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.

At the Newburgh City Council work session January 22, the council came to a consensus that they wanted to “think about” what to do about the courthouse art commission.  This decision came at the conclusion of a presentation by Director of Cultural and Economic Development Martha Zola, and arts commissioners Karen Conway, Isaac Diggs, and Torrance Harvey.

Below are four transcribed excerpts from the hour-long presentation; video of the entire presentation is at the bottom of the post.

Excerpt 1
[Video deleted]

Councilwoman Christine Bello: Can I ask… there was only one member from the commission on the jury.  How was that one person selected, was that an arbitrary process?

Director Martha Zola: He volunteered.  Whenever they… whenever there’s something to be done on the commission, the president asks for a volunteer, in this case, the percent for art committee, and somebody volunteered.

CB: Okay, my second point then.  Since he did volunteer, was it ever investigated as to whether or not there was a conflict of interest?

MZ: We have no, they have in the bylaws, a rule…

CB: Was it investigated?

MZ: Can I… let me finish my sentence.  There is a rule, a bylaw rule, in the commission, that when somebody is related, when there is something being judged, if someone is related, that is one criteria.  Or, if they stand to gain.  So that there is a conflict of interest, that there needs to be disclosure.  In no case was there a juror that met that standard.  In this case.

CB: To your knowledge.  Your assuming [cross-speaking] someone’s integrity.

MZ: We’re certain.  He is neither related, nor will he benefit, in any way, from this individual having won this [inaudible].

Councilwoman Marge Bell: Well who is “he”?

Mayor Nick Valentine: Obviously, we’re talking about Garin Baker.  Why are we being so shy.  Is Garin Baker related to Bryan?

MZ: No.

NV: Does Garin… work with Bryan, or does Bryan work with Garin? [Nods head vigorously yes]

MZ: We understand that Bryan has worked with Garin, on the trestle project.

Commissioner Torrance Harvey: They worked together, but he doesn’t benefit from this.

MZ: There’s no way that Garin would benefit from this.

Commissioner Isaac Diggs: Let me, if I may, just add a comment.  First of all, getting to Garin’s participation in this process.  Garin Baker, as many of you know, is a preeminent artist whose work requires him to take part in this process quite often.  So he’s sending RFPs, RFQs, he’s intimately aware of how this process works.  And he was one of the commissioners who spearheaded the percent for art legislation, writing the draft.  He’s been very much a part of the percent for art committee up to this date.  So for him to be the volunteer for this first project, especially, makes total sense.  As well, since this is a Newburgh artist, whose work in many ways parallels Garin’s, it’s not unusual to think at some point during that, he would have worked with Garin, for Garin.

CB: Maybe Garin taught him.

ID: Perhaps he did.

CB: Maybe.

ID: But that in no way disqualifies this artist or this juror and commissioner from participating.  Now, the process that we went through with the jurors has been outlined to you.  There were 8 or 9 jurors,

MZ and TH: 11 jurors.

ID: And what I hear, I mean the elephant in the room is, did Garin rig this.  Was there… Did he mastermind the selection of this artist.  I just recommend that you look at the jurors, and then listen to how this was done, and you’ll realize that that was impossible.

MB: Mr. Diggs, I think you’re having some misinterpretation.  I don’t think that anyone ever stated that he rigged it.  I think the question is, if Mr. Guglielmi is his protege, he most certainly knew his work.  And at that point, rather than muddying the process, he should have recused himself.

MZ: I’m interested in knowing, and it’s an important principle we’re looking at here, because we’re looking at, potentially, many of these projects, and many juries in formation, of many juries.  And I’m concerned that what you’re saying means that no artist in Newburgh can ever be on a jury because we all know each other.  We all know each other’s work.  We’re friends.  So that eliminates all… We have a standard for recusing yourself.  Garin’s participation does not violate those standards.  And there’s no reason that I can, you know, if he meets that, if the commission is scrupulous about making sure that he passes those tests, I can’t understand why we would be applying a new test that seems to me really eliminates any artist in Newburgh from ever being on a jury.  I know all their work.  All the artists know each others’ work.
Does that mean none of us can be on juries?

