jueves, 29 de marzo de 2012

El “Game Change” del corrupto Miguel Rodríguez Casellas

Miguel Rodríguez Casellas
junto a Rogelio Figueroa del
Partido Puertorriqueños por
Puerto Rico otro bochorno de
partido político que es
enemigo del progreso.
“Detrás de este gigantismo aparatoso, enajenado del entorno, yace el perfil de macharrán que ha caracterizado a Santini en su intención de dialogar con un segmento de la población cuyos héroes son los grandes antihéroes de la sociedad, por un lado, o los patriarcas del fundamentalismo panderetero. Se asume que es esa la demografía que adjudica elecciones en San Juan y, para ellos, el gesto grande e impositivo debía traducir la erección del falo institucional en votos seguros.”
29 de marzo de 2012
El Nuevo Día
“Game change”
Miguel Rodríguez Casellas

El autor es profesor de la Escuela de Arquitectura de la Politécnica y autor intelectual del escándalo de corrupción en el Proyecto de Arte Público bajo la administración de Sila Calderón.

La pitirre de Carmen Yulín tiene un defensor contra el guaraguao de Santini, pero resulta que el arquitecto tiene un pasado escandaloso y muy oscuro que involucra a muchos “defensores de la cultura puertorriqueña” como Marimar Benítez, Teresa Tió y Marilú Purcell del Museo de Arte de Ponce, que como todos sabemos es de la familia Ferré Rangel.

No voy a añadirle mucho, porque es bastante extensa la información, así es que siéntese comodo y disfrute el banquete...

Juzgue usted...

Obra de Arte Público "2112" del artista José Jorge Román 

COPIA DE LA 2da CARTA A SILA 
SEGUN APARECIO EN EL 
FORO 
DEL CUARTO DEL QUENEPON:

262. SEGUNDA CARTA ABIERTA 


7 de noviembre de 2002 


Hon. Sila M. Calderon
GOBERNADORA DEL
ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO
La Fortaleza
San Juan, Puerto Rico 


RE: EL JURADO DEL PROYECTO DE ARTE PUBLICO Y POSIBLES CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES 



Estimada Hon. Gobernadora: 



Nuevamente nos dirigimos a Ud., a su Administracion de Gobierno, a los medios de comunicacion y a las autoridades pertinentes estatales y federales para que investiguen un asunto serio que, eventualmente, utilizara fondos publicos. Esta es la segunda Carta Abierta que nos sentimos obligados a escribir y publicar despues de haberle hecho llegar otra Carta Abierta fechada 28 de octubre de 2002. Esa primera carta ya fue enviada debidamente y publicada; a nuestro entender habla por si sola. 



Especificamente estas dos cartas son en relacion al Proyecto de Arte Publico que se convoco publicamente a principios de enero de 2002 y cuya fecha de entrega de las propuestas finalmente ocurrio el 29 de abril de 2002. Todas las propuestas sometidas requerian el nombre y apellido del artista y/o arquitecto. La evaluacion de las propuestas no seria anonima ya que todo el Jurado tendria claro conocimiento del autor. 



Sin embargo existe, inexplicablemente, y mas de SEIS (6) MESES despues, un silencio absoluto oficial con relacion a la lista de quienes formaron parte del Jurado que se convoco para este proyecto de arte publico que cuenta con fondos publicos para su entero financiamento. Entendemos que inclusive se remunero el Jurado con fondos publicos. 



Un comunicado de prensa oficial del DTOP y fechado 28 de octubre de 2002, hace referencia, entre otras cosas, al Jurado y que este consiste de doce (12) miembros y de dos (2) "Asesores de renombre internacional". Lamentablemente ese comunicado no especifica el nombre de ninguno de los miembros del Jurado ni quienes son esos "asesores de renombre internacional". 



La Directoria de Urbanismo, adscrita al Departamento de Transportacion y Obras Publicas, dirigida por el Arqto. Miguel Rodriguez, nunca ha publicado una lista oficial. Despues de mas de SEIS (6) meses de alegadas deliberaciones por el mismo panel todavia se REHUSAN abiertamente a publicar esa lista hasta la fecha. 



