Broadway School/Newburgh City Courthouse

Victoria Hudder, from the National Endowment for the Arts:
I think it’s important that when you’re reviewing grant applications for public money that you bring together a group of judges that are both knowledgable and diverse who can judge the project on its artistic merits and whatever criteria have been set up for that process without any interference from secondary, ancillary concerns.

So, for instance, when we have a panel, and there’s a panelist who has a relationship with a grantee, they step out of the room, and they don’t vote on that particular grant.  It happens frequently, because in certain instances, the pool is sort of small, and people are just going to naturally have conflicts with applicants.  So that seems to be the best way to deal with it.  Now, that panel as a whole may vote to give a grant, or recommend a grant, I should say, to a project that is in some way related to one of the panelists.  But that particular panelist hasn’t had anything to do with that decision.

We work very hard to make this the most fair, conflict-free process, and that process has worked well for us.

Do you have disclosure forms?
Yes, the panelists all give resumes or vita to the NEA, which then staff go through, and I’m not sure which staff does it, and exactly how, but they are gone through, and grants are highlighted where there would be a conflict.  And I think the person is informed, and they’re told to step out of the room. And then they’re told to come back in…

What are the benefits to the public of having a process that is free of conflicts?
Well then you’re getting the most balanced, equitable, excellent decision you can on whatever the project is being judged on.  And especially in the realm of public art, where the object is going to be in the public sphere, that you want to be particularly careful as to the process that brings that into the public realm, that those who live with it, in a sense, feel good about it being there.

Heather Hitchens, Executive Director of NYSCA, the New York State Council on the Arts:
New York’s cultural community is tightly-knit and staff, board members, and panelists inevitably cross paths at different organizations over the years. In many ways, this is a good thing; these ties foster community and cooperative efforts as well as build knowledge within the field.  This interconnectedness, however, often means that a member of this community will charged with a duty that might be compromised by a past or present affiliation.

NYSCA takes this matter very seriously, both as a matter of public trust and as a key component of our evaluation process. To this end, NYSCA requires all staff, Council members, panelists, and consultants to abide by a clear code of ethics. Within 30 days of assuming a post at NYSCA, one is required to file an affiliation statement, covering all organizations eligible for NYSCA support. At NYSCA, affiliation is broadly defined. An individual is considered affiliated is she has served as:
*       Director, officer, trustee or employee;
*       Fund raiser or public relations officer;
*       Independent contractor who has received fees or payments in the year preceding the filing of the affiliation statement
*       Holder of a financial advisory or policy making role;
*       Direct or indirect financial beneficiary of a Council contract with such an organization; this includes any and all affiliations held by the individual’s spouse.

In the event of an affiliation with an NYSCA applicant, the individual is:
*       Forbidden to access any confidential information developed or obtained by the Council;
*       Barred from participation in any aspect of the decision making process with respect to the affiliated organization; and
*       Required to recuse herself prior to the initial presentation to any closed meeting of any matter relating to the application of the affiliated organization, and is forbidden from participating in the corresponding discussion or vote.

NYSCA’s process does not include a blind review process. As part of our extensive application review, staff members routinely make contact with applicant organizations and conduct assessments of these organizations which are then shared with panelists prior to discussion. The recommendations of the staff and panel then are then put before the Council for vote. We are confident that these multiple layers of assessment, combined with our affiliation rules, provide strong protection against conflicts of interest. And, it should be noted that NYSCA’s process has been nationally recognized and served as a model for the National Endowment for the Arts. If you would like to know more about the review process, please visit NYSCA’s website at www.nysca.org where the process is outlined in detail.

Tom Finkelpearl, Director of the Queens Museum of Art, former Director of the Percent for Art Program at the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs.  Finkelpearl also worked as a curator and program manager at P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center, New York,  and as Executive Director of Program at Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture. He authored the book  “Dialogues in Public Art” in 2000.