MB: So you knew that this was Guglielmi’s work?

MZ: No, I didn’t.

MB: Oh, I thought you said you knew all the work.

MZ: No, I don’t know each and every artist, but I certainly know many of them.

TH: Well, in addition to that, I think, Martha, when you look at having to [inaudible] jurors in a process which is a blind process, and if you put into question Garin’s integrity in the process, then I think you put into question the integrity of everyone, including the Honorable Judge Ramsey [MZ nods head].  You know, and someone who actually lives and abides by the laws of this nation…

MZ: I think that [you] could say that for every juror.

TH: Yeah, [inaudible] all ten other jurors, who…

MB: Mr. Harvey.  I don’t follow your reasoning on that.  Judge Ramsey?

TH: Was one of the jurors.

MB: And so… Did anyone say that Judge Ramsey knew the artist or had a connection to the artist?

TH: No.  No one said that, but…

MB: So how could you then infer that we’re saying is that Judge Ramsey is somehow… I mean, I don’t get, I’m not following, it’s not a straight line.

TH: Okay, I can clarify for you.  Judge Ramsey was one of the jurors selected for this process.

MB: Mr. Harvey, I understand that.

TH: And, okay, I want to just clarify, maybe you can understand my logic.  Is that okay?

MB: We have been colleagues for a number of years, so, we normally are sitting on the same side of the table.  But you go right ahead and explain, I mean, I didn’t get it, so help me.

TH: Yeah, I’m just saying that, you know, if there are 11 jurors, and there was a vote – Martha, do we have the votes?

MZ: Yup, yup.

TH: Can you share with the city council what that vote was?

MZ: The mean scores?

TH: Yes.  Please.

MZ: The mean scores by the numbers, because I only have the submissions by numbers and not names.  Number 33 had a mean score of 5.5… Number 37 had a mean score of 5.0.  Number 40 had a mean score of 4.6…

Excerpt 2
[Video deleted]

CB: I just – I just had a couple of concerns.  And please hear me out on this.  My first concern is, quite honestly, is several residents of the community contacted me.  This is – whether it truly is a conflict or not, it is the appearance of impropriety.

Councilwoman MaryAnn Dickinson: Perception.

CB: So, that’s my first thing.  The second thing that is troubling to me is that this courthouse is the people’s courthouse.  It is paid for with public moneys.  The money that we are allocating for this art is the people’s money.  And I have a bit of a problem with the fact that this entire jury consists of maybe six Newburgh residents.  Maybe, six or seven.  This is a deep concern to me, because our taxpayer dollars are not allocated to any other committee in this city.  The arts committee.  I think this should have been, had more of the people’s input.  Our people’s input.  Or more times so that the artwork could be viewed.  And have the people select that they want in their courthouse.  I kind of – I take exception to it that we have people from different communities [inaudible] selecting the artwork for the people’s courthouse.  That’s troubling to me.

MZ: Can I respond?

CB: Sure.

MZ: There are two issues that you raised that I want to respond to.  One is the source of the funding.  The moneys allocated to pay for this project come from the percent for art program.  Those moneys are not tax money…

CB: They certainly are.  They come from the contractor,

MZ: They come from the contractor,

CB: Who was paid – paid by the people.  And that’s bonded money.

MZ: Okay.  It can be, put in that way.

CB: That’s [inaudible]