Ante la ausencia de informacion y dicha lista oficial, se han ido recopilando los nombres de la mayoria de los miembros que componian ese jurado y de los asesores. La lista, que permanece incompleta y aparece en la internet, ha sido nutrida a traves de las ultimas semanas por un sinnumero de personas, artistas y arquitectos que SI tienen conocimiento personal directo e indirecto de quienes participaron en ese jurado. Por temor a represalias profesionales, politicas y economicas, la gran mayoria de los que han contribuido a recopilar esa informacion prefieren permanecer en el anonimato por ahora. El temor es justificable en este caso. 



Es a raiz del comunicado de prensa del DTOP del 28 de octubre de 2002 y tambien de la informacion recopilada hasta hoy que queremos levantar unos temas muy serios y de peso con respecto a este Proyecto de Arte Publico. Queremos levantarlos previo a cualquier aviso oficial proximo. El momento es hoy para que quede la historia clara y la cronologia publicada. 

Nos preocupan profundamente y seriamente los dos (2) siguientes temas: 



A) POSIBLES CONFLICTOS DE INTERESES DEL JURADO DE NATURALEZA PROFESIONAL, ECONOMICA Y ETICA: 

--Un miembro de un Jurado que evalua propuestas, de las cuales conoce el nombre y apellido de su autor, no puede tener lazos economicos, profesionales, patrono-empleado, profesor-estudiante y de similar indole con el autor de esa propuesta. Tampoco puede opinar, votar, discutir, dirigir la conversacion, sobre esa propuesta de ese autor si existen ciertos lazos de antemano. Por ejemplo: 



1. Un empleado de un Museo evaluando la propuesta de un Miembro de la Junta de ese mismo Museo; 



2. Un empleado de un Museo evaluando la propuesta de un artista que ya esta en la coleccion permanente de ese mismo Museo o que ha tenido o tendra proximamente una exhibicion en ese mismo Museo; 



3. Por extension a la Num. 2, si el empleado tiene conocimiento o desea que ese artista de esa propuesta done o estara donando una obra de un valor significativo a ese mismo Museo para su coleccion permanente; 



4. Un Director de una institucion (sea cultural, educativa y/o sin fines de lucro) evaluando la propuesta de un empleado de esa misma institucion; 



5. Un Director de una institucion (sea cultural, educativa y/o sin fines de lucro) evaluando la propuesta de un estudiante de esa misma institucion; 



6. Por extension a la Num. 5, un profesor o maestro evaluando la propuesta de uno de sus estudiantes de esa misma institucion; 



7. Un Director de una institucion (sea educativa y/o sin fines de lucro) evaluando propuesta de uno de sus propios colegas de esa misma institucion; 



8. Un coleccionista de arte evaluando la propuesta de un artista que ya tiene obra en su propia coleccion privada; 



9. Un coleccionista de arte evaluando la propuesta de un artista con el cual tiene intencion de adquirir una obra de arte para su coleccion de arte privada; 



10. Un coleccionista de arte evaluando propuestas de artistas de los cuales tendra, antes que el publico, informacion privilegiada y que puede lucrarse usando esa informacion privilegiada. 



Estos son algunos ejemplos de situaciones que a nuestro entender desvirtuarian un proceso transparente y libre de conflictos. Existen dentro y fuera de Puerto Rico muchas otras personas, y conocedoras del arte de nuestra cultura, donde estas circumstancias no se darian. En cada una de las anteriores situaciones ese miembro del Jurado tendria que--por etica moral, profesional y legal-- abstenerse, inhibirse, y ausentarse de tal evaluacion, discusion y dialogo. 



Hay amplios metodos y precedentes de situaciones, por ejemplo, en el otorgamiento de becas o fondos para propuestas de fondos publicos, donde un miembro de un jurado se ausenta durante las delibraciones sobre esa propuesta en particular ya que tendria un peso indebido su opinion. 



Por ejemplo, nos han hecho llegar informacion de que Susana Torruella Leval, Directora Emerita del Museo del Barrio, como miembro de la Junta de Directores de la Andy Warhol Foundation en Nueva York, al llegar cualquier propuesta que tenga el nombre y apellido de alguien conocido o de una circumstancia que presente un posible conflicto de interes e incluso la APARIENCIA de un conflicto de interes, se levanta de la mesa y se ausenta durante esa parte del proceso. No sabemos si a este Jurado se le impartieron tales instrucciones o si voluntariamente lo hicieron. 



Tenemos suficiente evidencia para saber que de ante mano TODAS estas situaciones se presentaron durante las deliberaciones del jurado. La pregunta estriba en si ese miembro del Jurado se abstuvo, se inhibio, o se ausento? 

