See how it pans out

First, when Minister of Culture and the Arts Dr Nyan Gadsby- Dolly assured a lawsuit filed by Pan Trinbago against the National Carnival Commission (NCC) would not affect Panorama.

Second, when the parties in that legal dispute entered a special agreement to put things on hold until after Carnival when the court will take a look at the issues raised.

While we welcome the two bodies coming to an agreement, the issues of jurisdiction raised in the case should still be examined.

Indeed, the consent order signed is premised on the continuation of the court’s examination of the legal arguments. The matter should not be quietly withdrawn after Carnival. The law should be settled once and for all.

The issue in the case is basically who has jurisdiction to keep the money earned at the gate from Panorama. Should that be Pan Trinbago, the body that runs the competition and that is set up to promote pan affairs? Or should it be the NCC, which controls the venue of the pan events in the weeks leading up to Carnival? It is strange that this matter has never been resolved. Why did two State-funded entities have to take each other to court in the first place? This is like one department of a Government ministry suing another department of the same ministry. In the end, the taxpayers pay.

The matters surrounding ticket revenue are important. Ticket collection and ticket sales are key.

They have direct bearing on revenue levels and accountability.

And they also affect logistics. If the gates are not properly managed, chaos can ensue at the venue, as demonstrated by the experience some years ago when long lines greeted people interested in the Panorama semi-finals on the Greens. Such a situation presents health and safety issues and also affects security planning.

It would be good if both parties could talk and come to some agreement over the appropriate bounds of their functions. But in practice such an outcome is difficult to see: both entities have strong claims. Why should Pan Trinbago, the country’s steel pan administrator, surrender the bread and butter of pan revenues to some other entity? And why can the NCC not have some control of receipts taken on its premises and at its facilities? We are sure answers to these questions can also be found in the various contracts entered between the bodies governing things like rental of the facilities at the Queen’s Park Savannah.

But clearly judicial resolution is pertinent. The deeper issue is the need for rationalisation of Carnival.

What is this festival and where is it going? Has the division of labour between the various mediums been useful? Are bodies like Pan Trinbago, the National Carnival Bands Association and the NCC all working on the same team? Or do they sometimes function as if they are each representatives from alien planets with wildly different Carnival traditions? Has the time come for one Carnival agency? Related to these questions is the matter of a home for Carnival.

The vision for an environmentally- sustainable Carnival centre with a retractable roof is still fresh in the minds of many who hoped it could be a reality.

Yet that vision seems a long way behind us with a National Academy for the Performing Arts, a facility which suffered birthing pains and defective design and which is always veering in and out of the favour of safety and regulatory bodies.

This issue of a home for Carnival is separate from the question of a museum facility preserving Carnival arts and centralising Carnival education. Sadly, neither seems to be on the minds of officials.

The court case may have panned out for now, but a bigger chord is left to be resolved.