Fright n` flight and safety

US Arizona State Museum Brouhaha

PERSONAL STATEMENTS

First of all I want all of you to know that I am impressed and pleased by David Liston's extensive comment on the ASU Art Museum matter. I still have to 'study' Davids e-mail more thoroughly. There is one quick reaction I want to present to you right now. The past week there were several attempts to point an accusing finger at Tim Feavel. His action did not only harm the ASU Art Museum but it seemed it was a disadvantage to the complete American museum community. David's comment that Tim's reporting will damage the institution in the short term is more or less based on the same wrong point of view. Nothing, I have to repeat this, nothing was caused by Tim but a thorough investigation. The resulting audit report was not made necessary by Tim nor was Tim the original cause of harm done to the museum. If, this still has to be proved by the proper authorities, harm was done to the ASU Art Museum this was possible done by mismangement by Tim's director and not by Tim. I have to say this once again: never blame the messenger!
There is something else: David wrote this to me off list a few days ago and he repeats this in his message to the list, so I think it fit to send my reaction to the list: people from outside the USA with different law systems supposedly are not able to judge what is going on in the ASU Art Museum. I have to object. This really is a matter of global importance. It is not a matter of law systems but it touches the core role of museum security professionals all over the world. It is not acceptable to 'disallow' anyone on this international mailinglist, the moderator included, to express opinions about any matter: the world map is not important in this respect.
One question remains: would there have been so many emotional reactions if all of this had happened in a far away museum in never-never-land outside the USA??
Ton Cremers

Re: US Arizona State Museum (sic) Brouhaha

Stolen manuscripts

FIRE PROTECTION ALERT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced today that its staff has filed an administrative Complaint against Central Sprinkler Corp., and its subsidiary Central Sprinkler Co., of Lansdale, Pa., alleging that Central's "Omega" series fire sprinklers present a substantial product hazard. The Complaint seeks a nationwide recall of the approximately 10 million Omega fire sprinklers that Central has manufactured since 1982.
In its Complaint, the CPSC staff alleges that these sprinklers are defective and are likely to fail in a fire situation. The sprinklers may not properly activate in the event of a fire, thus exposing the public to bodily injury or death. CPSC is aware of six fires in which Omega fire sprinklers reportedly failed to operate. In one of these instances, the fire caused more than $3 million in property damage.
The Commission staff filed the Complaint after discussions with the company and its representatives failed to result in a voluntary recall and replacement plan acceptable to CPSC. This type of legal action against a company is rare. This is only the second time in 10 years that the CPSC staff has filed such a suit.
In seeking a recall of the Omega sprinklers, the Complaint calls for extensive public notice of the hazard and remedy. Only Central's Omega series fire sprinklers are involved, including, but not limited to, models referred to or marked as follows: C1 (or C-1), C1A (or C-1A), C-1A PRO (or C1-A PRO), C1-A PRO QR, C-1A PRO ID, EC-20, EC-20A, EC-20 AID, R-1, R-1A, R-1M, Flow Control (FC; Flow Control-FC), M, Protector-M or M Protector (Upright, Pendent, Sidewall, Sidewall EC), HEC-12, HEC-12 RES, HEC-12 EC, HEC-12 EC PRO, HEC-12 ID, HEC-12 PRO, HEC-12 PRO QR, HEC-20, HEC-20 ID, Prohibitor QR and AC. They are installed in homes, schools, hospitals, dormitories, nursing homes, offices and other buildings.
>From a distance, consumers may be able to make a preliminary determination of whether their homes or other buildings are equipped with Omega fire sprinklers. On most models, consumers will be able to see one to three flat round metal disks stacked above one another with a small space between each disk. Because it is difficult to conclusively determine whether Omegas are installed, CPSC strongly encourages consumers to contact their architect, builder, sprinkler contractor, plumber, homeowners' association or property manager. Consumers should not attempt to unscrew the sprinkler or shut down their sprinkler system to determine if they have Omegas.
While the Commission staff pursues an acceptable recall and replacement plan, consumers with Omega fire sprinklers should be sure to have at least one fully operational smoke detector on every floor of their home, especially near bedrooms. The Commission staff also recommends that consumers have a well-defined and rehearsed escape plan and an alternate escape plan in the event of a fire. As always, consumers should diligently practice fire safety to reduce the possibility that a fire will occur. Consumers can obtain fire safety information by calling CPSC's toll-free hotline at (800) 638-2772 or by visiting CPSC's web site at www.cpsc.gov.
The Commission staff urges anyone who is aware of any instances in which an Omega sprinkler has failed to activate when tested or in a fire, or who have questions about this announcement, to call CPSC's toll-free hotline at (800) 638-2772.
####
Editor's Note: To access a product photo (showing one sprinkler model) in JPEG (JPG) format, go to this press release on CPSC's web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98075.html
To download, place the cursor on the image, click and hold the mouse button (right mouse button for PC users), and use the "save as" menu to save the image in the desired location.