Si no fue asi, el proceso ha sido contaminado.

Si TODAS las propuestas hubieran sido anonimas de antemano esta serie de conflictos se hubiera eliminado automaticamente y completamente. Pero no ha sido asi.



B) CAMBIOS DE LAS REGLAS DE LA CONVOCATORIA SIN EL DEBIDO PROCESO DE LEY Y POSIBLES IRREGULARIDADES EN PROCEDIMIENTO DE SUBASTAS PUBLICAS: 


--La Convocatoria segun publicada originalmente especificaba que el Jurado podia escoger entre un 10% a un 15%, de todas las propuestas premiadas, de artistas de afuera. 

Sin embargo en el comunicado de prensa del DTOP del 28 de octubre, y sin ningun previo aviso publico de un cambio en las reglas de la convocatoria, anuncian que de las 97 obras que finalmente seran adquiridas y/o comisionadas, ya 25 son de artistas de afuera. Esto quiere decir que un 26% de las obras premiadas seran para artistas de afuera. 



No ha habido ningun tipo de aviso publico previo para cuestionar este resultado antes de ser anunciado ya que contradice y violenta las bases originalmente establecidas. 



Como se justifica eso? Como explicar el impacto economico de ese resultado ante la situacion de crisis economica de nuestro pais? 

--Segun las reglas de la convocatoria original el Jurado se reservaba el derecho de pedirle modificaciones y/o cambios de lugar al artista. Y si contaba con el aval del artista, el Jurado podia entonces otorgar premio sobre la propuesta modificada o perfeccionada. 



Sin embargo a multiples artistas y arquitectos quienes fueron contactados informalmente y verbalmente, una vez comenzo el Jurado a trabajar, para pedirles hacer esas modificaciones o cambios de sitio TAMBIEN se les NOTIFICO informalmente y verbalmente de que OTRA DE SU(S) PROPUESTAS NO HABIAN SIDO DEL AGRADO DEL JURADO. Esto representaria una violacion de las reglas de la convocatoria y procedimientos basicos de un concurso y le concederia a unos pocos ciertos privilegios que otros artistas y arquitectos no recibieron, ni se les dio oportunidad de hacer los mismo, ni de saber lo mismo bajo igualdad de condiciones. 



--Si hasta el momento se ha pretendido mantener confidencialidad absoluta y total de quienes han sido premiados y con que propuestas, este concepto ya ha sido un violentado. 

Hay multiples ejemplos de artistas y arquitectos que YA se les ha notificado informalmente y verbalmente que ya han sido premiados a cambio de confidencialidad. El derecho a esto no esta escrita en las bases originales del concurso. Estos dos (2) temas consideramos son serios y ameritan su atencion directa e inmediata. 



Nos vemos obligados en esta coyuntura a reclamar publicamente que se publique esta informacion lo antes posible, que se investiguen TODOS y CADA uno de los posibles conflictos de intereses minuciosamente y todas las ramificaciones que eso conlleva para que los resultados del concurso, la confianza del pueblo, y la distribucion de fondos publicos significativos no sean afectados ni erosionados. 



Como ya Ud. ha hecho incapie en otros foros y medios sobre la responsabilidad, la verticalidad, la transparencia, la etica profesional, moral y legal de nuestra sociedad y a la que aspiramos y como gran ejemplo de su Administracion, apelamos a su propio sentido de de lo que es limpio, honesto y virtuoso. 



Al igual que Ud. queremos que la seleccion de un Arte Publico sea de una reputacion intachable y de un merito artistico sin indebidas influencias. La corrupcion es intolerable; en este asunto y en todos los demas que hoy sabemos. 



Muy atentamente, 



UN GRUPO DE ARTISTA Y ARQUITECTOS QUE SOMETIERON PROPUESTAS 




CC: 

--Departamento de Obras Publicas y la Directoria de Urbanismo a cargo del Proyecto de Arte Publico; 

--Agencias estatales y federales pertinentes y con jurisdiccion sobre este tema; 

--Prensa escrita, radio y television en Puerto Rico y en el exterior;

Date: 07 Nov, 2002 on 02:19 p.m. 




Grupo EGG
 
E.G.G. 
Junior Member 
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



MIGUEL: TE ESTAN BUSCANDO; LA GOBERNADORA YA ESTA INFORMADA DE LA METIA DE PATA TUYA.

