July 5, 2000

ArtResolve : alternative dispute resolution for works of art and antiquity

http://www.artresolve.org
-----------------

"ArtResolve is a registered charity which offers efficient out-of-court options for the resolution of disputes about works of art and antiquity. These disputes may involve authenticity and attribution, title and provenance, broken trusts or other promises, liabilities for loss or damage, copyright and moral rights, matters of insurance and indemnity or any orther question concerning cultural objects or rights. They often involve complex points of law ans stark conflicts of evidence. Court claims can be very expensive, consume much valuable time, generate harmful publicity and, in the end, satisfy none of the parties. The dispute resolution methods on which ArtResolve advises can help greatly in avoiding these problems."

ArtResolve : Directors

John Kendall MA(Oxon) - Chairman
Professor Norman Palmer MA, BCL(Oxon)
Roger Bland, BA, PhD, FSA
Hetty Gleave - LLB LLM - Company Secretary
Tony Baumgartner LLB LLM
Margaret Hatton LLB

Further information from the ArtResolve website at:
http://www.artresolve.org
or by e-mail to info@artresolve.org
or by post to:
ArtResolve
Bank Chambers, 121 London Road
Leicester LE2 0QT
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0) 116 299 4057
Fax+44 (0) 116 255 1782

From: "Todd Behrens" tjbehrens@hotmail.com
Subject:

Fire suppression options

At the art museum at which I work, we have two art storage rooms, one with a Halon system and one with a water pipe system. We will soon be adding second floor mezanines within these rooms and are evaluating fire suppression systems. I have discussed this with people experienced in this area and have been urged to keep the Halon until it dumps or deteriorates. The suggestion then includes using water only systems rather than an alternative gas. I have heard from a different source that water-mist systems might not yet have received UL approval. Is this true? Do water-mist systems have any space/distance requirements to be effective? And, most important, how much damage to works on paper will occur as a result of activation of the water-mist system versus damage from other available systems? I would be interested to hear from anyone with an art collection (particularly one including prints/watercolors/photographs/etc.) whose water-mist or sprinkler system has activated.
Thank you.
Todd Behrens, Assistant Curator tjbehrens@hotmail.com
Polk Museum of Art Lakeland, FL

From: LayneCnslt@cs.com
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:45:22 EDT
Subject:

IFCPP

You can't please everyone all the time.....but we're going to try! We have received numerous requests from individuals who wish to take the CIPM training at our annual conference, but do not qualifiy as protection managers, or administrators responsible for protection. Many are involved in research, line-officer duties, or related functions. For these individuals, we have determined that they may attend the CIPM training, but will be given the CIPS exam. Successful completion will result in awarding of the Certified Institutional Protection Specialist designation. They will also receive advance study packets intended for the CIPS program.
If you, or any of your associates would like to attend the Monday sessions, even though NOT in a management position, please let us know. Registrations are arriving daily and we're looking forward to a full house. Don't miss THE most fulfilling cultural property protection event of the year....Emergency Exercise I. If you haven't registered, or reserved a spot...contact Rob soon! Have a SAFE and HAPPY 4th of July.
See you in November. - STEVE
Stevan P. Layne, CPP, CIPM
Layne Consultants International
IFCPP - Founding Director
Steve@IFCPP.com www.IFCPP.com

Artist Bacon 'had a Swiss account to dodge income tax'

By Hugh Davies
FRANCIS BACON, arguably Britain's most distinguished 20th century artist, allegedly kept a Swiss bank account to shelter large chunks of his income from tax. The claim surfaced when details of payments made to Bacon by his gallery, Marlborough Fine Art, were sent to the English lawyers of his estate, according to an article to be published in the magazine Vanity Fair. The estate is in the throes of a legal battle with the gallery, claiming that it wrongfully exploited him over more than 30 years. Bacon died in 1992, aged 82, leaving his Ł11 million estate to his closest friend, John Edwards, 50, an illiterate east Londoner and his constant companion for the last 18 years of his life. The estate claims that Marlborough, one of Britain's most prestigious galleries with its worldwide representative Marlborough International Fine Art based in Liechtenstein, should be presumed to have exercised "undue influence" over the artist, who died from a heart attack in Spain. It identified 33 works, known to have been painted between 1972 and 1981, worth as much as Ł30 million, that allegedly do not feature in the gallery's accounts. Michael Shnayerson, the author, said that the gallery's "partial payments" to the Geneva bank were legal for its Liechtenstein branch. It was also above board for Bacon to establish the account. But failing to declare the payments to the Inland Revenue as taxable income broke the law. The magazine suggests that a reason why Bacon never left Marlborough was that he feared no other gallery would agree to the arrangement. An old friend of the painter high in the art world is quoted as saying: "He was perhaps less happy than he seemed." Did he feel trapped? "Yes, that's the nub of it." The art critic Brian Sewell said that Bacon once told him that he would rather be in the hands of Marlborough than in those of "an incompetent honest man. "What he said is that he preferred a third of a million pounds rather than half a million pounds. And what he said is that the prices were constantly being pushed up by Marlborough in a way that they would never be pushed up by anyone else. However little he got in broad percentage terms, it was still more than he'd got if he went with anyone else." Mr Sewell dismissed the idea that Bacon was naive and being taken for a ride: "Francis was no fool." The Vanity Fair article, to be published in Friday's edition, quoted sources which appear to be close to the gallery, as saying that Bacon was hardly naive about what Marlborough was making from his work, or how his finances were handled. According to the magazine, in 1992 Bacon "got himself mixed up" and had all of his money from paintings - "the full Ł4.2 million" - sent to Switzerland, then, realising he needed to show some income in the UK, he asked for a portion to be sent back. He allegedly had his Swiss banker return Ł1.6 million to Marlborough. The sum was then forwarded to his British account. A Marlborough source claimed that as for the missing paintings, they had all been identified. In most cases Bacon gave them away or sold them himself. Liz Beatty, a representative of the estate, said last night that she would have no immediate comment on the claims.

SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL ON ART LOOTED IN THE NAZI ERA ANNOUNCE FINAL TERMS OF REFERENCE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE

The Spoliation Advisory Panel, recently established to help resolve claims for cultural works looted during the Nazi era, has now met for the first time and discussed their terms of reference and considered and agreed their rules of procedure.
To date, the Panel is aware of only one claim - that of Jan Griffier the Elder's View of Hampton Court Palace (1710) which was acquired by the Tate Gallery in 1961.
Panel Chairman Sir David Hirst said:
"We shall now invite both the claimants and the Tate Gallery to submit their case as soon as possible so that we may proceed to advise with this claim"
The Panel is expected to meet before the end of the summer to advise on the Griffier case.

Notes for Editors:

1. Copies of the terms of reference and the rules of procedure are attached.
2. Arts minister Alan Howarth announced the setting up of a panel to help resolve claims on art looted during the Nazi era on 17 February (DCMS News Release 35\2000) and the full membership of the group on 13 April (DCMS News Release 84\2000).

SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL CONSTITUTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

Members of the Panel
1. The members of the Spoliation Advisory Panel ("the Panel") will be appointed by the Secretary of State on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The Secretary of State shall appoint one member as Chairman of the Panel.
Resources for the Panel
2. The Secretary of State will make available such resources as he considers necessary to enable the Panel to carry out its functions, including administrative support provided by a Secretariat ("the Secretariat").

Functions of the Panel

3. The task of the Panel is to consider claims from anyone (or from any one or more of their heirs), who lost possession of a cultural object ("the object") during the Nazi era (1933 - 1945), where such object is now in the possession of a UK national collection or in the possession of another UK museum or gallery established for the public benefit ("the institution"). The Panel shall advise the claimant and the institution on what would be appropriate action to take in response to such a claim. The Panel shall also be available to advise about any claim for an item in a private collection at the joint request of the claimant and the owner.
4. In any case where the Panel considers it appropriate, it may also advise the Secretary of State
(a) on what action should be taken in relation to general issues raised by the claim, and/or
(b) where it considers that the circumstances of the particular claim warrant it, on what action should be taken in relation to that claim.
5. (a) In exercising its functions, while the Panel will consider legal issues relating to title to the object (see paragraph 7(d) and (f)), it will not be the function of the Panel to determine legal rights, for example as to title;
(b) The Panel's proceedings are an alternative to litigation, not a process of litigation. The Panel will therefore take into account non-legal obligations, such as the moral strength of the claimant's case (paragraph 7(e)) and whether any moral obligation rests on the institution (paragraph 7(g));
(c) Any recommendation made by the Panel is not intended to be legally binding on the claimant, the institution or the Secretary of State;
(d) If the claimant accepts the recommendation of the Panel and that recommendation is implemented, the claimant is expected to accept the implementation in full and final settlement of his claim.