'Forgetful' baronet ruins Roman site

A BARONET has admitted destroying part of a Roman settlement after he "forgot" that it was on a meadow which he ordered to be levelled and ploughed. Sir Rupert Mann, 51, of Billingford Hall, Diss, admitted the "tragic oversight" which he told a magistrates' court at Thetford was partly due to an illness which caused memory loss. He told contractors to use a JCB digger to flatten rare earthwork humps and ridges in the field and plough it to a depth of eight to 10 inches so it could be reseeded. But he failed to remember that the 4.37 acres of pasture had been made a protected ancient monument site by English Heritage in 1988, the court was told. The damage was reported by Peter Wade-Martins, assistant director of Norfolk's museum service, as he drove by last April. Sir Rupert, who inherited the baronetcy in 1971, was visited by a council enforcement officer. He claimed at the time that he assumed the council was not interested in the site as nobody had arranged a dig. Under the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, Sir Rupert needed Government permission to carry out any work on the land at Scole, Norfolk. Robert Glass, prosecuting on behalf of Norfolk county council, said Sir Rupert's actions had severely damaged the site, which dated from between AD70 and the 4th Century. The meadow was identified as part of a roadside settlement or small town on the old Roman road between Colchester and Caistor St Edmund. The Roman and medieval earth banks, which mark out ancient fields and houses, were extremely rare in East Anglia and the site was the largest and most complete of its type in Norfolk, Mr Glass said. "A number of artefacts were recovered from the furrows left by the plough, indicating considerable damage had been done," he said. "The ancient earth banks were completely destroyed. It can never be replaced." Sir Rupert, whose family trust owns the 5,000-acre Thelveton estate, admitted working on a scheduled ancient monument without scheduled monument consent. Malcolm Savory, defending, said Sir Rupert, who is married with two children, had developed a "severe" illness in 1993 which had affected his memory and he could not remember that the land was protected. "There was no hidden or dangerous agenda. It was a tragic oversight," Mr Savory said. "He has been a proud countryman all his life and was merely trying to maintain his land to the high standard he always has." Sir Rupert was committed to Norwich Crown Court for sentence after magistrates decided on Tuesday that the £5,000 maximum fine they could impose was insufficient. The Crown Court has powers to impose an unlimited fine, although similar cases have attracted penalties of up to £15,000. In a voluntary statement, Sir Rupert said the field had become overgrown with weeds including ragwort, which can kill horses and cattle, and he ordered it to be levelled and ploughed. He was "deeply and personally upset" when he discovered the damage that had been caused. "It was never my intention to damage anything of historical interest, let alone an ancient monument," he said.
(Electronic Telegraph)