NO TE CREAS QUE ESTAS POR ENCIMA DEL PUEBLO DE PUERTO RICO.

HASTA QUE LLEGUEN LOS FISCALES Y LOS FEDERALES.....

NO A LA CORRUPCION!




Los mosquitos de Arecibo
Confidential Source

DEC. 3, 2002



Office of the Inspector General

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Washington DC



RE: FLAWED CALL FOR ENTRIES, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DISCRIMINATION, FAVORITISM, CHANGING OF CRITERIA AFTER DEADLINE CLOSING, FRAUDULENT USE OF FUNDS, SECRECY AND OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION, ETC. IN PUERTO RICO USING FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS IN "PUBLIC ART PROGRAM"



Dear Inspector Harding:

I am writing to report numerous and highly suspicious activities in
connection with a "Public Art Program" in Puerto Rico this year. I
believe it merits a thoughrough investigation and a temporary stop order pending the outcome of an investigation with a public statement. Other participants and citizens may contact the office as well in connection with this program.



On or about Jan. 10, 2002, a "Request for Proposals" (in Spanish:
"Convocatoria") was issued, in Spanish only, in Puerto Rico local
newspapers and on the internet, by the local Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP) for Artists, Architects and others to submit their proposals for 100 public sculptures through out the island. All sites had allocated budgets between $900,000 and $30,000 each. At that time the total funding was, allegedly, $15 MILLION.

These funds are in large part related to the "Tren Urbano" project in San Juan, PR (a new $2.0 BILLION transportation system--this project is already the subject of continuing investigations by OIG), highway beautification dollars, and other federal sources of funds. Most of the specified sites were on or near highways and on or near "Tren Urbano" stations.

This Call for Entries is still available on their web site
(www.dtop.gobierno.pr). I, and many others, found many strange and peculiar components to this Call for Entries which deviates substantially from standard practices of the DTOP locally, DOT nationally, GSA nationally, American Institute of Architects (AIA) competition guidelines and other public art competitions and guidelines. They are presented here in roughly chronological order:



THE CALL FOR ENTRIES:


1. The Call for Entries is entirely in Spanish. NO English version is
available ANYWHERE. Any use of Federal funds would require this to be in English as well as in Spanish. We found this discriminatory and limiting on purpose.



2. Makes reference in its introduction, specifically, that this competition is for Puertoricans RESIDING ON THE ISLAND or those
(presumably of any nationality or place of origin) who have resided on the island for more than three (3) years. We found this discriminatory for obvious reasons in that all Americans, including Puertoricans are US citizens no matter where they reside. A similar clause would be entirely innapropritate in any other state or US jurisdiction.



3. There is no listing as to who will be the Jury except for vague
statements that it will include "prominent" people in the arts. This we found strange for it allowed them to select jurors AFTER the receipt of all the entries and thus "hedge" their bets with hand picked judges as to increase the chances of certain participants being selected and whom they wanted in the outcome based on the entries. Public Art competitions always specify ahead of time who the Jury will be. See further below.



4. States that the Jury "reserves the right" to award between 10 and 15% of the projects to artists, architects from "outside" PR. Again a discriminatory and ilegal statement based on an artificial self-serving quota. No such quotas exist in any of the "percent for art" programs in the U.S. or its jurisdictions. This in other words would allow the jury to go out "shopping" for artists at the public's expense.



5. Instructions & requirments do not specify that all entries are to be ANONIMOUS, or that, if any reference is made to a name of the entrant it will be blocked so that no Jury member knows who is the entrant. No pre-registration is set forth in motion to assign registration numbers prior to the deadline, for example. Again this is setting up the stage for tampering with the Jury selection process and conflicts of interest with Jurors & staff at DTOP from the outset. Participants are de facto being evaluated by who they are, whether they are known to the Jurors and not purely on artistic merit of the entry.



6. Unprecedented in "public art" competitions the Call for Entries sets up three (3) categories for awarding contracts:

1) The Jury may award a contract to the artist/architect of a proposal submitted AS IS. 
2) The Jury awards a contract to the artist/architect WHO AGREES/CONSENTS to any of the following, among other possible, requests: changes in the proposed location, changes in materials, changes in budget, and the like (this implied that half-way thru the deliberations the artist/architect would be contacted to determine if they agree to make those changes and re-submit); and
3) The Jury will recommend commissioning work(s) for places or categories for which there were no entries recieved OR for places or categories which the Jury determines the received proposals that are not good enough (this last piece also sets the stage for favoritism and "shopping for art" as evidenced later on).



