Everyone is Entitled to Find Out What the Government is Up To

Scott Hodes, an attorney who devotes his practice to Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cases, has commented on the archaeological blogosphere's attack on the efforts of  ACCG, IAPN and PNG to seek transparency in how the State Department and US Customs impose import restrictions on cultural goods.

The drafters of FOIA hoped that the release of government files would help the public learn what its government is up to.  The fact that ACCG, IAPN and PNG have sought to shed some light on what State Department and US Customs Bureaucrats have been up to behind closed doors should be applauded, not condemned by archaeological groups, particularly given their own demands for transparency from private parties involved in the trade in cultural goods.

District Court Again Accepts State Secrecy Claims; But Transparency Needed More than Ever

The same US District Court judge who ruled for the State Department in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case has again ruled for the government on the remaining issues on remand from the D.C. Circuit.

Just because the US District Court gave the State Department another pass does not mean that the State Department is acting in accordance with President Obama's promise to make his Administration the most transparent ever.  To the contrary, the veil of secrecy placed over State Department decisions to impose import restrictions on cultural goods would seem to be entirely inconsistent with that pledge. 

The State Department needs to be far more transparent about its decision making processes, which after all have a real impact on the ability of American collectors, businesses and museums to import cultural goods.

Archaeologists should also support greater transparency.  The archaeological lobby harps on the need for more transparency about private transactions involving the sale or transfer of cultural goods, but has been supportive of government secrecy concerning how import decisions are made.  Why?  Could it be that it fears that any such transparency will only confirm that such decisions are actually the products of bias/and or prejudgement and/or ex parte contacts between State Department staff and members of the archaeological lobby?  The particular redacted document at issue in the remand (an email communication between an archaeologist associated with the Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute and a State Department employee about including coins in the MOU that predated a Cypriot request for import restrictions on coins) certainly suggests as much.

Addendum 6/15/12): Some in the archaeological blogosphere have now claimed that using the FOIA process to seek the email mentioned above is somehow "absurd," "shameful," "disturbing" and "disgusting."  Here is my response to archaeo-blogger Paul Barford, which he apparently refuses to publish:

Well, perhaps you should give your readers the whole context of why ACCG was seeking the Parks email, and let them decide if seeking some transparency as to how the import restrictions decision was made is as disgusting or disturbing as you claim: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2011/12/will-obama-state-department-uphold.html
Either State was using Parks (the now deceased archaeologist in question)  as a supposedly neutral expert (when she was not) or conferring with her about CAARI's effort to include coins in the Cypriot MOU. Because we don't have the entire document, we don't know which it was, but since Cyprus had not yet asked for restrictions on coins when the email exchange occurred, it presumably would be the latter.

Open Government Watchdog Criticises DC Circuit Decision

An advocate for open government has criticised the DC Circuit decision in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case. See
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=11827

Meanwhile, predictably at least one self-appointed spokesman for the archaeological community is gloating about the ruling while at the same time attacking the DC Circuit's decision to require State to further justify its search and its withholding of one document. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/coiney-guilds-want-access-to-deceased.html

Ruling in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA Case

The DC Circuit has affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the District Court in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/U_S_Appellate_Court_rules_on_FOIA_case.aspx

Overall, the ruling supports the Department of State's efforts to keep its decision making secret from the public.-- this despite the Obama Administration's claims that it is the "most transparent" in history. Moreover, as we have seen from the recent CPRI seminar, such secrecy has been used to cover up results oriented short cuts designed to ensure the broadest application of import restrictions on cultural goods. Any benefits confidentiality brings to decision making should never come at the expense of encouraging evasion of legal process.

ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA Litigation

I attended the oral argument in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case against the State Department today. The Appellate judges were obviously well prepared. They gave both sides a hard time on various points in the briefs. Overall, though, I suspect the district court opinion will ultimately be reversed based on the conclusory nature of the State Department's declaration explaining why the documents at issue should be confidential.
Anyway, we should find out in the coming months.

