http://museum-security.org/
securma@xs4all.nl
SITE MAP
November 20, 1998
CONTENTS:
- Sprinkler thoughts, apologies, explanation, Steve Keller (read
this, Ton Cremers)
- Sprinklers etc. (Ross Brand)
- Re: MSN Exchange re Sprinklers Date (William Heidecker)
- Collector faces fraud charges over stolen art
- Scots return Wounded Knee shirt (British Museum said the move would
have no effect on its refusal to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece)
- Student needing info (Felicia Peterson)
- Re: sprinklers (Robin Rogers)
- "Focus on Security"
From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Date sent: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:37:00 EST
To: securma@xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: NOVEMBER 18, 1998, part II
STEVE KELLER
Regarding the sprinkler thread, Dave Liston is correct, of course,
that replying to a post with "That's a crock of *** . . . " is
inappropriate, but with all due respects, there was a lot in that
original post to get excited about. Nevertheless, I should not have
been so undiplomatic and Ton and I discussed my reply as well as his
role as moderator/censor. I'll try to be less emotional. For the
record, I did not object to my post being posted by the moderator or
censored by the moderator. Ton Cremers has a very strong sense of
opposition to censorship, which I respect and support.
Let me put my reply into perspective, not to make an excuse for it but
to offer a reason for it. As a consultant, I am constantly reminded
that I "have something to sell" to the museum community and am
therefore somehow less pure than those of you who just get your
paycheck every Friday on a regular basis. I am rather constantly
criticized by those who assume that I get rich at the expense of
museums by being a consultant. The fact is that I sit at my computer
late at night, long after business hours, composing private replies to
users of this and other museum lists at a ratio of six private replies
with offers of free advice, to every one public post. I have never
sought compensation for any communication with a "prospective client"
resulting from their request for advice or posting on any internet
list. I regard this forum "off limits" to commercialization and even
decided not to sponsor the MSN even though it was at one time in need
of commercial sponsors to stay in operation. Sponsorship was
considered, it was financially no problem for my company, but was
ruled out. I have since devoted many hours to trying to find a
sponsor for this list and continue to do so, but insist that it must
be someone other than my company.
So when I saw a post on sprinklers that I felt was both misleading and
nothing more than a veiled advertisement for someone's warehouse, I
hit the ceiling. Had the writer simply posted bad information, I might
have contacted him privately with my response and posted my public
opinion in a more straight forward manner. Or, had he posted a
straight forward ad for his warehouse, I might have contacted him
privately and asked him to become a party to an agreement those of us
with something to sell have made among ourselves to avoid turning this
forum into a commercial site. But when I read the misinformation that
was posted which was, in my opinion, insulting to those of us who work
in this profession and hire, train and manage quality security
personnel and run well managed operations, I blew up. If you are going
to sneak an ad into this newsgroup, at least don't insult our
intelligence with it. In defense of the original writer, I don't
think he knew the history of the sprinkler controversy in this
profession and what damage he might do with his post, nor did he
realize that those of us who have been fighting for better fire
protection in museums would find it necessary to post counter views on
the subject "for the record".
I'm sorry for calling the post "a crock" and for subjecting readers to
that aspect of this thread. Of course it was unprofessional. I knew it
the moment I pressed the "Send" button. But for those of you who do
not see the construction of new museums and the renovation of existing
museums from my vantage point, this was a very significant issue. Once
you build a new museum without sprinklers, you don't get a second
chance for, say, fifty years. I think of it as playing for keeps. We
have one shot at doing it right, then that particular museum is lost.
I have been fired by architects and museums for fighting too strongly
in favor of sprinklers with the architect or conservator. Each time I
did this, I lost $30,000 in income. This should tell you something
about how strongly some of us feel about this subject. Sometimes you
have to take a stand. That's why you have the big office! (I don't
advocate sprinklers in every instance, by the way. Only where I feel
they are needed.)