7. States that the artist/architects can be compensated from 15% to 25% above the actual cost of fabrication AND installation of the piece. It is up to the artists/architect to stipulate that in their budget which is part of the requirments for submission. This stipulation is unprecedented in any federal request for proposals since it does not allow for the best use of taxpayer dollars.



8. States that the agency UNDER no circumstances will deal with or compensate: art dealers, agents for the artists, and such based in Puerto Rico. The contract will be signed ONLY with the artist. NO allocation for any such third party is permissible. (This will be come an issue later on as written further down in that artists from "outside" PR exclusively insist that governement officials deal with their gallery or dealer as a standard operating procedure).



9. No date is set whatsoever as to when the results will be announced and under what conditions, nor is it specified that they have to provide any of the results, the list of entrants, or awardees according to the three (3) selection criteria set forth in advance. This detail will allow them later to conceal and manipulate public information.



10. The deadline listed on the Call for Entries states May 29, 2002. It was subsequently changed to April 29, 2002. The change in deadline was never modified on the web site....only locally by other means (press, word of mouth, those who called in). By restricting public information it allowed for restricting who was "in the loop" and excluded those who were not close to the source of information.



11. There were 2 OPTIONAL public orientation meetings to orient people on the island about the Call for Entires, rules of submission,etc. This was separately announced locally (not found in the Call for Entries found on the web). It was later stated that those who attended and left their addresses and phone numbers were contacted about the change in dates. No
mention was made of these two (2) meetings being mandatory in order to be notified about any official changes in the rules. Those not notified of such official changes were put at an immediate and unfair dissadvantage.



12. Deadline for entries: ON the date of the deadline, April 29, 2002, many artists and architects who appeared in person at the offices of the DTOP were able to hand deliver their packages and given a "Registration Number". ALL those who submitted from outside the Metropolitan Area of San Juan and who were not able to personally deliver the packages or makearrangements for such a delivery submitted by Mail (either US Postal Sercvice of Private couriers). However, no written confirmation was sent
to ANY submission submitted by Mail. This would appear to benefit those who were able to deliver personally and for them (DTOP) later claiming that those submitted by mail had been disqualified. Again no proper records were being kept and generated for such a LARGE enterprise involving MILLIONS of public dollars. 



JURY SELECTION:



13. For more than SIX (6) MONTHS jury selection and jury participants is kept secret and confidential from the participants and the public at large. During this time no public announcement is made about this or ANYTHING else regarding the competition. No official posting is made as to the final date of announcement, the cause for delay, or any changes being made or contemplated regarding this project. Again a total lack of public accountability, transparency, and information becomes a serious matter for concern.



14. However, during this time certain artists and architects are being contacted individually by the "Director" of the program, Miguel Rodriguez Casellas, Architect. He informs them that not only "the Jury":

a) would like them to submit an entry OR an entry for a specific site;
B) would like to see some changes made to their submission;
c) requests additional material, information, maquettes, etc. BUT ALSO that their other entry/entries were NOT being considered or were already eliminated--this last piece of information was not specified in the Call for Entries nor was it necessary since it would provide certain privileges to some and
not to others; some artists and architects took advantage of this
information and, unsolicited, submitted ADDITIONAL supporting material for the Jury to re-evaluate those previously declined entries.

The ability to ADD more material (which was not submitted originally) by some artists/architects is discriminatory since it was a privilege granted to a few and not everyone else. Here the stage is set for favoritism in that artists/architects personally or professionally known to the Jurors and whose entries were "deficient" could be invited to "enhance" and further "perfect" their entries. This privilege was not granted to
others who could enhance their entry if given more time.



15. Mr. Rodriguez Casellas, as BOTH the "Director" and the official 
"Messenger" of the program is highly susceptible to potential conflicts of interest and favoritism. No separation of functions and delegation of information was set up in advance nor during the course of the protacted proceedings.

NONE of the communication(s) between the Jury, the Director, and the Entrants who were invited later or contacted later is ANYWHERE IN WRITING during these six (6) months plus. It was carried out orally on purpose. This allowed him to control information and enhance certain entries to further manipulate the results. This is simply contrary to the best use of public taxpayer dollars. The concentration of information and thus power in a single individual is unprecedented. 



