Overview

A recent board meeting of Bulgaria‘s National Fund “Culture” revealed meaningful internal disagreement regarding the allocation of funds for small cultural projects⁣ in 2025. Minutes from the December ‍11th meeting ‌show that initial evaluation committee decisions faced substantial opposition from ⁣board members, who ultimately approved the funding through​ a revote, ⁢acknowledging a lack of⁤ strong justification.

The First ⁤Vote: Insufficient Support

The initial ⁤decisions made by the evaluation committee received only 6 votes in ⁢favor​ and 3 abstentions, totaling 9 votes. Critically, two of the “for” votes were cast with dissenting opinions, indicating ⁤reservations about the evaluation ‍process. This ⁤level of support was ⁢deemed insufficient to approve ⁤the funding allocations.

According ⁢to the ⁤meeting minutes, board members expressed concerns about the judging panel and the fundamental flaws in‍ the evaluation ⁤rules. ⁢ Despite these concerns, there was also a reluctance to lose the allocated funds.

The Revote ‍and acknowledged Weakness

A⁤ second vote was subsequently held. This time, the vote count⁤ shifted to 8‍ in favor, enough to secure approval. However, ​the number of dissenting ⁤opinions increased, highlighting the continued unease among board members. The minutes suggest that the final approval was granted ‌despite‍ a lack of ‍compelling justification,with members acknowledging they were acting ‍without a ‌strong basis.

Reasons for Dissent

Several reasons⁣ contributed ⁤to the initial dissent. Diana Savateva and⁣ Professor ‍Iliya Gramatikov, while voting “for” the funding, registered dissenting opinions, stating the need⁢ to avoid losing⁢ the funds allocated under the program. The specific concerns regarding​ the⁣ evaluation process remain ‌detailed⁢ within‍ the meeting minutes, but center around perceived problems ⁤with⁣ the judging panel ​and the evaluation criteria.

Implications and⁢ Potential⁤ Reforms

This incident raises ‍serious questions about the transparency and objectivity ⁢of the National⁢ Fund “Culture’s” funding process. The fact that​ funding was approved despite significant ‌reservations from board members, and with⁢ an acknowledgement‍ of ‌a ⁤weak justification, undermines public trust.

Potential reforms could include a review of the evaluation criteria, a more transparent selection​ process for ⁢the judging panel, and clearer guidelines for board members⁣ when faced with questionable funding recommendations. Further scrutiny from oversight bodies ‌may also be warranted.

timeline