Dave Liston: Thanks for bringing this breach of netiquette to my
attention but you know full well the passion that exists on this
subject and you know that it was passion for this 20 year controversy,
championed by Bob Burke before me, that prompted the reply, not some
lack of netiquette. And you should know that you are the single
greatest critic of consultants, in general, as some how unpure beings
who exploit museums, and you should know how hard we are all trying to
keep this forum non-commercial, in part to keep you off our collective
backs. You don't need to refer me to some site that tells me I made a
mistake with the intensity of my post.
Robin Rogers: Do I understand that you unsubscribed because of this
thread? Was it something I said or something William Heidecker said?
If I offended you, I apologize. But Mr. Heidecker, who I only just met
but know to be a very competent and respected fire protection
professional and former inspector for the insurance industry, was
right on the money with his reply to you which was about as diplomatic
and in compliance with netiquette as it gets. Please don't leave the
room because of someone responding to your post. That is what this
forum is all about. Where I deserve criticism for stiffling
conversation by jumping on Mr. Wexler with both feet, Mr. Heidecker
deserves no criticism for giving you his professional opinion. My
thoughts were the same as his reply when I read your post about
hanging a coat on a sprinkler head and not catching corrosion caused
by salt air. So he disagrees with you. So what? People disagree with
me all the time and I don't sign off of lose sleep. Criticism goes
with participation. Please stay. We need your input, if for no other
reason than to be reminded that not all museums have HVAC systems or
have guards who don't know not to hang a coat on the sprinkler head
and this is important for us to know. It's a fact. Tom Dixon: I
appreciated your post. I have gone to battle with conservators over
the sprinkler issue and it is unfortunate. One very prominent US
museum will not lend to museums with sprinklers and this is due to
their very influential conservator. Unfortunately he has done more
single handedly to prevent museums from getting sprinklers than any
other human on this planet. I constantly hear how sprinklers must be
opposed or he will not approve loans. Too bad. But the rest of us can
stand firm on the issue.
The key to this issue is that properly designed and properly
maintained sprinklers do not pose a greater risk to a museum than a
fire does. Everything in our business is a comparison of risks. I just
made a decision to take a pill to lower my cholesterol even though it
can increase the risk of side effects. We make these decisions all
the time. Sprinklers are no different. There have been several very
destructive fires in museums in the U.S. and abroad that could have
been totally prevented with sprinklers. But there has not been one
single work of art damaged by a properly installed and properly
maintained sprinkler. If you know of an incident, please let me know
as I have been researching this for 20 years and investigate every
incident that comes to my attention. If we can just keep the guard
from changing his clothes in the gallery (and not hanging his coat on
the sprinkler head where the paintings are displayed) we've got it
made. My point is that this is a complex issue and that when you
compare all of the risks and all of the facts, sprinklers win hands
down.
Finally, for the record, I indicated that I don't always support
sprinklers in museums. While I favor in-house guards, I sometims
recommend contract guards. And while I prefer guards over visitor
service aids in a museum, I sometimes recommend visitor service aids.
The process of deciding which to recommend is the same. I ask myself,
can this museum's management afford to administer this program the way
it ought to be administered? Can they be trusted to test the
sprinklers, train the guards, etc. or do they lack management
commitment or management maturity? Do they have an infrastructure to
get the job done (facility manager to handle or at least schedule the
test, trainer to train the guard not to hand his coat on a sprinkler,
etc.) If a museum can't afford to buy proper sprinklers, install them
right, and maintain them according to NFPA requirements, then I
usually recommend against them.
I hope this clarifies my position and satsifies those who think I am
in the habit of insulting colleagues on the internet.
Steve Keller
From: Ross Brand 387-2104 rbrand@rbml01.rbcm.gov.bc.ca
Subject: Re: NOVEMBER 18, 1998, part II
ROSS BRAND
To: Museum Security Network securma@xs4all.nl
I have been reading with interest the "Great Sprinkler Debate" but
because of the success of the Leonardo Da Vinci exhibit I have not had
much of a chance to respond.
The Royal British Columbia Museum's new building was built in 1967 at
the time it was not sprinkled and asbestos was used for fire
protection. Asbestos will protect the building but will not protect
the collection.