Researching history of a statue

Austria may favor returning artwork plundered by Nazis

VIENNA -- Sixty years after the Nazis plundered Jewish art collections, Austria appears willing to return hundreds of valuable artworks gracing its museums to their rightful owners. The change of heart follows the spectacular seizure in January by a Manhattan court of two Austrian paintings on display in New York City and a damning Vienna newspaper series on art looted by Nazis and never handed back to Jews. Archivists, museum directors and the media are airing a subject that remained taboo in the tradition of drawing a veil over the Nazi years -- when Austria was both perpetrator and victim of its native son, Adolf Hitler. Austria effectively confiscated hundreds of paintings from Jewish owners and their heirs after the war, using a 1923 law preventing the export of artworks. Jews were able to take out only a handful of the paintings seized by Nazis. Herbert Haupt, an archivist at Vienna's Art History Museum, talked of "a veritable race for looted art" among Austrian museums after the war. Austria made a halfhearted attempt in 1969 to find former owners, sending a list of 8,423 artworks to all its embassies abroad. The announcement went largely unnoticed. Last month, Culture Minister Elisabeth Gehrer gave the first government promise to shed light on works the state kept back after 1945. She decreed that museums must clarify "beyond any doubt" the origin of their works. Her initiative followed an eight-part series in the Der Standard newspaper, in which journalist Hubertus Czernin noted that Austria's Jews had been twice robbed -- first by the Nazis, then by postwar Austria. Czernin's series prompted museum directors to confirm for the first time that they had hundreds of confiscated works. No one knows exactly how many paintings are at stake, or their worth. Art experts have estimated that their value dwarfs the $14.5 million raised at a 1996 Vienna auction of confiscated art stored for decades at a monastery. Dozens of canvases in private Jewish collections before 1945 now hang in Vienna's two premier art museums -- the Art History Museum and the Austrian Gallery.
(1998 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.)

Mapplethorpe book stays

A PUBLISHING company yesterday refused a police request to withdraw copies of a book celebrating the work of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. Random House also refused to remove two photographs from the book currently being investigated under the Obscene Publications Act. The book, published in 1992 and which has sold 5,500 copies in Britain, is being investigated after a female art student photographed pictures from it for her university thesis on Fine Art Versus Pornography. The third-year student, who has not been named, borrowed the book from her college library at the University of Central England in Birmingham. But when she took the photographs to a processing laboratory they informed police. The university's Vice-Chancellor, Dr Peter Knight, has refused police permission to destroy the copy, which they seized following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, and himself risks prosecution. The book can be found in most college libraries and in reputable bookstores, and is viewed by academics as a legitimate art book. Mapplethorpe died in America from an Aids-related illness aged 42 in 1989. Gail Rebuck, chief executive of Random House, said yesterday: "We consider this investigation to be wholly misguided, and are astonished that a scholarly work of such acknowledged artistic and literary merit should be at risk of prosecution. "We will be making representations through our lawyers that no action should be taken, and still hope that sense will ultimately prevail."
(Daily Telegraph)

ASU Art Museum (public employees; whistleblower changes)

Reasoning for taking community college employees out of theprotection of going to State Personnel Board.

HB2182 public employees; whistleblower changes

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you a clarification of some items in your recent e-mail on the above subject. I believe a better understanding of the issue relative to community college employees, and what the bill does, would be most appreciated by those concerned. Although the community college district governing boards (through their association, AADGB) and the presidents of the state's community college districts (through their association, ACCPC) are unanimously opposed to HB2182, they are not opposed to whistle-blower protections for employees. In fact community colleges were integrally involved in the creation of the whistle-blower law as it relates to our institutions. The issue for community colleges is one of governance. As you may know, community college districts are political subdivisions of the state with locally elected governing boards. In this instance community colleges are identical to cities, towns, counties, school districts, and other special districts. Thus, they are accountable to the citizens for the administration of the districts. The universities, on the other hand, are constitutionally created with an appointed board of regents, and their accountability structure is far different. The amendment to HB2182 supported by the community college districts merely restored the goverance authority to the community college district governing boards. The pertinent language for community college districts in Arizona Revised Statutes 38-532(H) now reads: "If an employee or former employee believes that a personnel action taken against the employee or former employee is the result of the employee's or former employee's disculosure of information under this section, the employee or former employee may make a complaint to an appropriate independent personnel board,if one is established or authorized pursuant to section 38-534, THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a community college district governing board, or a school district governing board. If an independent personnel board has not been established or authorized, or if a school district governing board or a community college district governing board does not hear and decide personnel matters brought pursuant to this section, the employee or former employee may make a complaint to the state personnel board." As you can see, 1) the Arizona Board of Regents has now been added to this section, 2) community college district governing boards are required to hear such complaints or appoint an independent board to hear them, and 3) if community college district governing boards do neither then the employee or former employee may then appeal to the state personnel board. In summary, the community colleges have not lobbied to remove themselves from the whistleblower bill, are still supportive of whistleblower protection for their employees, and have merely worked to preserve the fundamental principle of local governance that is so important to this country. Thank you for allowing us this clarification. It should set aside any fears that community colleges in Arizona are not supportive of employee whistleblower protection and should reinforce our support for those protections under local control by locally elected officials. The ultimate responsibility in these matters rests with these boards, as it should be.
Ed Contreras

From: Carol Bernstein bernstein3@earthlink.net
Subject:

