Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arts Grants Prioritization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would prioritize first-time and small-budget arts grantees; nonprofits caution against instability
Summary
House Bill 757 would add statutory priorities for the Cultural and Aesthetic Grant Program to favor applicants who have received few or no prior awards and those with smaller annual budgets. Nonprofit advocates said the change risks penalizing organizations that have built capacity and rely on predictable funding.
Representative John Fitzpatrick, House District 76, presented House Bill 757 to Montana House Subcommittee F as a companion effort to other grant-related bills. Fitzpatrick said the bill would add two prioritization criteria to the Cultural and Aesthetic Grant Program: (1) preference for applicants who have not previously received grants or have received only a small number of awards, and (2) priority for organizations with smaller annual budgets.
"What we're suggesting here is that the law should give priority to first people who haven't had very much grants and secondly folks that have small budgets where the grant would actually be helpful," Fitzpatrick said. He described a four-by-four matrix the subcommittee used internally that cross-references number of prior awards against an applicant’s budget to produce a ranked list for committee review.
Liz Moore, testifying as an opponent, said she was not opposing the bill in principle but urged the committee to consider unintended effects. Moore, former executive director of the Montana Nonprofit Association, warned that "prioritizing first-time grantees ... may change the impact downstream" by reducing funding stability for organizations that have demonstrated consistent performance.
Chris Holmes, executive director of the Montana Arts Council, and Kristen Burgoyne, deputy director and Cultural Trust administrator, appeared as informational witnesses and answered committee questions about administration and waiver procedures. Fitzpatrick said the bill would also ease the administrative burden of obtaining a federal System for Award Management (SAM) number for smaller organizations: applicants with budgets under $100,000 could request a waiver from the council, and the council should not "unreasonably withhold" that waiver.
Committee members asked whether the statutory language that uses "shall rank" would bind advisory panels or simply provide a recommended priority list. Fitzpatrick said the proposal was intended to produce a priority matrix for the arts council and advisory council to consider, not to eliminate their discretion. He told members that the intent was to make the decision-making process more transparent as requests outpace available funds.
The bill generated questions about whether small-budget prioritization might penalize organizations that manage larger budgets but lack unrestricted cash. Representative Tusk raised concerns, describing the operational realities of medium-size organizations that may have limited cash on hand despite larger budgets. Fitzpatrick responded that the committee's purpose was to give smaller organizations opportunities to grow and that entities with larger budgets have more internal flexibility to fund small projects.
Fitzpatrick closed the hearing saying the bill contains a provision allowing a waiver for the SAM number requirement for entities with budgets under $100,000 and that he believes the language reconciles concerns from the Arts Council and the committee. No vote was taken at the hearing.
Ending: The subcommittee closed the hearing on House Bill 757 without action and signaled further executive action and amendment activity in upcoming meetings.
