Nevada Administrative Code Chapter 233C - Nevada Arts Council
1. Grant Denial Due to Incomplete Application
Background:
A nonprofit arts organization applied for a project grant but submitted the application with missing financial statements and incomplete project details.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C allows the Council to deny a grant for incomplete documentation.
Decision:
NAC 233C requires full documentation to evaluate grant eligibility.
The Council reviewed the submission and denied the grant, citing missing documentation.
The organization was encouraged to reapply with a complete application in the next funding cycle.
Key Lesson:
Completeness and accuracy of grant applications are strictly enforced under NAC 233C; missing information can result in automatic denial.
2. Appeal of Grant Award Scoring
Background:
An arts organization contested the scoring of its grant application, claiming that the evaluation process under NAC 233C was not applied consistently.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C requires uniform and transparent scoring for all applicants.
Decision:
The Council reviewed scoring sheets, evaluation criteria, and committee notes.
It was determined that minor differences in scoring did not constitute a procedural violation.
The original decision was upheld, and recommendations were made for clearer communication of scoring criteria.
Key Lesson:
NAC 233C mandates fair evaluation, but some discretion in scoring is permitted; appeals must show clear procedural violations to succeed.
3. Dispute Over Grant Funds Misuse
Background:
An arts group was found to have spent grant funds on non-approved administrative expenses.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C allows recoupment or sanctions for improper use of grant funds.
Decision:
The Council conducted an audit and confirmed that funds were misused.
The organization was required to repay the misused funds and was placed on probation for future grants.
Subsequent applications were closely monitored for compliance.
Key Lesson:
Funds awarded under NAC 233C must be used according to approved purposes; misuse can result in repayment and restrictions.
4. Challenge Regarding Matching Fund Requirements
Background:
A small arts organization argued that its inability to meet the matching fund requirement should not disqualify it from a grant.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C permits exceptions to matching fund rules.
Decision:
NAC 233C allows grants to require matching funds as a condition of eligibility.
The Council upheld the requirement, stating that exceptions could only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, which were not present.
Key Lesson:
Applicants must comply with financial matching requirements; exceptions are rare and strictly defined.
5. Appeal for Project Timeline Adjustment
Background:
An organization requested an extension on a funded project due to delays caused by external circumstances, including venue unavailability and natural events.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C allows adjustments to project timelines after funds have been awarded.
Decision:
The Council reviewed the circumstances and determined that the delays were beyond the organization’s control.
The timeline was extended, with revised reporting deadlines, allowing completion of the project.
Key Lesson:
NAC 233C allows flexibility for legitimate unforeseen delays, but formal requests and documentation are required.
6. Appeal Over Non-Compliance With Reporting Requirements
Background:
An organization failed to submit final reports detailing how grant funds were used, as required by NAC 233C.
Issue:
Whether non-compliance with reporting rules could affect future eligibility for grants.
Decision:
The Council confirmed that reporting is mandatory for accountability.
The organization was ineligible for the next funding cycle until reports were submitted and approved.
Once reports were submitted, eligibility was restored.
Key Lesson:
Timely and complete reporting is essential under NAC 233C; failure to comply can affect future grant eligibility.
7. Dispute Over Artistic Merit Evaluation
Background:
An applicant contested a grant denial, arguing that the review committee undervalued the artistic quality of their project.
Issue:
Whether NAC 233C allows appeals based on subjective evaluation of artistic merit.
Decision:
The Council reviewed the evaluation process and confirmed that artistic merit assessments are inherently subjective.
The denial was upheld, as NAC 233C grants committees discretion to judge artistic quality based on established criteria.
Key Lesson:
Artistic merit is subjective; NAC 233C gives discretion to review committees, and appeals must demonstrate procedural errors rather than disagreements with artistic judgment.
✅ Summary of Key Themes in NAC 233C Cases
Application Completeness: Incomplete or inaccurate applications are grounds for denial.
Transparency & Scoring: Fair evaluation is required, but discretion in scoring and artistic merit is allowed.
Fund Usage: Grant funds must be used according to approved purposes; misuse leads to repayment or restrictions.
Matching & Financial Requirements: Applicants must meet all financial requirements unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Project Management & Reporting: Timelines and reporting requirements are enforceable; exceptions may be granted with proper documentation.
Appeals: Appeals are typically limited to procedural or compliance issues, not subjective judgments like artistic merit.
RELATED Blog
comments