It was later revealed in the press that Mr. Rodriguez Casellas states that he is but a "consultant" to the DTOP. This conveniently and entirely circumvents public scrutiny and government ethics and by-laws applicable to government employees since he is outside such rules. A search for a "registered" consulting contract (a requirement of the
Office of the Comptroller of PR) under Mr. Rodriguez Casellas' name came back "not found".



16. After increasing pressure from artists and architects who began calling the press for official information on the status of the project (DTOP staff flat out refused to supply any information except to say that the Jury was still deliberating), and following the commencement of an informal internet "forum" where many artists and architects began sharing information among themselves, SEVERAL articles began to appear on the press in connection with the delay.

On or about October 28, 2002, an
"Open Letter" to the Governor of Puerto Rico, Hon. Sila M. Calderon, was posted in that "forum" and appeared in part on the press. The letter requested that the results be known immediately (names of entrants, names of the jury, and names of the winners) and that there were worrisome and serious concerns based on belief and information at the time and that the
process had not been transparent. Public confidence and trust had already begun to erode.



17. Coincidentally, on the same date the DTOP issues a "Press Release" announcing that, in effect, the project had been delayed for several reasons BUT that the results were going to be announced imminently.  HOWEVER, this press release, FOR THE FIRST TIME, officially mentions and
states:


a) The Jury, after being convened, had unanimously requested anonymity and confidentiality;


B) There had been 289 proposals submitted (it does not specify by how many entrants) on the deadline; and that the TOTAL number of evaluated entries by the Jury had reached 318 (presumably an additional 29 had been solicited and submitted during the deliberation process);


c) That ADDITIONAL sites had been incorporated for the Jury to
evaluate/decide on but which were NOT part of the original Call for Entries;


d) That some sites had been eliminated due to lack of participation and also based on recommendation of the Jury (it did not specify which);


e) That the BUDGET for the entire "Public Art" program had been INCREASED from $15 MILLION to $25 MILLION;


f) That the Jury had decided that instead of 10-15% of entries be awarded to "outsiders" the percentage had been increased to 25%.


g) That the Jury consisted of 12 members plus 2 "advisors";

h) That instead of 100 sites for the sculptures the total number had been reduced to 97.


i) That a press conference was scheduled for the following week to announce who was in the panel of judges.



18. The press release caused further controversy, some of it on the press (and there are articles about it) and some of it among the artists and architects who participated and the public at large; this latter group coalesced in the "forum" on the internet previously mentioned. Some of those serious concerns are as follows: How could a jury, unilaterally, decide to "close the doors" on a public process? How could the jury, unilaterally, change the percentage quota for "outsiders" which would further discriminate without any due process of law or public review
whatsoever? If there were new sites and sites without entries why not open those for new submissions? If there were vacant sites for which no one made submissions why not announce it so entries could be made for only those sites? If the funding had been increased why the decrease in sites; how was the new funding re-distributed over which sites? If there were in the end 97 sites how many entrants were there?--any entrant could
submit more than one proposal--in other words there was the potential scenario that less than 97 artists and architects had submitted and THUS they could have, if they chose to, awarded at least one contract to each entrant and there would be no need to go outside those who participated to solicit additional entries, and so on.

NO PUBLIC EXPLANATION WAS MADE
FOR ANY OF THIS IN SPITE OF REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.



18. Due to the continuing obfuscation by DTOP oficials, and specifically Mr. Rodriguez, artists and architects began posting a series of questions on the "forum" on the internet for the Press to Ask. In other words, if the participants and the public could not attend or get the official information (in the form and format requested) then the press was given a long list of specific questions for them to ask on behalf of the public.



19. Several days later, after 2 postponements, a "press conference" was made at DTOP. Those who called DTOP in order to assist were firmly told it was EXCLUSIVELY for the PRESS and only those with PRESS Passes could attend. A subsequent press release was posted in the DTOP web site summarizing some of the statements made at the Press Conference.

This was the first press conference ever after the closing of the
deadline. IN it we all learned:



a) The names of the members of the Jury. But instead of a list of 12 plus 2 advisers (as previously announced) a list of 13 people are presented all mixed in together. No distinction is made as to who performed which of those duties. No explanation for the now "missing" person is provided. We have the right to know if a juror resigned during the deliberation process and for what reason(s).