MZ: But I did want to make a point.  That it is coming from the contractor specifically to be spent on the art.  The second comment I would make is that, in examining our, the way we were going to set up the jury, and recruit members of the jury, was an attempt to be consistent with percent for art programs across the country.  There are over 400 of them now, and we continually research what those programs have done, and the models that are in place, so that we are looking at best practices.  This is our first percent for art program.  So we’re going to do all this for the first time, so we try to take the [inaudible] from communities that have a good deal of experience with this, so that hopefully, we’re learning from them.  And what they attempt to do with the juries is to combine participation and have representation from key areas in the community and also in arts participation.  Because this is an aesthetic product, where you’re looking for some contribution from people with an intensive experience and background in the arts.  Because what you’re putting up, and what you’re putting up on the walls, is a legacy for the city.  It’s going to go on far beyond any of us, and any of our lives, this council, and be part of the image of the City of Newburgh.  So you want to have the input of hopefully some people who have an intensive arts background with arts experience who can also participate in that selection process because you’re trying to – continually – raise the bar.  We’re trying to add an aesthetic, an aesthetic component to the Newburgh environment that will ultimately impact on behalf of the taxpayers the economic environment of Newburgh.  All of these programs have been used, are a shoe horn, for economic development.  They are meant to attract business, people. they’re meant to attract home buyers, they are meant to attract tourism, trade, and in every city where these percent for art programs have been put in place, that has been the effect.  So it’s very important that we move forward with an aesthetic product that actually helps us achieve that Newburgh identity with the arts.  And I think that’s why we reached to experts, and people with some experience, is that we may not have inside the community to help us and work with us.  We certainly didn’t go very far afield.  These are people who are involved in Newburgh, and close to Newburgh, so it’s not as though we reached very far…

CB: I would have just preferred that we had Newburgh residents involved in this.  And maybe with some professional expertise, also, on there.  But, like I say, this is something that the people – it’s the people’s courthouse.  And it’s the people’s money.  I don’t care how you look at it, that pays for this.  So I would have much rather seen our – or open to the public.  And not just on a very limited basis.  I mean, I couldn’t even get the time to view the artwork because of the limited times that – it was two times – one was during business hours, and one was on an evening, you know, when we have work session.  So, I would have loved to have viewed it myself.  And I didn’t have the opportunity.  I think that it should have had more public input, for this choice.

Excerpt 3
[Video deleted]

CB: I appreciate the very hard work that you do.  But I do – possibly this is just a misunderstanding – the way I understood one percent for art.  But I was never aware that it involved taxpayer dollars.  I thought it was from developers that came here.  And that developers were paying this.  But it is not – this is the taxpayer money.  So now, when I see that we, in a city that needs so much, are going to spend a sizable amount of money on artwork, and believe me, I want the courthouse to be beautiful, but my concern is, everything in due time.  You can’t, you know you don’t necessarily invest in luxuries when you don’t have the basics.  We need so much here.  And that’s why I get upset that we’re even using taxpayer dollars for this.  I just think it’s premature.  It’s like putting the icing on a cake that isn’t quite baked yet.

ID: Just in response to that, two things.  I think it’s important to understand that this, as I understand it, that the percent for art money is set aside for work that is already incorporated into the budget of the project.  For instance, the courthouse needs to be painted.  The courthouse needs landscaping.  The courthouse might need new windows.  Those are expenses that are necessary.  So the question becomes, well how can we incorporate the arts into work that’s already going to be done.  Instead of hiring a conventional painter, maybe we hire an artist to paint.  Something has to be done with those panels.  But instead of having the contractor throw up sheetrock over them, or put some tile in, let’s get an artist to do it.  So, I think it’s important to see that these are things that need to be done, that we’re saying, okay, let’s engage the arts in getting those done.  This is not an add on.  This is not necessarily a luxury.  And we won’t go into a debate as to whether art is a luxury or not.  But I think it’s important to understand, this is work that was going to need to be done anyway.  And percent for art helps incorporate an artist into that picture.  And it’s not something, another superfluous layer, that’s added to complicate or further increase the cost of the project.

And I think it’s important too, that we clear up this issue around impropriety.  Because Ms. Bell was asked a question, with regards to how we should move forward, and if it’s improper if all Newburgh, if someone recognizes someone’s work, does that immediately disqualify them from this process.  And I think that if you decide yes, then we need to ask every juror whether or not they recognize someone’s work, as part of that process.  Because we have, we have procedures set up to make sure there’s no conflict of interest.  And, as a matter of fact, one of the artists did disqualify himself because there was a conflict.  So there are measures on the table to prevent that kind of impropriety.  So I think it would be unfair to the artist in question to continue under this fog of impropriety when, according to the rules setup, and according to the process in place, there was none.  So I just think it’s important for Ms. Bell to answer that question.