TF: The other thing is, there are sort of official conflicts of interest, the thing that I think is sort of interesting about conflicts of interest in general is you have to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.  I sort of like that.
JJ: Yeah.
TF: In other words, it’s not just actual conflicts, it’s appearance.

JJ: So, there’s an arts commission, from the city, and they have a percent for art program.  And their conflict of interest policy is limited to two criteria, either family members, or if you serve to benefit from financial gain.
TF: Right.
JJ: So, recently a jury was put together to judge a commission for a new courthouse art project.  And there were eleven jurors, and one of the jurors serves on the city’s arts commission, he was the arts commission’s representative, Mr. Baker.  And it turns out…
TF: By the way, first of all, I think that was too many jurors.
JJ: Oh really.
TF: Yeah.  I think it’s very, very difficult to make a decision with eleven people.
JJ: Yeah, yeah.
TF: I think decisions are much better with four people, or one person.  But, go ahead.
JJ: Yeah.  So he had -
TF: This is the arts commission representative.
JJ: Yeah, exactly.  And his protege, somebody who studied with him and had also been hired by him to do work on his own murals, submitted a work that was ultimately chosen.  And I’m just wondering, there’s been questions about whether this poses a conflict of interest.  And whether he should have recused himself.
TF: Well, they don’t currently have a business relationship.
JJ: No, not currently, no.
TF: And he’s a former student…
JJ: Yeah.
TF: I mean, it doesn’t sound like it would be a conflict of interest type of thing.
JJ: Yeah.
TF: Now, I think it would have been good if this person…  I don’t think the person has to recuse himself, but I think it would be… there’s some responsibility to disclose.
JJ: Okay.
TF: Did he disclose that in the jury, in the panel?
JJ: [Not to my knowledge].
TF: So I think he should have disclosed it, because this gets to the appearance of conflict of interest.  I don’t think he needs to recuse himself, but I think he [really should mention it]

TF: … I mean, that happens all the time.  I mean, I’ve been on a million juries, most of the jurors are usually senior people, and it’s good to have artists on them… and a lot of artists teach.  And their former students are going to come up… we have seen it many, many times.   But one of the things that we said… was that we want all of the information that you have about this artist.  If you have information, that, “oh yes, this was my student, and this person was doing abstract painting then, but they developed into a figurative artist…” then just put it all on the table.  Don’t be, there’s nothing wrong with knowing the person, it’s actually beneficial to the process.  So we would ask, especially when you get down to several artists, that’s the point at which you want all the information.

TF: I think it should have been disclosed.  Especially, not the former student thing, although I think that would be valuable information, it’s the, this guy used to work for me.  How long ago did he work for him?
JJ: I’m not really sure, within the past few years.
TF: I don’t think that there’s technically a conflict of interest, unless the person… there’s no business relationship, and there’s no family relationship… but there’s the appearance.  And the appearance is something that should be handled carefully and that’s where disclosure comes in.  But the other thing I would just say is, if you find that the guy really fought for this guy against the initial … then it gets a little more complicated.

TF: But if it’s something where, look, I was on a panel once, for best artwork exemplifying New York City, by the Municipal Arts Society.  And very quickly, people came to the idea of the Tribute in Light, those two lights at the World Trade Center site… which was this incredible piece of publc art.  So we just talked about it for a couple of minutes, everybody said this is definitely it, and then after the discussion was under way, I and one other person – because the Municipal Arts Society had sponsored that piece – so okay, the Municipal Arts Society, I said, I shouldn’t talk about this either, because we’re considering, we never did, but we’re considering trying to put the Tribute in Light on the panorama of the City of New York which is at the Queens Museum.  So it was something where it was such an obvious decision, that I… it was almost sort of late in the game that I thought I should mention it.  I did mention it, and they said it’s okay, it doesn’t matter.  Because it was so obvious, because there was no real second choice, it wasn’t a hard decision.

