In an interest of fairness and clarity for all readers, I invite each
of the addresses to correct any facts misunderstood or misrepresented
below as well as to respond to the final open questions. Thank you.
TIMELINE AND ACTIONS
Mar 1997 Employee claims personal property damage of
$200K caused by museum.
Summer 1997 Employee claims museum irregularities to AZ
state auditor, prompting an audit.
July? 1997 AZ State Auditors issue a public museum audit
for 30 Jun 95 to 30 Jun 97.
Feb 1998 Employee claims harassment since Mar 1997 for
whistle blowing and public hearing.
Mar 1998 Newspaper reporter prints article on audit and
harassment.
Mar 1998 SECURMA solicits worldwide Internet support for
employee.
QUESTIONS OF FACT:
1. How did the full report become public and by whom (was it
the employee's doing?)?
2. How did the newspaper reporter hear of it or become
motivated to write his article (was it the employee's doing?)?
3. How did SECURMA get both the newspaper article and
the complete audit (was it the employee's doing?)?
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND ETHICS:
1. Is the employee pursuing monetary compensation (if
legally justified) for personal property damage, and soon?
2. Has the employee ethically acted in the best interests of
the museum and the public on behalf of the museum and the
public, perhaps at the board of directors' level, at each stage
above?
3. Would the employee (apart from the current director's
presence) be welcome to return to work by other staff and
the board, without harassment, perhaps with some individual
state protection because of this incident?
4. What would US and state government; US Justice
Department and local law enforcement; US university and
local AZ university systems; and museum and library
associations each officially or practically respond to a)
encourage the reporting of waste, fraud and abuse internally
and externally if internal means is not possible, and b)
extend existing or non existing whistle blower regulations,
policies and practices to prevent further waste, fraud and
abuse while maintaining the integrity of the institution as
much as possible?
5. Answers to Number 4 would determine the answer to:
What is the obligation of a security officer to report loss,
including waste, fraud and abuse a) internally, and externally
if internal means are impossible, and b) as a non sworn law
enforcement officer or as a sworn law enforcement officer.
I have been trying to stay out of this and let the facts and
investigators speak for me, But I will try to clarify some of your
questions. The claim with my home and the claims against my director
are two separate items. Mar 1997 I filed a claim with the state on
damages done to my home in which ASU was one of the responsible
parties. In April 1997 I began to be the recipient of reprisals. At
this time I was not sure the exact reason for the reprisals because I
had already reported the improprieties to the appropriate ASU
departments. In April 1997 I began the grievance process by going
through my chain of command. First to my Dean stating that I was a
recipient of reprisals from my supervisor for one or both of the above
reasons and asked him to look into the matter. After a month went by
and the Dean did not follow through. I went to the next step, to the
Provost. After three to four months and no response from the provost,
and the reprisals continued, and so did the misdeeds by my director.
My director at this point continuing her misdeeds and would openly
brag about them in staff meetings. I could not allow this to continue
and I had already exhausted all my avenues at ASU, I went outside of
ASU to the State Auditor Generals Office to investigate.
1) The Auditor Generals report is a public document/Report.
2) It is a public report, and if you were a reporter would you write
about it? Especially when the State Legislature is reviewing a
"Whistle Blower" Bill for the State Universities at the same time.
3) ???????? Ask Ton.
Mr. Liston, you can forward this letter to SECURMA, but in the
future I feel the most professional thing I should do at this time,
for the museum is not to feed the fire with my personal views. Let us
leave this to the investigators to find out the facts. Our job is to
"protect" not to investigate, which is very difficult for me to deal
with at this time and it tugs at my soul. I am sorry that this has
hurt so many people that are part of the Museum, but I had to make a
Professional, Ethical and yes maybe even a little Personal decision.
Remember we cannot make anyone do anything, we can only hold them
responsible and accountable for their choices. And that includes both
me and my director.
Thanks
Timothy A. Feavel
the internet is a wonderful invention.
As a journalist doing researches about art smuggle in Germany I came
across MSN about half a year ago and I subscribed the mailinglist at
once. Since this time I got involved in questions concerning museums and
ethics of art-dealing more than it is good for ones night's sleep. You
probably have heard about the Schiele-cases and what it started in
Austria: Educated, art loving people in and out of museums hush up, deal
and steal and force people to 'donate' paintings to museums - just for
the sake of art?