Oral Argument Set in ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA Appeal

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument on the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA appeal on January 24, 2011. The Appeals Court will determine the extent to which the Department of State may withhold information about the controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins from the public. For more, see
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/FOIA_Appeal_Advances_to_Oral_Arguments.aspx

FOIA Briefing Focuses on Presumptions

The ACCG, IAPN and PNG have filed their initial brief in the FOIA matter pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Significantly, certain former CPAC members filed their own friend of the court brief in support of the appeal. Hopefully, all this will prompt the leadership of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) to reexamine its policy of treating even CPAC reports (which are supposed to be produced to Congress) as secret, no matter what the Court ultimately decides.

The appellants and the amici argue that more transparency is necessary so the public will have access to information that will allow them to comment more intelligently about State Party requests for import restrictions. There also is the issue of a level playing field. Information ECA treats as secret appears to be readily shared with proponents of restrictions from the archaeological community, either through their contacts with cultural authorities abroad or with ECA personnel.

Ironies abound in all this. ECA argues its decisions treating Cypriot and Chinese artifacts as presumptive Cypriot and Chinese state property should be treated as presumptively secret themselves. At the same time, ECA has set up a new public comment process that ensures that private individuals views are available for all to see.

For more as well as copies of the appellants' and the amici's briefs, see: http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Initial_Briefing_Completed_in_FOIA_Litigation.aspx

Unconfirmed Report on Italian MOU Underscores Need For Greater State Department Transparency

Archaeo Blogger Paul Barford has revealed that coins have again received an exemption from import restrictions in the US-Italian MOU. See http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/09/coins-not-in-italy-cultural-agreement.html

If true, this demonstrates that Italy and the State Department seriously considered the concerns of coin collectors that any benefit from import restrictions would be far outweighed by the serious damage they could do to the preservation and study of ancient Greek and Roman coins, the appreciation of Italian culture and people to people contacts between American and European collectors.

On the other hand, it would also once again demonstrate that State Department secrecy may keep information from the public at large, but that such information is indeed often shared with members of the archaeological community either through personal contacts with Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs staff or members of foreign cultural establishments.

Coincidentally, the United States Court of Appeals will soon address such issues as initial briefs in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA case are due next week.

Addendum: I've asked Mr. Barford to provide some specifics as to the sourcing of his report. We'll see if he responds.

Litigation Updates: Amended Complaint Filed and Appellate Briefing Schedule Expected Shortly

The ACCG has filed an amended complaint in the pending Baltimore test case relating to the import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins. The amended complaint alleges new 1st Amendment claims relating to the informational content found on ancient coins. It also characterizes the Department of State and Customs as acting beyond the scope of their authority under governing statutes. The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, rendering Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants are expected to file another motion to dismiss the case based on the claim that the State Department's actions are unreviewable.

In the meantime, State has rejected mediation in the pending FOIA appeal and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to issue a briefing schedule shortly.

D.C. Circuit Allows Appeal to Go Forward and Welcomes Participation of Former CPAC Members

The DC Circuit has denied the government's motion for summary affirmance of Judge Leon's ruling in the Freedom of Information Act case brought against the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs ("ECA") by numismatic groups.

The Court also granted a motion by certain former members of the President's Cultural Property Advisory Committee to participate in the appeal in support of more transparency in the State Department's handling of import restrictions requests.

The State Department had claimed that the views of former CPAC members were "irrelevant" to the issues.

One wonders why President Obama's promises of government transparency and accountability have yet to sink into the State Department's Cultural Heritage Center.

Will Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale, President Obama's political appointee, take notice? Will Ann Stock, nominee to head ECA, take stock of the situation at the Cultural Heritage Center once she is confirmed to her post? One hopes so.

The DC Circuit is expected to issue a briefing schedule for the appeal shortly.

Transparency Falters

The Washington Post has reported on bureaucratic inertia in the face of President Obama's promises of transparency and accountability. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012602048.html

As the report states,

In case after case, the plaintiffs say little has changed since the Bush administration years, when most began their quests for records. Agencies still often fight requests for disclosure, contending that national security and internal decision-making need to be protected.

