Do you know how it feels to be misled, duped, hoodwinked, led astray, bamboozled, or just taken for a ride?
Imagine the intense throbbing sensation that surges from the far recesses of your head soon to spread throughout your whole body. And the sharp pressure that rises from deep inside your chest, while your mind reels at light speed as your vision becomes transfixed on thin air.
After the debilitating shock of having your intelligence insulted, the proverbial state of denial sets in:
I can’t believe this!
I didn’t see what I just saw, or hear what I just heard!
Someone tell me this is all part of a poorly scripted and bizarre Twilight Zone episode.
But then the real deal sets in when the news you have just received goes down like trying to ingest one of Tiger Wood’s golf balls.
This strange tale began when I, acting on behalf of a prominent private university, submitted a proposal to the US Embassy in Bahrain to help fund an international TV and film conference to be launched in October. The idea was to bring together several professional practitioners and media scholars from different countries to Bahrain to share their wealth of knowledge in the realm of film and television production with interested youth in an effort to grow the next generation of young photo/broadcast journalists and filmmakers.
Due to the dollar amount requested to bring four American filmmakers and scholars over, I was informed that it would have to be sent to the MEPI (Middle East Partnership Initiative) programme for further consideration. And thus it was forwarded - or so I thought.
Our proposal, mind you, was all of five pages in length including the budget.
My team and I waited until the end of October, but received no word. Perhaps we might be acting a bit hasty had we called by then, so we decided to wait a bit.
Then November came. The Big Turkey Day had come and gone, and no word. Be patient, I said to my team, some word is bound to come any day now.
Hannakah, Christmas, Kwanza, and the New Year came and went … and still no word. Okay. That’s cool. People do tend to get rather busy during the close of the old year. And with the beginning of the New Year people will return from the holidays refreshed and ready to do business. But still there was no word from the US Embassy or the MEPI folks.
So in mid-January I decided to make a few phone calls and inquire as to the status of our proposal. The Embassy’s Public Affairs Officer now told me to speak to the new MEPI rep, freshly arrived from the US, and that he would be handling all grants.
So I called him. He was an amenable sort of chap over the phone.
Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, he informed me that he in fact had the proposal and planned to take it with him to MEPI headquarters in Abu Dhabi, where final decisions on proposals are made.
Having heard no new word for several weeks, I decided to shoot an email to the head MEPI person in Abu Dhabi, asking about the status of our proposal.
He immediately shot a response email saying: “Although this was not provided to us for our review as an Embassy-approved proposal, (the local rep) did leave it with us as an informal “What do you think?” request, (recognising that each small grant must have both Embassy and Regional Office approval, we often sound each other out informally). I have not reviewed it, but passed it to our staff to review for their reactions. We should have feedback for Ken next week.’
Regards,
[The Big Cheese]
With this new awareness I then shot an email to the Bahrain Public Affairs Officer saying:
“I communicated with (The Big Cheese) in Abu Dhabi last week. He mentioned that our proposal would usually first receive local embassy approval before being forwarded to him. I was curious to know if the fact that you forwarded the proposal to [the local rep] constitutes embassy approval to submit to Abu Dhabi?”
She replied with:
“Your proposal is with (the local rep) here at the Embassy. It has not been approved nor unapproved, it is being considered. I can imagine you’re finding working with the Department of State bureaucracy challenging. It is challenging.”
I am shocked, surprised, and dumbfounded by this reply. Mind you, it is now nearly five months since we sent the US Embassy our five-page proposal to support covering costs for bringing four American scholars and filmmakers to the Middle East to participate in this inaugural international film and television conference.
I then took in a huge amount of air, slowly exhaled, and, while selecting key statements from her email, responded:
“It has not been approved nor unapproved, it is being considered.”
Work with me ... We sent you the proposal back in October ... as I recall it was nowhere near the size or length of War & Peace. In fact, quite the contrary.
We exercised a great economy with words so as to respect your busy schedule and to also be as clear as to what our plans were as possible.
Now here we are almost in the third month of the New Year and you cannot be straight enough to let us know what the real status of our proposal is?
“I can imagine you’re finding working with the Department of State bureaucracy challenging”
Challenging is when someone asks me if I want to engage in a game of chess. Challenging is when a client asks me if my production team can do a five-minute promotional video that incorporates all Seven Wonders of the World in it and deliver it for a conference in Berlin within a week’s time.
Challenging is when a situation arises that heightens my senses, makes me see things with a hawk’s eye, and no matter how intense matters become, I will walk away from the experience having gained new knowledge about the situation and/or myself.
I am an American. I live in Washington, DC – the seat of state government bureaucracy.
I have written several successful grants that were funded by our government. I have also sat on committees empowered to make decisions about other people’s/organisation’s grants.
As foreman or committee member, the one thing I would not let my committee members do is waste people’s time.
When proposals came in we read them, discussed them, made a clear decision and informed the party soon afterwards.
