The Gallery's Submission Policy
A non-profit artist-run gallery runs an annual open call. Last year it received 900 applications for 12 exhibition slots, charged a $35 entry fee, and used a three-person volunteer jury. Feedback said the fee deterred low-income artists, the jury gave inconsistent scores, and several artists said the process felt opaque. This year the board proposes: keep the fee to fund the gallery, add a scoring rubric, and publish jurors' names. The budget shows the fees raise about $31,500, roughly a fifth of annual operating costs. A counter-proposal would drop the fee, cut the number of slots to 9, and seek a sponsor. The board asks for a recommendation.
1. Evaluate the three proposed changes and the counter-proposal against the gallery's stated goals of fairness, transparency, and financial viability.
Read the worked answer
The scoring rubric is the clearest improvement. Inconsistent scores across a volunteer jury usually reflect undefined criteria, not bad faith; a published rubric with anchored descriptors for each score level makes judgements comparable and gives applicants feedback language. It costs little.
Publishing jurors' names aids transparency but has a cost: volunteers may decline, and artists may lobby jurors. A middle path is publishing jurors' names and affiliations after decisions, plus a short statement of selection criteria.
Keeping the fee is the hardest call. It raises about $31,500, a fifth of operating costs - real money - but a fee that deters low-income artists shapes who applies, and therefore what the jury can select. Fairness and financial viability genuinely conflict here.
The counter-proposal trades revenue for access: dropping the fee widens the applicant pool but cuts slots from 12 to 9 and depends on an uncertain sponsor. That is a real loss of opportunity for artists, even as access improves.
2. Recommend a decision, and state what evidence the gallery should collect to know whether it worked.
Read the worked answer
Recommend a hybrid: adopt the rubric immediately; publish jurors' names and criteria after the round; replace the flat fee with an optional fee (pay-what-you-can, including zero) while actively soliciting a sponsor to cover the gap; and keep 12 slots if the sponsor materialises, dropping to 9 only if it does not.
The optional fee preserves some revenue and removes the deterrent for those who cannot pay, but it is a compromise and may not fully close the gap. That is why the sponsor search must run in parallel, with a decision point before the open call launches.
Evidence to collect: number and diversity of applications compared with last year; the proportion choosing zero fee; jury score consistency, such as agreement between jurors on the same applications; applicant survey responses on perceived fairness; and the actual revenue and sponsorship outcome. Set a threshold in advance - for example, if optional-fee revenue falls below a stated level and no sponsor is secured, the board revisits the model next year rather than defaulting back silently. Publishing the outcome data is itself part of transparency.