For the last 15 years we have been systematically removing the
Asbestos and installing a wet sprinkler system which now covers
approximately 125,000 sq. ft. In the last 15 years we have had only
two sprinkler heads develop a leak. One in an exhibit and the other in
a workspace. Both were just a drip which was quickly isolated and
repaired.
The collection spaces are divided into 14 fire protection zones and
the Exhibit space into 6. and the Imax has five.
The Security staff are well trained as to the location and operation
of the shutoffs for each zone.
Two years ago we had a small fire while we were in the process of
installing a sprinkler system in the old foyer. The fire was just a
bit of plastic sheeting on the ground floor. The actual fire damage
was only about $3,000. The smoke damage was $250,000. The smoke filled
the all the upper Exhibit floors.
You have no idea what it takes to clean a Mammoth.
The Museum was closed for 3 months while we cleaned the exhibits.
If the sprinkler system had been functional at the time of the fire,
our damage would have been less than $1,000 and we would not have had
to close for a single day.
Learning from that experience we took a close look at our Disaster
plan and rewrote it and even more important we have developed a
business continuation plan to maximize our efforts during a disaster
and to reduce to a minimum, the time it takes us to reopen for
business.
Most wet items can, with proper conservation techniques, be restored.
But I have never met a conservator who can create a Phoenix from the
ashes.
Ross Brand
Facilities Manager
RBCM
From: "William A. Heidecker" heideckerwa@worldnet.att.net
Re: MSN Exchange re Sprinklers Date
It seems, in the end, that we agree on more than we disagree.
Sprinklers are very useful, but not in all situations. Education is
important, always and that applies to all protective systems, not just
fire protection. And I share your comments about consultants; I just
spent the afternoon searching through a very large list (literally
thousands of pages) of consultants and I am highly skeptical that all
can do all they promise. My favorite perspective is not just fire
protection, but risk assessment from a fire protection/fire prevention
viewpoint. The trick is not to just squirt something on the fire
(because by that time some damage has already occurred), but to
prevent the fire from occurring. And if it does occur, then limiting
the area of damage and extinguishing it as quickly as possible and
without contributing to the damage. Fire risk assessment, to me,
requires discussions with senior management, reviewing fire safety
contingency plans, inspecting the equipment, and then presenting a
report that not only recommends doing something, but which explains
why it is necessary. Best of luck. Sorry if you mistook an attack on
the problem as an attack on the author.
William A. Heidecker
Severn Risk Management
645 Oakland Hills Drive, Apt. A-3
Arnold, MD 21012
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Rogers riskmgmt@lava.net
Subject: Re: MSN Exchange re
Sprinklers
All I can say is that my experiences are different than yours. Each
example is factual and come from real life situations. The fact of
the matter is that artist do expose their wares to unreasonable and
harsh environments every day. Many times it is a lack on knowledge.
I have two cases going on right now involving sprinklers and art and
poor planning.
It is not my intent to say sprinklers are bad, it was my intent to
say people who have them need to be aware how to service them and how
to turn them off when there is an event. If all of your clients know
this, then I guess you have done your job. I see many that do not.
And I do not live in an ideal world. I see my job to educate and
prepare people for the disaster that will occur.
One last comment: Ton has been writing about art that is disappearing
all over the world from Museums that have consultants that sell the
top of the line safety services. They too are probable telling their
clients that everything is ok. Then we, the investigators and
adjusters, get to come in afterwards and evaluate the holes that
could have been prevented if people had a little less idealism and a
littler more reality in their breakfast.
Enough said. I have un-subscribed and will only look in from time to
time.
R.Rogers
Collector faces fraud charges over stolen art
By TED WENDLING
PLAIN DEALER REPORTER
A former Los Angeles art collector whose stolen multimillion-dollar
paintings were found in an Olmsted Falls storage locker has been
indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.
Dr. Steven G. Cooperman, a retired ophthalmologist whose medical
license was taken away in 1990 amid allegations of unprofessional
conduct, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles late
Tuesday on 16 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, interstate
transportation of stolen property and money laundering.