B) Mr. Rodriguez states that that he was not a member of the Jury, that he was the "moderator" without voting capability and that he acted as "co-curator" of the selection process. In other words he had a voice and could direct the Jury, pursuade, lobby, etc. during the entire deliberation process; he himself was then the "messenger" to the outside as well.



c) The statement is made that there was "no voting necessary" but rather decisions were made by "consensus" of the jury behind closed doors. No mention is made as to the actual tallying of opinions and how this very process was set up and conducted.



d) Reiterates previously announced details: increase in funding, lowering of number of sites, increasing the number of outsiders, etc.



e) States that during the months of Nov/Dec some contracts will be signed and later in Jan/Feb the other contracts will be signed with all the 97 awardees.



f) For the first time it states that those nominated "outsiders" by the Jury will now be "invited" to come to PR for the first time to then submit their site-specific proposals. This implies that: of the 97 sites, 24 of them (25% as they previously announced), do not have any submissions yet and that those to be invited from the "outside" never participated according to the Call for Entries guidelines. Of the remaining 73 sites (75% remainder) the Jury had "solicited" and "invited" 29 entries (see above) or 30% of the total from artists & architects the Jury deemed worthy. This would leave approximately 44 sites, or 45% of the total, to be given among those who entered as bona fide entrants on
April 29, 2002. This begs the question: why bother with so much
deliberation, time, and expense for such a low ratio of participants.



g) The above breakdown of the 97 projects is thus: 25% for "outsiders" yet to be invited; 30% were solicited or invited during the deliberation process; and 45% were for those who entered according to the Call for Entries. It goes without saying that this is a HIGHLY IRREGULAR outcome for such a project.



h) The members of the Jury, now that they were known to us officially, ALL had conflicts of interest with the entrants, the invitees, etc. before, during, and after the deliberations. See below. THE RESULTS TO DATE AND OTHER INFORMATION



20. Based on the names of the Jury members announced in the press and the press conference another "Open Letter" to the Governor was written and published on or about November 8, 2002. This time it called for an investigation on the procedures followed during the deliberations and individual examination of these conflicts of interest the Jury had "a priori". It called into question the entire procedures and methods followed by the "Director" of the program and the conduct of individual
members of the Jury, as individuals and as a group.



21. For the sake of brevity here is a sampling of those conflicts of
interest there are more and they are deeper than presented here; please note that NO INSTRUCTIONS were provided to the Jury as to how they needed to conduct themselves to avoid conflicts of interest and/or even the appearance of a conflict of interest:



a) The Chancellor of the School of Fine Arts (Escuela de Artes Plasticas: EAP) in San Juan is invited to be part of the Jury AFTER the entries are received at DTOP. A very large number of the entrants (faculty and students) come from and work at the EAP. She accepts the invitation to participate knowing this ahead of time (the institution is a small one). Once inside the Jury room she does not abstain from voting, giving opinions, discussing, lobbying, directing others on the merits, etc. of entries SUBMITTED by her own employees, colleagues and students. 
Additional invitations are made to OTHER faculty members of the EAP who had chosen not to participate initially. Some of the entries submitted had been supported institutionally by the EAP, by providing faculty and students with the facilities, the technical and computer support necessary to submit. There is even a very glaring case of a faculty member who had been select by the Chancellor, 11 months before, to represent PR in Brazil WITH THE SAME ENTRY HE SUBMITTED to the Public Art Project. Unofficially, he has been awarded that same entry worth $900,000.



B) Museum employees (there are 2) who did not abstain from voting, giving opinions, discussing, lobbying, directing others on the merits, etc. of entries SUBMITTED by members of the Board of Trustees of the same museum, artists which they had recently presented solo-exhibitions at their institutions, artists who are in their museum's permanent collection or on the verge of donating works of art to their permanent collections, and artists with whom they have commercial relationships (buying and selling) as well as advising them professionally.



c) Private art collectors (there are 2) who did not disclose their art
holdings, nor their commercial relationships with artists, who did not sign sworn statements to prevent them from profiting from insider information during the deliberations who did not abstain from voting, giving opinions, discussing, lobbying, directing others on the merits, etc. of entries SUBMITTED by artists on their private collections, artists who they could buy works of art during the deliberations at below market prices and otherwise PROFIT from trading on insider information (it is equal to having priviledged information prior to a company's stock going public) for PRIVATE AND PERSONAL GAIN. It is standard operating procedure at the local DTOP for bidders to sign sworn statements that they have no conflict of interest. An identical requirment could have been implemented and requested of all Jury members precisely to avoid this problem. It was NOT done.