new developments re: HB2182

On Tues. afternoon, I was asked to come to a Wed. Feb. 11, 4:30 PM meeting in the office of Senator Rusty Bowers in reference to HB2182, and was told that those attending would be myself, Reps. Marilyn Jarrett, and Kathi Foster, Sens. Bowers and David Petersen, and lobbyists for the Universities Greg Fahey for UA and Blake Anderson for ASU, plus Paulla Garcia, a whistle-blower who was terminated from Child Protective Services (CPS). Since, from those invited, it was clear that changes were to be proposed in HB2182, I asked permission to include Michael Petrowsky as a spokesperson for MCCCD faculty and Grant Hays for Cochise Community College (since community college employees has just been removed from the bill by Rep. Kathi Foster's floor amendment), and they were allowed to attend. Paulla Garcia asked to have her attorney Martin Bihn also attend, and this was also allowed. I spoke with Paulla Garcia and Martin Bihn extensively before the meeting (and also Grant Hays and I met with Martin Bihn at his office for about a half hour before the Senate meeting). We found that they had just been through a Sept. 1996 to Sept. 1997 State Personnel Board hearing process on her case with a decision on this (first of three hearings she has been granted) due on March 31, 1998. Martin Bihn had also advised his wife, who had been a whistle-blower and then terminated from DOC (Dept. of Corrections). They pointed out very serious deficiencies with the current whistle-blower law, which could easily be remedied by adding a small amount of language from the excellent federal whistle-blower statute. [see "proposed added language" in a following e-mail] The current state whistle-blower law has resulted in no cases (zero) being determined favorably for recognized whistle-blowers by the State Personnel Board of the 18 such cases heard during 1996-97 (and many cases, where the request was made to classify them as whistle-blower cases, were turned down for that status). [However, I had been told by the attorney for the House Rules Committee, Alex Turner, that the very poor statistics were due to the recent appointees to the State Personnel Board by Fife Symington, and that previously there were many more decisions favorable to whistle-blowers.] [Later, at the meeting, Sen. Bowers asked for statistics on how many whistle-blower cases had been heard at the universities and how many were judged in favor of the whistle-blower, and the statistics for the UA were approximately 16 cases in the last few years, zero decided for the whistle-blower, and similar but smaller numbers at the other campuses.] At the meeting, we were suddenly faced with an unexpected number of administrators: 2 administrators from NAU, 3 from UA, at least 2 from ASU, and a senior staff member from the Board of Regents office, plus Jack Lunsford (sp?) the very experienced lobbyist from the MCCCD adminsitration. The meeting began with an NAU(?) administrator statement that HB2182 had been "ruled unconstitutional twice by the Rules Committee." I protested that the Rules Committee had actually voted, 5 to 3, that HB2182 was constitutional. The main points of the meeting appeared to be: (1) The university administrators' major two points for about 2 hours were that HB2182 "has been clearly ruled unconstitutional by their advising attorney, Alex Turner [and that the Rules Committee members themselves just didn't know what they were doing when they voted for it]. Also, the administrators had proposed a "compromise" three weeks ago, which they finally gave me a copy of at the meeting when I requested it. Sen. Rusty Bowers asked us to seriously consider the "compromise." [see subsequent e-mail "Proposed Compromise"] (2) Michael Petrowsky and Grant Hays argued for allowing community college employees the option of going to the State Personnel Board [in addition to the favorable language that had been added to the bill to make community college whistle-blowers have an easier time with their internal process.] Michael Petrowsky pointed out that the hearing panel at MCCCD consisted of two administrators plus one representative chosen by the grievant, so it was always weighted in favor of the administration. Grant Hays pointed out a survey at Cochise, indicating faculty felt unsafe in doing any whistle-blowing. Both argued for a unified way of handling all higher education whistle-blowers. However, both in the meeting and later, speaking to Sen. Mary Hartley (we were introduced by Paulla Garcia), the counter-argument was raised that community college people already have an effective political process, ballot box availability, to change the elected people on their governing boards, whereas the members of the Board of Regents answer to no-one, so university employees need additional state protection. I include the text related to this argument, below, as distributed over the signature of Ed Contreras, chair of the MCCCD governing board. (3) Rep. Kathi Foster stated repeatedly that those calling themselves whistle-blowers were often poorly performing employees who were being terminated, and they just thought of the whistle-blowing argument as an unfair arguing point to bring up at the last minute. (She also stated that she is a member of a Governing Board for a school district, and she regulates 2,000 of her employees.) Sen. Rusty Bowers countered by saying that he had received many whistle bower complaints, with accompanying packets of documentation, and they looked like very serious and substantial complaints to him. (4) Sen. Rusty Bowers, who is a central figure in the Senate, since he is Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is on the Sen. Gov't Reform Committee (the next committee likely to hear our bill), and is a primary sponsor of HB2182, stated that of all the e-mails and faxes and other communications he is receiving on all different issues, no issue is generating as much paper coming to him as HB2182, and this is very impressive to him. (5) Sen. Bowers pointed out that many, many detailed complaints came from the universities, significant and important complaints came from the state agencies, but very few complaints came from the community colleges until the Foster floor amendment was adopted. Then he got an impressive larger number of e-mails and faxes from the community colleges. (6) Sen. Bowers pointed out that there are five choices we need to make, and Rep. Foster added a sixth. They were: (a) Decide if we want the added community college privilege of going to the State Personnel Board amended back into HB2182. He was willing to propose it, when it comes to Senate Government Reform Committee, but if we let it be known that this was our decision, the he said the very effective lobbyist for MCCCD, Jack Lunsford, might well have the credibility to get the bill killed at Third Reading in the House. (b) Decide if the community college employees want to request that whistle-blowers in all 10 community college districts get the same kind of deal proposed by university administrators (see below) for a more impartial internal grievance process. This would be a path to take outside of state lawmaking. (c) Decide if we want an amended bill when it comes to the Senate Government Reform Committee. Amendments would mean the bill would have to go back through the House, and their Rules Committee again. (d) If HB2182 should get killed in the House through the efforts of Jack Lunsford, do we want him (Sen. Bowers) to use a strike-everthing vehicle to get us back into the ball game. He was willing to do this, including putting the community colleges back in with the universities and we would see who would win the battle, including another go-round in the House. He would much prefer a negotiated peaceful settlement, but is quite willing to go to battle if we want it. (e) Do we want to add the language suggested as necessary by the experiences of Paulla Garcia. (She was a social worker with CPS, but, among other issues, complained when her charges could not obtain needed medical care, complained when foster parents who had been promised $400 for their efforts could not get it, and was sent a memo stating that she must not write any further memos expressing complaints about mismanagement. She was then terminated) (f) Rep. Foster reminded us that we might get the bill passed and then the courts would throw it out, so we should keep that in mind when deciding how much to fight. I am now waiting to hear from Michael Petrowsky Carol Bernstein, PhD
President AAUP AZ Conf.