Those who we granted funds to were elated. And those who were not, went away at least respecting the fact that we were straight and upfront, and did not keep them on a string waiting for something that would not ever come...
So tell me, after more than five months of consideration, what else do you need to ponder before making a firm decision?
There was no immediate reply. In fact to this day there has been NO reply at all.
A week later I open my email and get this perfunctory note from the local MEPI Rep:
Dear Mr Jones:
Thank you for submitting your international film and television conference proposal for consideration with the MEPI Small Grants programme. We appreciate the time and effort you have put into the proposal.
We have given careful consideration to your proposal and do not believe it fits the criteria for the MEPI Small Grant Programme, which focuses on democracy and reform based projects.
Thank you for your interest in the MEPI Small Grants programme. I encourage you to submit future proposals in areas that more closely match our focus areas. I am happy to consult and work with you on future proposals.
Best Regards ...
Okay. That’s Cool and the Gang. But what I could not quite grasp was the clear implication in this letter that he wanted to help by way of consultation in the composing of a future grant when he had not spelled out the weaknesses in our current one.
Prompted to review the stated MEPI guidelines for grant submission, I reacquainted myself with its seven pillars then wrote to both the MEPI local rep and the Big Cheese in Abu Dhabi.
And then waited … and waited … and still I am waiting for a printed breakdown of weaknesses within our proposal.
While waiting, I began to ponder this issue of democracy and reform, and wish to ask:
What could be more democratic than to bring an international body filmmakers and media scholars together in an open forum to address how global film and television media presents and shapes our perspectives on numerous social, economic, and political issues?
And what could be more in line with creating reform than to write this piece.
So after five months of being strung along, taken for a ride and bamboozled, in my opinion, by those privileged servants of the US government who are empowered to support international programmes aimed at fostering democratisation and reform, it is amazing to see them use their own guidelines to deny that very process from happening.
I think I now better understand what the late soul singer James Brown meant when he wrote the song referring to folks who talk loud while saying nothing.
• Helen Lafave, press and cultural attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Manama, said: “We are sorry if Mr Jones is disappointed. He put in an application for funding; we reviewed it and notified him of our decision that it did not meet the criteria.”
Rampant red tape in government services has been highlighted as a major cause of concern in a wide-ranging poll of public opinion in Bahrain.
A staggering 86 per cent lashed out at ministries and associated service departments dismissing their performances as sometimes “mediocre and unconvincing”.
According to the poll, conducted by our sister newspaper Akhbar Al Khaleej, 22 per cent said the Works and Housing Ministry was the worst performing, followed by the Health Ministry at 18 per cent.
The respondents particularly deplored the red-tape misery they claimed they encountered in the departments of the Works and Housing Ministry with 24 per cent voicing their concern.
The Education Ministry (12 per cent), Health Ministry (11 per cent), Justice Ministry (10 per cent) CPR and Interior Ministry (nine per cent each) and Labour Ministry (eight per cent) were also highlighted for unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Industry and Commerce and Social Development ministries fared well regarding red-tape benchmarks scoring two per cent and three per cent respectively while the Municipalities and Agriculture and Electricity and Water ministries polled six per cent each.
The poll surveyed an across-the-board sample of 600 people, representing different social and economic backgrounds. It also took a nationwide dimension as it randomly covered different governorates and villages.
The questionnaire featured 10 major areas of concern to gauge people’s feedback regarding the standard of services in various ministries and government service-oriented departments. These were: Electricity and Water Ministry, Works & Housing Ministry, Education Ministry, Social Development Ministry, Health Ministry, Municipalities & Agriculture Ministry and Interior Ministry (Traffic Directorate, Nationality, Passports and Residence Directorate). The Justice Ministry (work permits and domestic helpers’ permits), Industry Ministry (company registration, licences) and Central Population Organisation were not spared either.
Far from tarnishing their reputation, the poll aimed to highlight the general degree of customer satisfaction and also to provide a wake-up call for ministries to continue their efforts to enhance services and remedy any shortcomings.
The Electricity and Water Ministry fared relatively well, ranking on top of all service ministries with 19 per cent approval rating, followed by the Education Ministry (15 per cent) Social Development Ministry (12 per cent) and Interior Ministry (11 per cent).
Asked about the inherent causes underscoring the ministries poor performance almost half (46 per cent) cited employees’ irresponsibility, while 37 per cent pinpointed the lack of stringent disciplinary measures on negligent ones. Meanwhile, 17 per cent sided with employees saying they were “overburdened”.
A substantial majority (60 per cent) cited the lack of accountability as their major concern, while 72 per cent deplored “nepotism” and “favouritism”.
One respondent even boasted well-positioned relatives who regularly process his applications, sparing him administrative and procedural ordeals.
Sixty-two per cent advocated radical changes, overhauling top ministry positions while 32 per cent of respondents suggested changing ministers to ensure a minimum qualitative improvement.
The ministries declined to comment although it is understood that the results are being analysed at the highest level this week.