The internet is especially for journalists a wonderful invention because
it makes it much easier to get quick information from all over the
world. And if a journalist gets information about corruption and wasting
of public money, he or she HAS TO WRITE ABOUT IT, and most journalists,
believe me, Mr. Liston, are clever enough to investigate on their own
behalf, to enquire.
But the internet is also a very useful thing for people who are
concerned with museums. Ton Cremers proofed that by feeding all stories
to us which he can find and of which he thinks they could be of any
interest for the subscribers and I am very grateful for that. This way
the closed up world of museums and art is opened up for many interested
people all over the world. He puts a table of contents in front of it,
so everybody can see quickly wether it's of any interest to him or not.
But maintaining this list means work, and I believe quite a lot of work,
which is not done in a 9 to 5 job, and I really like to thank Ton
Cremers for doing this work.
We in Germany and Austria do not have a mailinglist or something alike
from one of our organizations, or even from ICOM, which is sad, because
people here need information about what is happening behind the walls of
our museums as well: We call that democracy. And what Thimothy A. Feavel
has done is just his democratic right and there is no need to put him to
an inquisitional court.
- sorry about my English, but it's not the language I use every day -
--
mit freundlichen Grüßen
A. Kriks
The Honduran authorities have appealed for the public's help in
recovering priceless jewellery, belonging to one of the first royal
families of the Mayan civilisation, which were stolen from a tomb in
the ancient mine city of Copan. As EMMA PATERSON reports, the loss has
highlighted the growing problem of looting, amid growing demand for
Mayan artefacts:
The stolen jewellery includes several mother-of-pearl necklaces and
pieces of jade. But the items' value far exceeds the material from
which they were made.
The jewellery was in fact part of a royal collection, the showpiece
of the ancient Mayan city of Copan in western Honduras. The necklaces
belonged to the wife of the city's first Mayan king who ruled more
than 15 centuries ago.
In keeping with ancient Mayan tradition, the king's wife has been
buried with her most precious ornaments. Earlier this week however,
the Honduran authorities announced that grave robbers had plundered
the tomb and made off with the priceless collection.
Officials have said they believe people with inside knowledge may
have been involved in the theft. For generations, Mayan ruins, many
of them half buried in the jungles of Central America and Mexico,
have suffered from constant looting.
But there are signs that international smugglers have become
increasingly involved in the theft of the region's archaeological
treasures. Experts say Mayan culture has become a fashionable area of
interest for foreign collectors during the past decade, and artefacts
from the period can now command a high price on the international
market.
Fearful of further plundering, the Honduran authorities have refused
to divulge the location of one of the most potentially exciting
discoveries in recent years, the remains of a huge pre-Colombian city
somewhere in the south of the country. Earlier this week, journalists
urged the minister for culture, Herman Padgett, to reveal its secret
location.
If I tell you, said the minister, I have no doubt that tomorrow, and
we will have 20,000 people digging it up with shovels and spades.
(BBC News)
In an article appearing in The Washington Post of today and the subject of a TV segment on NBC's "Dateline" last evening, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced action this week against Central Sprinkler Corp., seeking a recall of the company's Omega fire sprinklers. The commission staff filed an administrative law complaint alleging the sprinklers were defective and likely to fail.
The complaint cited six fires in which Omega sprinklers reportedly
failed in support of a U.S. nationwide recall of 10 million Omega
sprinkler heads manufactured since 1982.
The company said, "The Omega works. It has been successfully
controlling fires for 15 years years." Central said it already had
spent more than $ 5 million in a voluntary remediation program since
it learned of concerns about sprinkler activation in early 1996.
"The above is quoted from the Washington Post article of 7 March
1998."
SUGGESTED ACTION: You should notify the proper person - responsible
for fire protection in your institution to see if you have any Omega
sprinkler heads in your facility.
If your institution has Omega sprinkler heads, you should work with
your local fire dept and/or a local fire protection engineer in order
to take the proper steps suggested by these fire protection experts.
Roger Wulff
Museum Services International
From: David Liston SIWP01.OPS1.LISTOND@ic.si.edu
Subject:
THE PRIMARY PROBLEM is to finding, checking and
replacing all the Omega water sprinkler heads. Too close of
a tolerance between the head and a a metal "o" ring causes
a relatively small number of heads, causing them to activate
not at the pre-set temperature but at a temperature about 50
degrees F higher. Omega is professionally handling the
replacement program. This was a subject of discussion at
the US National Conference on Cultural Property Protection
for about 300 musuem and library and security professionals
about one month ago.