The indictment accuses Cooperman of bilking Home Insurance Co. and
National Union Fire Insurance Co. by reporting that masterworks by
Claude Monet and Pablo Picasso were stolen from his Brentwood, Calif.,
home in July 1992. The indictment was filed six years to the day after
Cooperman sued the insurers and an underwriter, alleging that they
refused to pay him the two paintings' insured value - $12.5 million.
Attorneys for Home and NaÄÄtional Union have asserted that the Monet
and Picasso were grossly overvalued, estimating the worth of the Monet
at $1.5 million to $2 million and the value of the Picasso at $800,000
to $1.2 million. Court records show that Cooperman was able to inflate
the value of the paintings by getting the insurers' underwriter to
accept a museum loan receipt as a formal appraisal.
Following a series of judicial rulings favorable to Cooperman, the
insurers eventually settled the lawsuit for $17.5 million.
Cooperman, 56, who now lives in Fairfield, Conn., was not arrested
and will receive a summons in the next few weeks to appear before a
judge in Los Angeles, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard E. Robinson
said yesterday.
Cooperman could not be reached for comment.
"He absolutely maintains his innocence and we're going to vigorously
fight the charges," said his attorney, Melissa N. Widdifield.
Although the indictment says Cooperman was assisted in the theft and
insurance fraud by unnamed co-conspirators, Robinson would not discuss
Cooperman's alleged accomplices other than to say that the government
was "vigorously pursuing the investigation, and it's not limited to
Cooperman."
The paintings - Monet's "The Customs Officer's Cabin at Pourville,"
from 1882, and Picasso's "Nude Before a Mirror," painted in 1932 -
were recovered undamaged by Cleveland FBI agents in a
climate-controlled locker at the Mill River Indoor Self-Storage on
Bagley Rd. in February 1997. At the time, the locker was being rented
by Shaker Heights public relations executive JoAnn Remington, the
mother of Cleveland lawyer James J. Little.
For nearly a year before the paintings' recovery, Little, 42, had
been mired in an abusive relationship with Pamela A. Davis, 39, a
pharmaceutical representative who had a 1995 felony conviction for
misusing the American Express card of former Cleveland Browns fullback
Tommy Vardell.
In statements she began making to Rocky River police in August 1996,
Davis had accused Little of, among other things, possessing stolen
artwork. But because of the sheer volume of her charges, coupled with
her penchant for making false claims against Little and then
withdrawing the charges, police said they didn't believe her.
It wasn't until late January 1997, after Davis confided in an
acquaintance, Dennis Drabek, that Drabek - seeking the $250,000 reward
offered for the paintings' recovery - went to the FBI.
Although Davis and Little were married in California over the summer,
Davis is now claiming she is entitled to the reward for blowing the
whistle on Little. Drabek is asserting the same claim, and Little's
first wife, actress and former Playboy Magazine playmate Roberta
Vasquez, who assisted Los Angeles police early on in the
investigation, has said she also may pursue the reward.
Little, who has a history of drug abuse and was convicted this summer
in Orange County, Calif., of cocaine possession and spousal abuse for
beating Davis, has told a series of convoluted stories about how the
paintings arrived in Cleveland.
He has claimed that he unwittingly brought them here with his other
belongings in 1996 as a favor to his former law partner, Los Angeles
entertainment lawyer James P. Tierney, and that he was in the process
of trying to discreetly return them to the insurance companies when he
became concerned that Davis would steal them and claim the reward.
Davis has denied that account, as has Tierney, a former federal
prosecutor who formerly represented Cooperman. Neither Tierney, 56,
nor Little could be reached yesterday.
Davis declined to comment yesterday, saying only, "My life is very
happy and very fulfilled and I'm not going to be part of this
anymore."
Although Little has been granted immunity from prosecution and the
FBI has said that Little and his mother are not targets of the
investigation, Little's value as a witness has been called into
question by his bizarre behavior, including a July 1997 appearance in
Rocky River Municipal Court in which he was shorn of all body hair.
Accusing Little of shaving his body to thwart a drug test, the judge
ordered him jailed for 10 days, calling him a liar and calling his
relationship with Davis a "fatal attraction."
©1998 THE PLAIN DEALER.