MB: Recognition of the work, and having a relationship with someone as your protege, and having them work with you hand-in-hand on a number of projects is very different than recognizing the art.  Two very different things.

Excerpt 4
[Video deleted]

NV: Okay, so what do we want to do tonight? There’s three options.  There’s do nothing,

Corporation Counsel Geoffrey Chanin: Well, think about it…

NV: There’s, think about it…

GC: Approve it and direct me to draft a contract…

NV: Right.

GC: It will not be ready for Monday.

NV: Right. Or three…

GC: Or say, you know, we’re uncomfortable, we’re not comfortable with this right now, and propose some different [inaudible].  Or, something else that we might imagine, I don’t want to limit this.  The way I see it, those are the three choices.

MB: I’d like to think about some other configurations of this thing.  I mean, I know that there’s always to make win-win-win.  I mean, you know, it’s just not always cut and dry.  So I would like to have a chance to think about some other ways, creative ways, that we can make this happen.

NV: Is there a third think about it?

MZ: Can I make one more comment?  Two things that I would like to leave you with from my presentation.  On the one hand, there’s the work that the commission’s done, as well as the work that I have done, which is very substantial in terms of hours and effort, is based solely on the percent for art ordinance that this city signed as in effect.  So I ask you to examine that ordinance, because everything we have done, in terms of the allocation of the money, and the process, is written in that ordinance, which is a Newburgh City Ordinance.  And all the work we’ve done, all the time and effort that we have expended, has been done consistent with that ordinance.  So I want to make that point.  The second point that I want to make is that on behalf of the artists which again, I do on behalf of the City of Newburgh, we are in effect, with the percent for art program, and the intentions of the percent for art program, which is to raise the economic profile of Newburgh – is being done using the artists as a shoehorn.  Anyone who came to that show saw there were hours and hours and hours of work of artists, on display.  So all these artists spent hours in their studios producing product for the City of Newburgh.  And they were beautiful.  And I am asking that any discussions that go forward, whether it is relating to young Bryan, or the gentleman who gave us – who donated – the Freedom of Movement Sculpture, a very fine, highly recognized artist… [TAPE CHANGE] continue to want to work with us, and gives them the courtesy…  Thank you.

MB: Well, if I were going to earn $75,000, I might…

NV: Well, okay, I think, I think, I think we…

MB: Excuse me.  Excuse me, mayor.  I have the right to speak.

NV: Yes you do.

MB: No.  No one, certainly not I, I was an advocate for percent for art.  I’m an advocate for artists.  I am an artist.  So, in terms of trivializing, and…

MZ: I didn’t say that…  I was speaking about those who would, could, and have.  I was not referring to you.  It was a statement about those who have and would.

ID: May I make a final comment?  Briefly?

NV: Very briefly, please.

ID: Just a point of clarification.  The artist is not being paid $75,000.00.  That’s a total project fee.  Second, I would just highlight the fact that everything that we’ve done up to this point has been done according to the ordinance that has been passed by city council.  All these procedures follow that to a T.  I think it would be unfortunate now to change the rules of the game.  I hope that the city isn’t considering that.  Thank you.

MB: Mr. Diggs.  What’s the total project fee?

ID: We negotiate the contract.  The $75,000.00 as far as I understand it includes everything related to…

MZ: Materials, shipping…

ID: There is an artist’s fee.  To be, I guess determined by negotiation, but it is not $75,000.00.  The artist would not be paid $75,000.00.  Thanks.

MB: Are they paid most of what the fee is?

MZ: I don’t believe it’s even close.  There are all kinds of expenses we have budgeted.

MB: Now I’m going to start fighting for the artist!

MZ: That includes all of the expenses.

MB: The overhead should not outrank the talent.

MZ: I like that.  I like that.

[multiple] Thank you.

Entire presentation: