This is what I posted to the Museum Security List. A similar note was sent to David Gill, but has yet to be published:
Dear Ms. Herscher and Museum Security List-Serve: Ms. Herscher misses the point about CAARI's lobbying and the excavation permits issued to CAARI affiliated archaeologists. My original post simply stated, "Additional FOIA information has revealed that the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI) was involved in behind-the-scenes lobbying on behalf of the Cypriot Department of Antiquities, the Cypriot government body that issues excavation permits that allow CAARI affiliated archaeologists to excavate on the Island."
Although Ms. Herscher may deny it, ACCG's Complaint speaks for itself. Look at paragraphs 45 (CAARI facilitates meeting for Cypriot Antiquities head with State Department Cultural Heritage Center officials), 53 (CAARI-associated archaeologist confers behind-the- scenes with State Depatment officials about restrictions on coins before Cyprus makes request), 72 (CAARI members invited to MOU signing ceremony), and 77 (CAARI President brags about his group's efforts to Cypriot media). The reader can decide for themselves whether this suggests "behind-the-scenes lobbying" or not. I should also note that Ms. Herscher has previously claimed that CAARI does not "lobby" at all. http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/caari-vp-ellen-herscher-response-to.html
The Complaint can be reviewed here: http://www.accg.us/issues/news/ancient-coin-collectors-seek-judicial-review-of-controversial-decisions-to-bar-imports-of-ancient-collectors2019-coins
Peter Tompa
original message: Ellen Herscher of CAARI writes, Once again the ACCG has made false claims about the role of the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute in the U.S. government's decision to enter into a bilateral agreement with Cyprus. CAARI's Director and several trustees publicly submitted statements insupport of the agreement. This position is in accordance with CAARI's Code of Ethics, which states that the organization "is dedicated tothe protection and preservation of archaeological sites in Cyprus andthe information they contain." There was no "behind-the-scenes lobbying" involved. Secondly, "CAARI-affiliation" has nothing to do with the granting ofexcavation permits in Cyprus. Permits are the sole responsibility ofthe Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. It is unfortunate that the ACCG continues to publish these erroneous statements, despite the fact that CAARI has responded and refuted them in the past.
Ellen Herscher
Vice President, CAARI
Showing posts with label Ellen Herscher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ellen Herscher. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Patty Gerstenblith Named to Obama Arts Committee
Prof. Patty Gerstenblith, a well known advocate for the archaeological community, has been named to the Obama '08 Arts Policy Committee. http://www.artsactionfund.org/pdf/artsvote/ObamaStatement3b.pdf
The Obama platform in the arts includes the promotion of "cultural diplomacy." Though the Obama platform does not mention it, the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts has been pitched in the past as an element of such United States cultural diplomacy.
Prof. Gerstenblith previously served as a Clinton appointee to CPAC. The Huffington Post Website notes that Prof. Gerstenblith has donated $2300 to the Obama campaign. See http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Gerstenblith She has also donated to the campaigns of Democratic Senators Durbin and Levin as well as to the DNC. For federal candidates, an individual may contribute a maximum of $2,300 per election (the primary and general are separate elections).
Of course, Prof. Gerstenblith is just exercising her rights to play the political game like anyone else. However, I find it quite ironic that this news crops up at the very same time that Ellen Herscher of CAARI (and AIA) makes the claim (also made earlier on the SAFE website) that archaeologists don't "lobby." See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/caari-vp-ellen-herscher-response-to.html and R. Atwood, "A Critical Look at U.S. Media Coverage of Antiquities Issues" (available at: http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature_media.php ("I also find references to the "archaeological lobby," with no explanation of how archaeologists constitute a lobby, and no references at all to a dealers lobby, a collectors lobby, or a museum lobby except the kind where you get an information booklet. A "lobby" is a fairly specific thing; you have to register as a lobbyist to lobby in Congress.").
Once again, you can certainly "lobby" in many cases without having to "register," or impacting your organization's tax exempt status-- but in my opinion it is disingenuous to claim if you are trying to influence a government official that you are not "lobbying" at all.
The Obama platform in the arts includes the promotion of "cultural diplomacy." Though the Obama platform does not mention it, the imposition of import restrictions on cultural artifacts has been pitched in the past as an element of such United States cultural diplomacy.
Prof. Gerstenblith previously served as a Clinton appointee to CPAC. The Huffington Post Website notes that Prof. Gerstenblith has donated $2300 to the Obama campaign. See http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Gerstenblith She has also donated to the campaigns of Democratic Senators Durbin and Levin as well as to the DNC. For federal candidates, an individual may contribute a maximum of $2,300 per election (the primary and general are separate elections).
Of course, Prof. Gerstenblith is just exercising her rights to play the political game like anyone else. However, I find it quite ironic that this news crops up at the very same time that Ellen Herscher of CAARI (and AIA) makes the claim (also made earlier on the SAFE website) that archaeologists don't "lobby." See: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/caari-vp-ellen-herscher-response-to.html and R. Atwood, "A Critical Look at U.S. Media Coverage of Antiquities Issues" (available at: http://www.savingantiquities.org/feature_media.php ("I also find references to the "archaeological lobby," with no explanation of how archaeologists constitute a lobby, and no references at all to a dealers lobby, a collectors lobby, or a museum lobby except the kind where you get an information booklet. A "lobby" is a fairly specific thing; you have to register as a lobbyist to lobby in Congress.").
Once again, you can certainly "lobby" in many cases without having to "register," or impacting your organization's tax exempt status-- but in my opinion it is disingenuous to claim if you are trying to influence a government official that you are not "lobbying" at all.
CAARI VP Ellen Herscher Response to Post on Clay Constantinou
Ellen Herscher has made the following response to my post entitled, "Clay Constantinou of Patton Boggs-- CAARI's Chief Lobbyist?" (see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/) on the Museum Security Listserve:
From: Ellen Herscher It is unfortunate that Mr. Tompa does not get his facts straight before spinning his conspiracy theories: Ambassador Constantinou very recently became affiliated with Patton Boggs and had no connection with them more than a year ago when the Cyprus MOU was under consideration by the State Department. For the record, CAARI is a 501(c)3 organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists.
While I appreciate Ms. Herscher's clarification of one point in my post that I had indicated I could not confirm on the Patton Boggs website, her own post does raise some additional questions.
The first relates to her statement that Patton Boggs had "no connection" to Ambassador Constantinou. Typically, associations with large law firms do not happen overnight. It can literally take six months to a year for someone to join a large firm. Thus, even if Ambassador Constantinou had not yet joined Patton Boggs in July 2007, he may have been in the process of doing so. And let's face it. Having someone with Constantinou's Cypriot connections on board could not but help with "client relations" with Cyprus for not only Patton Boggs, but for CAARI as well. See: http://www.pattonboggs.com/cconstantinou/ (listing awards received from Cyprus).
Perhaps, Ms. Herscher can check with Ambassador Constantinou about his start date and provide us with further information whether he was in the process of negotiating with Patton Boggs at the time the Cyprus MOU was being finalized. But the far more relevant question that remains is whether Ambassador Constantinou or anyone else from Patton Boggs helped convince the State Department to overturn prior precedent and insert coins into the Cyprus MOU. That, of course, is not answered in Ms. Herscher's post.
Ms. Herscher's statement that "CAARI is a 501 (c) (3) organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists" also only raises additional questions.
Most significantly, how does Ms. Herscher define the term "lobbying?" Does she only define it in a technical fashion as a contact that triggers a reporting requirement under a statute or more broadly, in the common sense of the term as "any attempt to influence legislators or officials?" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
However one defines the term, CAARI representatives do appear to have done more than just show up at the CPAC meeting on Cyprus. Indeed, the words of CAARI's own president suggest a far deeper involvement in the decision to extend import restrictions to "coins of Cypriot type" than Ms. Herscher implies. See Cyprus News Agency, “CAARI-30 Years Interview with Gustave Feissel” available online at: http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/subject1.shtm#GF (“CAARI, according to Feissel, has been instrumental in the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the US to restrict the import of Cypriot antiquities into the US, including for the first time ancient coins.”). At a bare minimum, a CAARI newsletter indicates that Ms. Herscher herself facilitated a meeting between the Greek Cypriot Director of Antiquities and officials of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center to discuss "cultural property issues." See: J. Green, "Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S.," 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006) (available online at: http://www.caari.org/newsletters/CAARI-News-31.pdf) Facilitating such a meeting constitutes "lobbying" in my book, even if it is not in Ms. Herscher's.
From: Ellen Herscher It is unfortunate that Mr. Tompa does not get his facts straight before spinning his conspiracy theories: Ambassador Constantinou very recently became affiliated with Patton Boggs and had no connection with them more than a year ago when the Cyprus MOU was under consideration by the State Department. For the record, CAARI is a 501(c)3 organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists.
While I appreciate Ms. Herscher's clarification of one point in my post that I had indicated I could not confirm on the Patton Boggs website, her own post does raise some additional questions.
The first relates to her statement that Patton Boggs had "no connection" to Ambassador Constantinou. Typically, associations with large law firms do not happen overnight. It can literally take six months to a year for someone to join a large firm. Thus, even if Ambassador Constantinou had not yet joined Patton Boggs in July 2007, he may have been in the process of doing so. And let's face it. Having someone with Constantinou's Cypriot connections on board could not but help with "client relations" with Cyprus for not only Patton Boggs, but for CAARI as well. See: http://www.pattonboggs.com/cconstantinou/ (listing awards received from Cyprus).
Perhaps, Ms. Herscher can check with Ambassador Constantinou about his start date and provide us with further information whether he was in the process of negotiating with Patton Boggs at the time the Cyprus MOU was being finalized. But the far more relevant question that remains is whether Ambassador Constantinou or anyone else from Patton Boggs helped convince the State Department to overturn prior precedent and insert coins into the Cyprus MOU. That, of course, is not answered in Ms. Herscher's post.
Ms. Herscher's statement that "CAARI is a 501 (c) (3) organization: it does not lobby nor does it employ lobbyists" also only raises additional questions.
Most significantly, how does Ms. Herscher define the term "lobbying?" Does she only define it in a technical fashion as a contact that triggers a reporting requirement under a statute or more broadly, in the common sense of the term as "any attempt to influence legislators or officials?" See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying
However one defines the term, CAARI representatives do appear to have done more than just show up at the CPAC meeting on Cyprus. Indeed, the words of CAARI's own president suggest a far deeper involvement in the decision to extend import restrictions to "coins of Cypriot type" than Ms. Herscher implies. See Cyprus News Agency, “CAARI-30 Years Interview with Gustave Feissel” available online at: http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/subject1.shtm#GF (“CAARI, according to Feissel, has been instrumental in the renewal of a Memorandum of Understanding between Cyprus and the US to restrict the import of Cypriot antiquities into the US, including for the first time ancient coins.”). At a bare minimum, a CAARI newsletter indicates that Ms. Herscher herself facilitated a meeting between the Greek Cypriot Director of Antiquities and officials of the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center to discuss "cultural property issues." See: J. Green, "Cyprus Director of Antiquities, Dr. Pavolos Flourtzos, Visits the U.S.," 31 CAARI News 3 (Winter 2006) (available online at: http://www.caari.org/newsletters/CAARI-News-31.pdf) Facilitating such a meeting constitutes "lobbying" in my book, even if it is not in Ms. Herscher's.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
CAARI- A Shadow CPAC for the Cyprus MOU?
