DEAR EDITOR,

My article on the initial findings of the NCCA Indicative Impact Assessment, which appeared in the Lifestyle section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Monday, Feb. 1, was not in any way meant to denigrate, discredit or besmirch the integrity of chairperson Vilma Labrador and executive director Cecile Guidote-Alvarez of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts.

In the article, their names were not included in the opening paragraphs. In fact, Labrador?s name was not mentioned in my story at all, and Guidote-Alvarez?s name was mentioned only in relation to her quote, which remains in the published article.

There was no intention on my part to imply that their leadership or management were factors in the initial findings of the study.

The blurb ?So where did the money go?? was not written by me.

In any case, I apologize for the pain and confusion that the published piece wrought. That was never my intention.

Moreover, may I, please, point out the following:

1. The study was not to assess the administration of Labrador and Guidote-Alvarez. In fact, since Labrador began her term at the NCCA in 2007, the years covered in the study were not reflective of her term.

2. Records show that during Guidote-Alvarez?s term, there were huge increases in funding for the arts, especially from 2004 (the year she began her term) to 2006.

3. The point of the study was to look at the bigger picture of the NCCA?s Subcommission on the Arts over the years?not to conduct a performance evaluation of the current NCCA leadership.

4. While the study shows a downtrend in the percentage increase of annual funds obligated to the SCA, this does not mean there is no annual increase in the fund availability for all culture and arts projects. This only shows a trend in the percentage increase.

5. The figures shown in the study involved realized or obligated inputs?and not the actual available funds. Whatever downtrend in the percentage increment/decrease might be, the Office of the Executive Director and of the Chairperson had nothing to do with such because project proposals usually went through a process involving the Subcommission on the Arts.

6. There were periods when there were less proposals received by the commission. Consequently, less funding was disbursed.

7. However, there were huge increments in the other subcommissions, which, unfortunately, were not within the scope of the present study. These increments benefited other artists and cultural workers.

8. While there is a downtrend in the national figures, there is also an upswing in the actual number of projects and other related outputs. This translates to a high performance (input-output) ratio, which speaks well of the NCCA constituency?the secretariat, the national committees and the leadership.

9. The chart which accompanied the article was mislabeled. It was a chart showing the percentage increase of annual grants?and not a trend on the actual decline of grants. In fact, the graph showed increase in the actual allocation of funds.

10. As mentioned in the article, the study was not limited to inputs (funding) but also included outputs, outcomes and impacts.

Sincerely,

Mozart Pastrano

Editor?s Note: Labrador has been chair of the NCCA since 2007, when she started as acting chair because of Malacañang?s letter of intent to have her elected by the board as full-time chair. The blurb ?So where did the money go?? is a legitimate but otherwise very neutral question.

The original title of the graph in the PowerPoint presentation to the SCA members was ?Linear trend of the increment and/or decline of SCA inputs (computer-based on the annual percentage increase/decrease of the obligated funding from 2000-2007).? The title was simplified to make it obvious that there, indeed, was a ?decline? or ?decrease? of funding for SCA projects.