d) Other members of the Jury who sell and buy art, on a freelance basis, and do "professional appraisals" for private gain did not abstain from voting, giving opinions, discussing, lobbying, directing others on the merits, etc. of the entries SUBMITTED by artists which they buy and sell and appraise. Some of the Jury members in fact go out and "represent" the artists and make private sales to supplement their incomes. They do not report this income to the local IRS and nor should they be in a position to "evaluate" objectively the artistic merit of a proposal of
that same artist who will be compensated with public dollars. 

In addition it is known locally that these members of the Jury traffic in their own and their institutions prestige and grant favors so that they may be later repaid. This has finally and totally eroded the public confidence that this process has been anything other then a charade to benefit the Jury's and the "Director's" personal friends, colleagues, superiors and underlings. To make matters worse, the "Director" has written the very same rules which has allowed this Jury to go out "shopping" for art from "internationally renowned artists" at the public's expense. Since when does a Jury trump the public's interest in making such a decision?



e) To date some letter have gone out to some artists and architects informing them they have NOT been selected. The official letter is dated November 7, 2002, yet the postmark from the US Postal service indicates it was actually mailed November 23, 2002. The letter confirms that NEW sites not available at the Call for Entries are in part the reason why the Jury took so long. After holding on to the material for more than SEVEN (7) months now it is stated that they have no space and that entries must be picked up between Nov. 30 (a Friday) and Dec. 4 (a Wednesday). Strangely, the letter states that the Jury will be announced shortly, but the letter is sent out AFTER the Jury has been announced officially to the Press. The letter clearly states that this Public Art Project is an UNPRECEDENTED program in the history of the island (and unprecedented in the US for that matter), and it is true that never before had there been ONE SINGLE Call for Entry for 97 sites worth $25 MILLION DOLLARS. The alternative would have been 97 Calls for Entries over say, three (3) years, thus avoiding massive and concentrated waste,
fraud, conflicts of interest, jury manipulation, and so on.



f) NO PUBLIC announcement has been made, as of today, of ANY of the awardees, the participants, and the rejected. The entire process and project remains to this day hidden from public view and scrutiny. A previosly announced press conference by the Governor in which she would call the names of the winners and inaugurate an exhibition of the maquettes & drawings of the winning entries has been indefinetly postponed. No new date for that announcement has been made.



g) Outraged, some participants and citizens have in fact called the
Governors' Special Citizens Commission to Invetigate Government
Transactions, also know as the "Blue Ribbon Commission", to file their complaints for a full and in depth investigation.

The Committee has those complaints on their agenda and a determination is pending whether they will take on the case. It is unknown as to who could have the authority and the power to call for a halt of the entire process, and make such an announcement, until an investigation is carried out with recommendations for remedies.

It is for all of the above reasons and others that an URGENT and
IMMEDIATE investigation be commenced before any public records are destroyed, and before any public funds are actually disbursed.

I am appalled that such waste and fraud using federal taxpayers dollars is being allowed to go on in broad daylight. 



Sincerely,



CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE


Grupo EGG
 
E.G.G. 
Junior Member

¿Quieren más?
http://chetumail.com/community/index.php?topic=1114.0;wap2


Y después de que esto pasó, no se abochornan y se autoproclaman los defensores de la cultura puertorriqueña. Como ven por eso es que proclamo a los cuatro vientos, el mercado del arte y artesanía puertorriqueña esta secuestrado por la izquierda dictatorial y después pretenden ponerse el velo de la pulcritud para juzgar el trabajo del Alcalde de San Juan,
Jorge Santini.

Si la Pitirre de Carmen Yulín está contando con estos corruptos y buscones de la cultura que Dios coja confesaos a los sanjuaneros.
 Volverán a hacer fiesta traqueteando con la cultura para abultar sus bolsillos de mucho dinero y cerrarle el paso a la participación democrática de los artistas estadistas 
y no afiliados al Partido Popular Democrático, 
todo esto avalado por la Familia Ferré Rangel. 
Such is Life!