Reading the "choices" as laid out to Assistant Secretary Dina Powell in the State Department's "action memo" I can only conclude that the "fix was in" on imposing import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type, perhaps even before the prospect of including coins was first disclosed during Cyprus MOU hearing in January 2007. See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/lawsuit-pries-loose-documents-more-being-contested.
Preordained decisions going against past precedent do not just happen. Rather, they are usually the product of some undue influence behind the scenes. Thinking about which group might have been best situated to have had such influence has led me to consider the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute ("CAARI") as a prime "suspect." See http://www.caari.org/index.htm.
CAARI's primary purpose is to promote cultural exchanges with Cyprus in the form of US sponsored archaeological investigations on the Island. In addition, however, CAARI has also emphasized its stand on collecting. In particular, CAARI's code of ethics states that "the illicit trade of antiquities [must] be actively discouraged." See http://www.caari.org/CodeofEthics.htm. While this sounds noble, in practice this means support for the dubious proposition that any artifact without a detailed ownership history should be deemed "stolen" as a matter of law. As such, groups like CAARI support imposing the "Devil's proof" on collectors of even common artifacts, like coins, to prove the negative. Not surprisingly, imposing the Devil's proof is just what import restrictions do -- like those now in place on coins of Cypriot type.
Certainly, CAARI publicly supported the renewal of the Cyprus MOU and the inclusion of coins. That, of course, is its perogative. However, what makes me queasy is the suspicion that CAARI likely traded on its contacts with the Department of State ECA over cultural exchanges to plead Cyprus' case for import restrictions behind the scenes. The board of CAARI certainly has more than its fair share of former diplomats. In addition, Ellen Herscher, a well known advocate of the proposition that unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed stolen, serves as the organization's VP. See http://www.caari.org/Trustees.htm.
Did CAARI exercise undue influence to press for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot MOU? Was that influence so great it's recommendations could even supplant those of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the committee of experts which by statute has the role to advise the State Department on such matters? Hopefully, we will learn more as the FOIA litigation brought against the State Department by ACCG, IAPN and PNG unfolds.
Preordained decisions going against past precedent do not just happen. Rather, they are usually the product of some undue influence behind the scenes. Thinking about which group might have been best situated to have had such influence has led me to consider the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute ("CAARI") as a prime "suspect." See http://www.caari.org/index.htm.
CAARI's primary purpose is to promote cultural exchanges with Cyprus in the form of US sponsored archaeological investigations on the Island. In addition, however, CAARI has also emphasized its stand on collecting. In particular, CAARI's code of ethics states that "the illicit trade of antiquities [must] be actively discouraged." See http://www.caari.org/CodeofEthics.htm. While this sounds noble, in practice this means support for the dubious proposition that any artifact without a detailed ownership history should be deemed "stolen" as a matter of law. As such, groups like CAARI support imposing the "Devil's proof" on collectors of even common artifacts, like coins, to prove the negative. Not surprisingly, imposing the Devil's proof is just what import restrictions do -- like those now in place on coins of Cypriot type.
Certainly, CAARI publicly supported the renewal of the Cyprus MOU and the inclusion of coins. That, of course, is its perogative. However, what makes me queasy is the suspicion that CAARI likely traded on its contacts with the Department of State ECA over cultural exchanges to plead Cyprus' case for import restrictions behind the scenes. The board of CAARI certainly has more than its fair share of former diplomats. In addition, Ellen Herscher, a well known advocate of the proposition that unprovenanced artifacts should be deemed stolen, serves as the organization's VP. See http://www.caari.org/Trustees.htm.
Did CAARI exercise undue influence to press for the inclusion of coins in the Cypriot MOU? Was that influence so great it's recommendations could even supplant those of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the committee of experts which by statute has the role to advise the State Department on such matters? Hopefully, we will learn more as the FOIA litigation brought against the State Department by ACCG, IAPN and PNG unfolds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