From: Carol Bernstein bernstein3@earthlink.net
Subject:

proposed added language for HB2182

Below I give you some Federal whistle-blower quotes and other strengthening language that we are proposing to add to HB2182 to make the law really workable and protective of whistle-blowers. Currently the law states: "The state personnel board...shall...make a determination concerning: ...whether a prohibited personnel practice was committed against the employee...as a RESULT of disclosure of information... The difficulty: There is no Arizona case law that defines the word "RESULT." Therefore the personnel board hearing officers usually decide that nothing happened as a RESULT of disclosure of information. Suggested lnanguage: add the new language [from the federal statute] to the current law "or the disclosure by the employee of former employee was a contributing factor in the personnel action which was taken against such employee or fromer emloyee. The employee or former employee may demonstrate that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that (A) the official taking the personnel action knew of the disclosure; and (B) the personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action." There is a large amount of federal case law defining "contributing factor" and "period of time." Add also "this article shall be interpreted wherever possible to be consistent with interpretation of the federal whistle-blower protection act (WPA). 5 U.S.C. ## 1201 et seq., 1221(E)(1) and 2302(B)(8). Also, remove the monetary penalties to be paid by a supervisor carrying out a reprisal ($5,000) or an employee making a false calim ($25,000). Such monetary penalties encourage people to lie under oath. Replace these penalties with "the employer shall take appropriate disciplinary action." Add language that "For purposes of a hearing by ... a community college district governing board or other independent personnel board..., the employee ... and employer may be represented by counsel." Also add language allowing an employee to simultaneously proceed under another protective law, ARS 23-1501 or any other provision of law protecting employees who disclose information. Add, as a prohibited personnel practice: "Failure to receive or reasonably consider allegations made by an employee as to violation fo law, mismanagement, gross waste of monies, or an abuse of authority." [Currently, when a whistle-blower makes a complaint, the complaint is not even investigated and not acted upon. Then the whistle-blower suffers a severe reprisal, and nothing is improved.]
Carol Bernstein

