By Isle of Wight Observer
Lottie Begg’s advice to aspiring poets is to “embrace messiness”. And the process that created a new IW poet laureate, promoted by her publishing company Lemon Jelly Press, appears to have embraced lots of it.
Last week a press release announced that writer, Sarah Nicole, had been “officially appointed” after a selection process which “culminated in a public vote”, and “attracted nearly 1,000 responses.” The implication was clear: the public had spoken and elected the winner. But then a reader contacted the IW Observer claiming Ms Nicole had attracted just 5 per cent of the vote, while another shortlisted poet had received 45 per cent.
We asked for the voting figures, only to be told the public had not been voting for the poet laureate at all, but for their “favourite poem” from the five finalists. The distinction may not have been obvious to anyone seeing the graphic urging them to “Vote Now”, but Ms Begg said the form made it clear: “Please vote for your favourite poem below. Your vote will help the poet laureate committee make a final decision.”
We asked whether the winner had come last in the public vote. Competition organiser, Ms Begg, said she “remembered” she had not, but did not have “the exact results”. She then gave us a new piece of information: the poet who topped the poll (who she did not name) had been “self-voting multiple times”. When asked how many such votes had been cast, and whether the numbers quoted in her press release reflected the true public vote, she did not reply. She also ignored a request for the contact details of other shortlisted poets.
The project was funded by a £500 grant from Red Funnel, covering “music, food and drink”at the launch event, website costs, and programme printing. Organisations working with Ms Nicole will be asked to pay a “nominal fee” explained Ms Begg.
The judges, who substituted their own judgement for public opinion, included representatives from VEX, Medina Bookshop, Creative Island, the County Press, and IW Radio. We received no response when we asked Ms Begg how they had been selected. The press release said judges were impressed by Ms Nicole’s ability to “connect with readers” and by “how engaging and accessible” her work was. When we asked what evidence they had considered, as she had not won the public vote, no answer came.
Many areas involve local councils and obtain Arts Council funding for poet laureate schemes bringing rules and guidelines that should be followed. We asked Ms Begg whether she had approached either organisation but received no reply. When we asked whether any publications arising from the scheme would be based on competitive quotes – or simply published by Lemon Jelly Press (they share an address) – you’ve guessed it, no answer came.
In a statement, the judges confirmed the voting figures would not be made public because it was “only one part of a wider selection process”. However, the results gave them “valuable additional perspective.” After discussion the judges concluded the winning entry “offered the strongest combination of engaging poetry and the qualities needed.”
Our reader is not the only one concerned about the process. East Wight MP Joe Robertson said: “I have been informed that a number of candidates received significantly more votes than the winner chosen by the judges. Although the public vote was not intended to be the only factor in determining the Island’s poet laureate, the judges should explain why the public vote seems to have played no meaningful role in their final decision.”
So, despite the organisation’s defence of it’s process, many questions remain unanswered. Why were votes described as “the culmination” of the process not made public? How many genuine public votes were cast, and how many eliminated? Who was guilty of multiple “self-voting”? Who selected the judges, and on what basis? Were any conflicts of interest declared? And, finally, if the committee had already decided to choose its own winner, why invite the public to vote at all?