 |
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!