Museums and the 21st Century

'Looted art' in German Museums

Of course it does not have to mean anything if at the 'Neue Pinakothek' in Munich the plate next to the painting 'Bretonische Bäuerinnen' by Paul Gauguin says 'donated by Emy Roth' and there is no date, when the donation was done. Surely it does not necessarily indicate something if next to Renoir's 'Südfranzösischer Landschaft' one can read the painting comes from the legacy of Elly Köhler. Also the numerous donations of Eduard Arnold and Robert von Mendelssohn could just originate from the patronage of the wealthy Jewish family. But it also could be completely different.
Since a prosecuting attorney in New York in January 98 confiscated two paintings from a private Austrian collection because the heirs of the former owner declared it as 'looted art' and layed claim on it, the closed world of museums, art collections and galleries is in turmoil.
It looks like the Schiele-paintings have been puchased by the art collector Rudolf Leopold not under provable legal but at least under morally dubious circumstances: The former owners, who where Jewish Austrian citizens, have been wether murdered in a concentration camp or had been forced to sell.
Probably to avoid a new 'causa Waldheim' (former Austrian President with a dubious Nationalsocialistic background) the Austrian Minister for Cultural affairs Elisabeth Gehrer took the bull by the horns: She ordered to open up the archives of all state museums to ensure that the property conditions concerning art work could be settled clearly. In doing so she started an avalanche.
The Austrian daily newspaper 'Der Standard' after that came out with a documentation which was investigated meticulous. 'The misappropriated heritage' describes precise how the Second Rebublic after WW II went on doing the same things which the Nationalsocialists had started so 'succsessfully', the democratic state just was using different methods: The curators and directors of state museums distinguished themselves by inventing all kind of bureaucratic dirty tricks to make sure that families like the Rothschilds for example, who wanted after the war export their remaining art property, would not get an export licence.
The Rothschilds at last got back their collection - except an impressive donation which was left to the state museums. It was the bargain to get an export licence which is just known by now, since the archives are open for investigations. The 'Kunsthistorisches Museum' (Art History Museum) until now had explained the donation was made because of thankfulness the art work had been so well preserved by the museum.
The Second Republic this way became heir of a considerable part of the looted art by Nationalsocialists. Hundreds of pieces of art work of questionable origin are placed in Austrian state museums. 1996 there was an auction of so called 'abandoned property' from Mauerbach. On sale was mostly looted art of the era of Nationalsocialism. Work of art, which where extorted from Jews, art objects, which had belonged to Jewish people who have been driven out of the country or murdered had been on offer as well in the famous auction-house Dorotheum in Vienna.
The Austrian Minister for Cultural Affairs now has implemented a working group which is supposed to investigate about the origin of work of art which came into the Federal Museums during the era of the Nationalsocialists. She also promised a generous politic of restitution even if the cases mostly have come under the statute of limitation. But there is still the question who will be paying for doing the investigation and how it will be organized. It's a problem the Austrian Government will have to solve.
While the course of events about looted art in Austrian museums in the meantime already concern the world press from 'Boston Globe' to 'Los Angeles Times' to the first page of the 'New York Times', while the
French Government implemented missing art tracing list on the internet, while the city of Rotterdam ordered to check the origin of all work of art which came into it's museums during or shortly after Second World War, while Ton Cremers, Security Manager of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has installed a Museum Securitiy Network on the internet in order to collect information - about looted art and illicit trafic of art as well as other security items - from all over the world so it is accessible for everybody - while all this is happening around us there is still a deathly silence in German museums. The German scenery of art and culture is closed up as soon as the subject of interest is the art work, which was looted by Germans - and not the cultural objects which where robbed from the Germans by the Russians after the war.
In Munich, for example, there is not just a 'Hofbräuhaus', there is also the former party center of the NSDAP. In this building exactly 53 years ago the American Army Government established a 'Central Collecting Point', one of two collecting points in Germany for the restitution of looted art by the Third Reich. At this time a member of the American 'Restitution Branch' plainly was stunned about the "greatest collection and movement of art in the history of the world". The top-class art work, stolen from all over Europe partly had been restituted during a long and complicated process during the first few years after the war, partly the owner could not be traced any more because, like the art historian Iris Lauterbach expresses it "after the Nationalsocialistic took measures for the "Endlösung" (final solution) they have not been alive any more." That means a lot of so called 'abandond property' was left, which nowadays one can find in German museums, marked as "Loan of the Federal Republic of Germany".
The files from the 'Central Collecting Point' gain shocking insight to the methods of the Nationalsocialistic Cultural Nation Germany: "The painting 'Adoration of the child' by Roselli was confiscated by the Gestapo on the basis of a denuncationa by Wilhelm Ettle against the late owner, Mrs. Margret Jacobi of Frankfurt a/Main, who lost her life in Theresienstadt concentration camp." It comes a description of the complicated paths of the painting which was claimed by the heirs and ended up sometime in USA. Many of the art work went to the States more directly - American soldiers as well have not been aversed to looted art. Nowadays on the internet, at the mailinglist of Ton Cremers from the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam for example, one can find indications for paintigs which slowly leak out from American attics back to the market of art. Either the soldiers who took it are slowly dying out and their heirs now still would like to participate a little on looted art, or because the 'hot art' is getting cool now.
The paths of the looted art by Nationasocialists are extremely tangled and difficult to investigate, only one thing seems to be quite clear: The art work is scattered all over the world, but in Austrian, Swiss and over all in German museums there is still a large share of looted art of the Third Reich.
The files of the former collection point for looted art show, how honorable citizens, connoiseurs, art collector and directors of museums try to proof their innocence to the American Authorities while at the same time their shabby dealing with the looted art proofs obviously. And the closed up world of the "Mafia of the art dealers" still exists, says lawyer Willy Korte, who works for a long time on restitution of looted art, they have built a "network of looters, collectors, dealers". He complains about important art dealers, lawyers and middleman who refuse acces to important documents and files in Switzerland.
But this is not only in Switzerland happening. Also the German art historian Anja Heuss knows what it means to get involved with tracing down looted art. About imaginations like ""just to go to the archive and have a look what's about a certain donation" she just laughs. It will take you months, she says, if not years until one is able to find out something. She works - next to her doctoral thesis - for the 'Jewish Claims Conference'. And she works mainly in Eastern Germany, because in Western Germany the situation is even more complicated, most claims have come under the statute of limitaion
But she already found out - amongst others - that the 'Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz" in Berlin in it's "Kupferstich Kabinett" has a painting by Vincent van Gogh which is originated from confiscated Jewish property. The former owner, the Jewish art collector Max Silberberg from Breslau was killed in a conctration camp. Until now no heirs have laid claim on it. And how could they - German museum do everything to hinder investigations. If the archives of the museums would be opened not just the possession of countless art treasures would be endangered but also a proper profit from the increase of value which for example a van Gogh experienced in the last 50 years.