There was another case, actually on that same panel, that I’ve been on for many years, where there was a nominee who had done a show at the Queens Museum, and that one, I just recused myself.  Because this is something that would seem like [a conflict].  Because the prize was for a show.  And they actually did end up winning.  But not because of me.

So it’s different from time to time, and it depends for me on what was the discussion.  How did the guy advocate.

So that would be my expert opinion.

I had one funny case… an artist had been selected, and then there was a lot of controversy because various public groups felt that they hadn’t been consulted, and felt that it was too much of an insider decision.  We went through this whole elaborate decision making process, blind jury, and we went through the selection process and selected the same guy!  For a completely different proposal.  It was insane.  And they were like, “no, we can’t believe this!” because people weren’t crazy about the guy.  But he did a fantastic piece.

I’ve never seen a public art process overturned because of conflict of interest, especially because it’s pretty well-stated at the beginning.  And people have to usually sign forms to disclose.  And it doesn’t sound like there was a violation.

I guess the other question would be, in the forms that they sign, he didn’t specifically say the appearance of conflict of interest.  Because if it did, it could appear [that way], not because of the former student, [but because of the business relationship].
 
 
Arthur Zaczkiewicz is currently a freelance journalist and editor, and has previously served as the director of content at Argyle Executive Forum, a media firm that convenes c-level executives, investors and stakeholders from a variety of industries. Prior to Argyle, he served as senior editor, financial, of Women’s Wear Daily (WWD) and was the financial editor of the Fairchild Fashion Group, a division of Condé Nast Publications. At WWD, Zaczkiewicz and his team of editors and reporters tracked the $180 billion apparel market, producing business stories relating to financials, mergers and acquisitions, IPOs, executive pay, and the equity markets. Zaczkiewicz has moderated and participated on numerous panels and conference calls with firms that include The New York Times, Citigroup, Telsey Advisory Group, Financial Dynamics, Bear Stearns, Brooks Brothers and TradeCard. As a reporter and writer, Zaczkiewicz’s work has appeared in WWD, WWD The Magazine, WWD Scoop, DNR, Footwear News, Home Furnishings News, HomeWorld Business, Hotel Business, Newsday, the Times Herald-Record, New York House magazine and Ulster Publishing, which includes the New Paltz Times, the Woodstock Times and the Kingston Times. He has also appeared on CNBC’s On the Money and on Northeast Public Radio.

For any organization or firm that exists and serves in the public sector, exposing possible conflicts of interest simply evens the playing field so to speak. It’s the first step in exploring possible improprieties. Democracy works best absent of conflicts of interest, and it is in the best interest of the public for journalists and citizens to expose potential conflicts of interest, which often result in unfair public policies and practices.

For those involved in conflicts of interest, their credibility and reliability are at stake. In the public sphere, this erodes confidence in the organization and its ability to perform its duties.

In the private sector, conflicts of interest policies have grown as companies see the benefits of conducting business in the best interest of shareholders, not just for a handful of individuals. Code of ethics are increasingly being adopted by boards. The result is more efficient and productive business practices.

For any firm or organization, resolution of conflicts of interest include disclosure, recusal and removal of those involved.

Shedding light on apparent conflicts of interest is a healthy process. It exposes possible improprieties, which can easily be resolved. It’s critical to shine light on anything that can appear to be a conflict of interest. Transparency and clarity is a must, especially for public entities.

In most cases, such as hiring decisions, awards, bids, contracts and the like, recusal from the decision is the most common way to remove any possible appearance of a conflict of interest. It is simple, quick and transparent, and can save an organization a lot of public grief.

Of course the best practice for any committee, commission, board, company or firm is to have in place a conflicts of interest policy. Better yet, a broader code of ethics policy would cover conflicts of interest as well as other issues that an organization may face.

In the meantime, leaders and executives of organizations should look closely for any potential conflicts of interest and act accordingly.