidence of artist development; revised score exceeds the award threshold. o Recommend: approve appeal & award $20,000. • Elevate – Artly World; Alyssa Taylor Wendt; Ben Randall; David Pope (Script School): Each shows a qualifying reviewer/staff oversight (e.g., overlooked evidence or materials); however, even with corrections, final scores remain below funding thresholds. o Recommend: approve appeal; outcome unchanged (no award). • Heritage – Esther’s Follies: Written reviewer comments contained a copy paste error (from another program), but verbal remarks and numerical scoring were correct; the adjusted average ‑ still falls below the threshold. o Recommend: approve appeal; outcome unchanged (no award). Case Write Ups 1) Artly World ‑ Program: Elevate Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer error — possible overlook of outreach evidence (senior center fliers) in Question 5 (Marketing/Underserved); no panel administration error (timer paused appropriately during a ‑ reviewer’s temporary disconnect). Appellant’s claim (summary): • Reviewer 2 wrote “zero outreach” to underserved audiences (seniors/families), but the application mentions fliers at senior centers; families are less clearly evidenced. • Other notes (Mission/vision “artistic roots,” Austin connection) are reviewer opinions. ACME staff findings: center flier evidence exists; families not clearly documented. The “zero outreach” statement likely overlooked senior center materials → eligible • Senior • ‑ reviewer error finding. • Connectivity issue handled correctly (timer paused) → no admin error. ‑ ‑ Funding impact: • Recognizing the overlooked outreach evidence does not raise the average above the Elevate threshold. Staff recommendation: • Approve reviewer error finding; outcome unchanged (no award). ‑ 2) Alyssa Taylor Wendt Program: Elevate Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer error — team member bios were present in supplemental materials but were likely not considered by at least one reviewer (impacting Team Experience). Other concerns are reviewer opinion. Appellant’s claim (summary): • Points to supplemental bios and challenges comments on budget, marketing, and clarity. • Notes mixed reviewer feedback (e.g., travel ineligible per guidelines, nitpicky comments). ACME staff findings: • Staff confirmed bios existed in supplemental materials; whether a reviewer weighed them is unclear, creating a plausible oversight. • Other comments fall under reviewer opinion. Funding impact: • Even with a Team Experience adjustment, the average remains below the threshold. Staff recommendation: • Approve process finding (overlooked bios); outcome unchanged (no award). 3) Ben Randall Program: Elevate Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer/Staff error — Budget (Q4) correctly included in kind and other resources, consistent with rubric expectations; panel video corroborates interpretation. ‑ Appellant’s claim (summary): • Clarifies that Q4 response properly included both in kind and other funding sources; provides panel video reference (link and timestamp). ‑ ACME staff findings: • Staff agrees: response is correct per rubric (in • Sensitivity test (removing one reviewer’s scores) still leaves the average below threshold under ‑ kind + other sources). Olympic style scoring. ‑ Funding impact: • No path to the threshold via identified correction. Staff recommendation: • Approve interpretation correction; outcome unchanged (no award). 4) David Pope (Script School) Program: Elevate Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer/Staff error — youth programs are clearly delineated in the application, countering a characterization of serving primarily adults; concerns about reviewer variance are addressed by Olympic scoring. Appellant’s claim (summary): • Points to detailed youth programming; raises effect of an “outlier” reviewer. • Panel video reference provided (link and timestamp). ACME staff findings: • Staff acknowledges the youth program details; facilitator noted some feedback as non scoring commentary. ‑ Identified lowest reviewer (Ivy Le); removing lowest score still leaves the average below ‑ • threshold. Funding impact: • No change to award outcome (average remains below threshold). Staff recommendation: • Approve clarification; outcome unchanged (no award). 5) Esther’s Follies Program: Heritage Preservation Grant Eligible Ground(s): Panel administration/Reviewer error (written comments) — staff verified written comments for one reviewer were copied from an Elevate application by mistake; verbal comments and numerical scoring during the Heritage panel correctly addressed Esther’s Follies. Appellant’s claim (summary): • Asserts reviewer’s feedback and scores related to a different project (“Sanctuary on Guadalupe”) and were lower than peers. ACME staff findings: • Staff confirmed copy paste error in written comments; numeric score was correctly entered and aligned with other panelists. ‑ • Under Olympic scoring, the reviewer’s score was neither the high nor the low. Funding impact: • Even if the reviewer’s entire entry (comments and score) were removed, the adjusted average remains below threshold. Staff recommendation: • Approve process correction in the record; outcome unchanged (no award). 6) Scott D. McIntosh Program: Austin Live Music Fund (ALMF) Eligible Ground(s): Reviewer/Staff error — correctly submitted artist development evidence not credited, directly affecting a score near threshold. ‑ Appellant’s claim (summary): • Final score 46, one point below the ALMF award threshold (47). • For “Have you participated in artist development in the Austin community?” the reviewer stated the evidence didn’t support the answer. Appellant points to documentation of activity at the Mexican American Cultural Center (MACC) under his own account (“comment as Scott McIntosh”), consistent with the “participate in or organize programs in Austin cultural centers” answer. • Benefit concert evidence remains unclear (posters did not establish charity context or link the artist to those bands). ‑ ACME staff findings: • MACC benefit ‑ Funding impact: ‑ related evidence meets the bar for the 3 point artist development selection; concert evidence remains insufficient. ‑ ‑ • Add +3 points for artist development → 46 → 49, exceeds the 47 threshold. Staff recommendation to Working Group: • Approve the appeal correction for artist development; adjust score to 49; recommend award of $20,000.