Deaccessioning missing objects

Art Chancellor Klima pleads for looted art committee

Art Chancellor Klima pleads for looted art committee with external members A main issue (Chefsache)

Museums asking about the whereabouts

,The statement of the MoMa will be at March 26./27. The court decision will not be before beginning of April." That's how Klaus A. Schröder, manager of the Leopold-foundation, reacted to the avis of the MoMa that on friday they will deposite a statement on the Schiele-case with the prosecutings's office in New York The conception of legalitiy between prosecuting attorney Morgenthau, who ordered the confiscation of the paintings in January, and the Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) are differently: The question is if on a suspected criminal fact the New York State Arts and Cultural Affairs Law which protects art work on exhibitions against confiscation is in force or not. The MoMa says yes, Morgenthau says no. The MoMa should have made an reply to Morgenthau but postponed it's statemnt. The judge is on holidays so a court decision is not expected until the beginning of April. The committee for clearance of the provenance of art work which got into the Federal museums between 1938 and 1945 sat under the chairmanship of Ernst Bacher (Federal Office for Monuments) for the first time on Friday. At the same time a work schedule was set up and the appointment of a clearing place was decided. Copyright "Die Presse", Wien
In connection with was is happening in Austria at the moment it is quite interesting to see what's going on in Germany at the same time:
SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG
14/15 März 1998

Understanding is asked Before the decion about looted art

Three days before the long expected decision of the Russian Constitutional Court about the disputed 'Looted art law' Germany appealed to the Russian parliament to agree to a pragmatic solution. The interpretation of the law about the argument on the return of the cultural possessions which have been transported to Russia during World War II under international law is definite. This was said by deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU Federal German Parliament Rudolf Seiters in Moskau. (I rather like this sentence and especially the word 'found' in it.) The Russian cultural possessions, which had been carried off during the war and were found in Germany will also be restituted. Bonn demands the same understanding form the Russian side, Seiters said. The Russian Constitutional Court on Monday decides wether the process of vote on the 'looted art' law last summer in both Russian Chambers of Parliament had faults and with that are unconstitutional. In Russia there are stored more than a million objects of art from Germany, amongst it two million books. dpa