THE SECONDARY PROBLEM, it was discussed, is scaring
customers about water sprinklers. DON'T SCARE PEOPLE
ABOUT THE SAFETY OF WATER SPRINKLERS. Until this
problem, the absolute failure rate of water sprinklers
continues to be about 1 in 2 million per year, according to
insurance companies.
FIRE IS THE PRIMARY VULNERABILTY THREAT to
cultural institutions (with arson, improper use of open fame
operations and electrical problems as the causes in priority
order) good fire protection must include the consideration to
install water sprinklers.
1) They are not too expensive.
2)
They are safe to use and reliable.
3) They can be fit well into
existing older and historic buildings without damaging them.
LARGER AND OLDER CULTURAL AND HISTORIC
BUILDINGS ARE MORE SUBJECT TO COMPLETE FIRE
LOSS.
There is a saying: "If we cannot begin extinguishing a
fire in our buildings within the first 3 to 5 minutes of the start of
any fire, anywhere, you must seriously consider the installation of a
water sprinkler system." Windsor Castle, Madagascar National Museum,
Leningrad\St. Petersburg Academy of Science Library, Hofburg-Wien, Los
Angeles Public Library (three times an arson), Museum of Modern
Art-Rio, San Diego Aerospace Museum, Cabildo Museum-New Orleans, and
__________(which is next?).
Thanks for the summary on the ASU matter. Whether a security officer
has an obligation to report a matter beyond his or her internal chain
of command seems to depend upon whether he or she is a private
employee or a government employee. A private museum security officer
should report the matter, then sit down and shut up if told to do so.
It's their money to waste if they choose to do so. But a federal or
state employee has, in my opinion, the obligation to take a good case
outside the organization if he or she is not taken seriously
internally on a matter that the officer really thinks involves a crime
or even a serious waste of public money. Of course, the matter should
go to proper authority and not to the press. The officer's actions
need to be objective and based on at least reasonable suspicion that
there is cause.
I think the tragedy here is that many museum employees routinely do
things that are not by the book but they do these things for the good
of the institution. Managers need the ability to manage and that
often means doing things that lower level employees who lack the big
picture viewe of things won't understand. I think that the
responsiblity to report suspicions to proper higher authority rests
with the security officer, but then he needs to step back and let the
system work. It may well be found that the museum director bent the
rules but didn't have bad intentions or didn't profit from what was
done. Wouldn't it be sad that this employee suffered stress or
embarrassment when she did what she thought was best for the museum?
Similarly, the officer did what he is paid to do. If he had bad
intentions in trying to harm his director, then the investigation will
find this and he will have to answer for this. And if he acted in good
faith, reporting what he thought was a crime, and subsequently suffers
retaliation, then he needs to be compensated. Security people risk a
great deal when they do their jobs and they need to be protected.
I think we need to sit back and let the system work. Everyone is
innocent until proven guilty. It is possible that both sides in this
dispute are right both legally and ethically. The officer may have
seen a crime or improper behavior from his perspective which turns out
to be good creative management.
Let's not be too critical of either party until we see all of the
facts and the investigative process has run its course.
Steve Keller
There is further news today on the threat by the West Midlands police
against the Library of the University of Central England in Birmingham
and the publishers Jonathan Cape/Random House over the book on Robert
Mapplethorpe's photography.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the national Crown
Prosecution Service) is reported to have "advised" the police that
they have grounds both to ask the University Library to destroy their
copy of the Mapplethorpe book and to "instruct" Cape/Random House to
pulp all remaining copies.
If either or both refuse then both the organisations and individual
officials of these face criminal prosecution under the Obscene
Publications Act, [for which the penalites can include imprisonment in
addition to unlimited fines]. Despite the institutional and personal
risks arising from these serious threats, both the University and the
publishers are refusing to comply, ("The Independent", 7 March, p.18).
A number of people have mailed me individually for details of those
involved in this gross assault on academic freedom with a view to
writing letters of support or protest.
The key figures are:
University of Central England (Vice-Chancellor [= Principal]: Dr P. C.
Knight), Perry Barr, Birmingham B42 2SU, England.
Jonathan Cape (Publishing Director: Dan Franklin): Random House, 20
Vauxhall Bridge Road, London SW1V 2SA.
West Midlands Constabulary (Chief Constable: Mr. E. Crew): Colmore
Circus, Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NQ.