(Daily Telegaph London)
Scots return Wounded Knee shirt (British Museum said the move would
have no effect on its refusal to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece)
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent
Richard LeBeau from South Dakota looks at the Ghost Dance Shirt
A BULLET-HOLED American Indian "ghost shirt" taken from the body of a
brave killed at the massacre of Wounded Knee is to be sent back to
South Dakota by a Scottish museum.
Glasgow councillors decided yesterday to return the blood-stained
artefact, the only item of its kind outside the United States, in a
move which could have repercussions for museums throughout Britain.
The majority decision followed a public meeting in the city last week
at which descendants of the Lakota Sioux, shot by the Seventh Cavalry,
pleaded for the return of the shirt.
It was presented to the city in 1891 during a visit by Buffalo Bill
Cody's wild west show, and has been on display at the Kelvingrove
Museum since. Marcella Le Beau, 78, a descendant of the Sioux warriors
who defeated General Custer, argued for the repatriation last week and
wept yesterday on hearing the vote. Her son, Richard, said: "The
return of the shirt will be a time of great healing. You have no idea
what it means to us."
She added: "We appreciate the overwhelming support."
Pat Lally, Glasgow's lord provost, had argued against the
repatriation, claiming the shirt would be of more cultural value in
Glasgow than in Pine Ridge, South Dakota. He accused councillors of
responding to an "emotional spasm". The ruling by the arts and culture
committee of Glasgow city council will be closely studied by curators
at other institutions. However, the British Museum said the move would
have no effect on its refusal to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece.
More than 250 Sioux Indians, who were making their way to a
reservation, were intercepted and killed at Wounded Knee in 1890. The
Indian "ghost dancers" were part of a sect which wore allegedly
magical shirts which they believed would protect them from soldiers'
bullets.
From: "Felicia Peterson" pole101@hotmail.com
To: art-theft@webtv.net
Subject: Student needing info (Felicia Peterson)
Hello whoever reads this,
I am a student that is currently in grade twelve. I just finished
reading a book titled For Art's Sake written by W.O. Mitchell. It
is a story about art theft but it left me wondering about a few points
that I was hopeing you could answer.
How many major art heists are there world wide in a year?
How many are ever recovered?
Of the ones not recovered, what is expected to have happened to them?
In the story I was reading the art was distributed around the world to
different public galleries ect... after the insurrance was up. The
goal of these theives was to get major art out of private ownership
and out for the public to see. Does this ever happen or are all
theives just doing it for money?
Thank you for taking the time to read this I look forward to hearing
from you at your earliest convienice
Felica Peterson
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:32:42 -1000
To: "Museum Security Network" securma@xs4all.nl
From: Robin Rogers riskmgmt@lava.net
Subject: Re: sprinklers (Robin Rogers)
Well this is an interesting turn of events. It is funny how
education comes to us all in many forms and styles. Reading the more
recent threads together, one gets the impression we have been educated
without us knowing it. What I see is two or three different types of
people with different perspectives and experiences coming together to
share those ideas. I guess I should not be so thin skinned. I was
surprised and a bit dumbfounded. You see, my experiences come form
more than Museums. I see a lot of artists, and private art collectors,
and other types of commercial businesses. And, I have seen a lot of
situations that could have been avoided. It usually is a lack of
planning and contingency management. But, for most of us, 20/20
hindsight is a luxury and not usually a reality. And, I also see that
the wrong comment in the wrong forum could be construed as a
irresponsible rabble rouser instead of being educational. I just see
so much that could have been avoided if people were paying attention.
From what I have read, I think we agree that spinklers are a good
thing as long as their usage is managed. Thanks Ton for copying me in
all this feedback.
Robin Rogers
Museum-L
From: Morris Museum of Art mormuse@GROUPZ.NET
Subject: "Focus on Security"
I have been asked if the quarterly "Focus on Security" is useful and
worth the $70 subscription price. Thanks for your input.
Cary Wilkins
Librarian/Archivist
Morris Museum of Art
One 10th St.
Augusta, GA 30901
706-828-3801
mormuse@GROUPZ.NET
Main Indexpage