Performance of the Panel's functions

6. In performing the functions set out in paragraphs 3 and 4, the Panel's paramount purpose shall be to achieve a solution which is fair and just both to the claimant and to the institution.
7. For this purpose the Panel shall:-
(a) make such factual and legal inquiries, (including the seeking of advice about legal matters, about cultural objects and about valuation of such objects) as the Panel consider appropriate to assess each claim as comprehensively as possible;
(b) assess all information and material submitted by or on behalf of the claimant and the institution or any other person, or otherwise provided or known to the Panel;
(c) examine and determine the circumstances in which the claimant was deprived of the object, whether by theft, forced sale, sale at an undervalue, or otherwise;
(d) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the claimant's original title to the object, recognising the difficulties of proving such title after the destruction of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the duration of the period which has elapsed since the claimant lost possession of the object;
(e) give due weight to the moral strength of the claimant's case;
(f) evaluate, on the balance of probability, the validity of the institution's title to the object;
(g) consider whether any moral obligation rests on the institution taking into account in particular the circumstances of its acquisition of the object, and its knowledge at that juncture of the object's provenance;
(h) take account of any relevant statutory provisions, including stipulations as to the institution's powers and duties, including any restrictions on its power of disposal;
(i) take account of the terms of any trust instrument regulating the powers and duties of the trustees of the institution, and give appropriate weight to their fiduciary duties;
(j) where applicable, assess the current market value of the object, or its value at any other appropriate time, and shall also take into account any other relevant circumstance affecting compensation, including the value of any potential claim by the institution against a third party;
(k) formulate and submit to the claimant and to the institution its advice in a written report, giving reasons, and supply a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and
(l) formulate and submit to the Secretary of State any advice pursuant to paragraph 4 in a written report, giving reasons, and supply a copy of the report to the claimant and the institution.

Scope of Advice

8. If the Panel upholds the claim in principle, it may recommend either:
(a) the return of the object to the claimant, or
(b) the payment of compensation to the claimant, the amount being in the discretion of the Panel having regard to all relevant circumstances including the current market value, but not tied to that current market value, or
(c) an ex gratia payment to the claimant, and
(d) in the case of (b) or (c) above, the display alongside the object of an account of its history and provenance during and since the Nazi era, with special reference to the claimant's interest therein; and
(e) that negotiations should be conducted with the successful claimant in order to implement such a recommendation as expeditiously as possible.
9. When advising the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(a) and/or (b), the Panel shall be free to recommend any action which they consider appropriate, and in particular may, under paragraph 4(a), direct the attention of the Secretary of State to the need for legislation to alter the powers and duties of any institution.

SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL RULES OF PROCEDURE

Procedure for making and responding to a claim
1. Any claimant who wishes the Panel to consider his or her claim shall deliver such claim in writing to the Panel ("the Claimant's statement of case") including copies of all witness statements and/or documentary evidence relied upon. The Secretariat shall forthwith send a copy of the Claimant's statement of case to the institution concerned together with the accompanying witness statements and documents.
2. The Institution shall deliver its reply in writing to the Panel ("the Institution's statement of case") including copies of all witness statements and/or documentary evidence relied upon, within 6 weeks of its receipt of the Claimant's case. The Secretariat shall forthwith send a copy of the Institution's statement of case to the Claimant, together with the accompanying witness statements and documents.
3. The Claimant and Institution may, but only subject to the leave of the Chairman:-
(a) deliver supplementary written statements of case, and/or copies of further witness statements and/or documentary evidence to the Panel;
(b). request further particulars of the opposite party's statement of case and where such leave is granted, may deliver the additional material to the Panel for despatch by the Panel's Secretariat to the opposite party, subject to any time limits prescribed by the Chairman.
4. The Panel may of its own motion require clarification of either party's statement of case, and/or the provision of supplementary witness statements, or documents (if available) and/or authentication of documents. The Panel may also direct the swearing of affidavits, verifying witness statements and/or authenticating any documents. Any material furnished under this rule shall be circulated to all parties.

Procedures for disposal of claims

5. The Panel may, in its discretion after consultation with the parties:-
(a) dispose of the case, on the basis of written material furnished by the parties, or
(b) direct an oral hearing, for which the quorum shall be 5 members of the Panel, including the Chairman.
6. Where the Panel directs an oral hearing, the Panel shall notify the parties. Such notification shall:
(a) propose a date for the hearing, which will normally be not less than 6 weeks subsequently, and a location for it which will normally be London;
(b) indicate that any request for a different date or location must be made in writing to the Panel within such reasonable time as the Panel may specify in the notification;
(c) specify the witnesses from whom the Panel wish to hear oral evidence, and/or the issues on which the Panel wish to hear oral submissions, and
(d) ask what languages are spoken by any claimant and by any witness giving oral evidence, and direct where appropriate the attendance of an interpreter.
7. The hearings shall be limited to one day for the Claimant and the Institution respectively, subject to an extension only if the Chairman grants leave, which must be sought in writing from him not less than 3 weeks before the hearing date.
8. Hearings will normally be conducted in private, and in English, and witnesses will normally be required to testify under oath.
9. Any party wishing to cross-examine an opposite party's witness must apply in writing to the Chairman for leave so to do not less than 3 weeks before the hearing date.
10. The Claimant and the Institution may be represented or assisted at a hearing, at their own expense, by any person or persons of their choice up to a maximum of 5, including counsel, solicitors, or representatives of a voluntary organisation.
11. Any matters of procedure not prescribed by these rules shall be decided by the Chairman, who shall also have the power to extend or abridge the time limits laid down in these rules.

Administrative Procedure

12. All submissions and correspondence to the Panel should be sent to:-
The Spoliation Advisory Panel Secretariat
Cultural Property Unit
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5DH