FOIA expert (and attorney for the numismatic groups in the pending FOIA appeal) thinks the article focused too much on numbers, and not enough on the underlying issue. In his own blog, he states,

I think the real (and more interesting ) story would be why haven't certain agencies implemented policies reflecting the President's FOIA statements and what has the Department of Justice done about this?

See http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2010/01/washington-post-finds-it-suprising-that-there-are-still-foia-lawsuits.html

I can't agree more. That certainly applies to the US State Department Bureau of Educational Cultural Affairs and its continued intransigence in supplying information about import restrictions-- even when it comes to Cultural Property Advisory Committee Reports that are supposed to be provided to Congress and which have been voluntarily produced in the past.

As I have also observed, if anything, the State Department has a special obligation to be as transparent and accountable as possible. State Department officials-- including Secretary Clinton-- have certainly preached the virtues of transparency and accountability to other governments. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/11/so-much-for-transparency-and.html

Numismatic Groups Appeal FOIA Decision

The ACCG, IAPN and PNG have appealed Judge Leon's FOIA ruling in an effort to continue to press their quest for greater transparency and accountability in the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' processes for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods. See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/collectors-to-appeal-judges-decision-condoning-state-department-secrecy-80717897.html

The ACCG press release notes that a wide gulf exists between the Obama Administration's rhetoric about "open government" and how the Obama State Department has defended and continued the secretive processes of the Bush State Department. A cynic might also wonder the extent to which a desire to protect the reputation of former Undersecretary of State and Obama supporter Nicholas Burns has entered the mix. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/nicholas-burns-philhellene-cultural.html and http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650

For more about Judge Leon's ruling, see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/11/so-much-for-transparency-and.html

Gill Press Release Betrays a Fundamental Misunderstanding of Impact of FOIA Decision

Archaeologist David Gill's latest PRNewswire press release betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact of Judge Leon's recent FOIA decision. See Looting Matters: Coin Dealers and Collectors Lose Case Against the US State.

That decision solely relates to whether the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs properly withheld the limited number of remaining documents at issue before the Judge under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/11/so-much-for-transparency-and.html As Judge Leon himself notes, the State Department already released numerous documents, though it took a lawsuit to force the State Department to process Plaintiffs' requests.

In fact, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild hopes to ascertain the actual merits of the decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type in a "test case" brewing before the US District Court in the District of Maryland. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/09/collectors-challenge-us-state.html

The issue in that case will be whether the import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type were promulgated properly under the provisions of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/07/short-recap-of-cultural-property.html

If anything, documents produced in the FOIA case have helped supply a good faith basis for the ACCG to assert that the decision to impose import restrictions on ancient coins of Cypriot type was made in an "arbitrary and capricious" fashion. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/08/nicholas-burns-philhellene-cultural.html

So Much for Transparency and Accountability

During a press conference on Nov. 19th in Kabul, Secretary of State Clinton preached to President Karzai and the Afghan Government about the need for progress on "transparency and accountability." See http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/11/132150.htm

Yet, the Cultural Heritage Center of the Secretary Clinton's own Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has fought tooth and nail to keep secret details of the controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on Cypriot and Chinese coins, and now US District Court Judge Richard Leon has decided against holding the State Department accountable to the public for the release of this information. See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/ruling-in-foia-case-condones-dos-intransigence

The ACCG and the other Plaintiffs are currently considering whether to appeal. At least, as the press release on the ACCG website notes, the mere fact that litigation was brought forced the State Department to process the Plaintiffs' FOIA requests, some of which had been languishing in bureaucratic Neverland for some three years. And, as further noted, some of that material that was produced points to potential misconduct that will be further explored in the "test case" brewing in US District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

State Department IG Says ECA Program Requires More Oversight

The New York Times reports that the State Department IG's office has concluded that the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) failed to properly oversee student exchange programs. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/25exchange.html?_r=1 The fact that the well being of children from foreign countries was at issue presumably made the IG take complaints about the foreign exchange program quite seriously.

Some time ago, the ACCG, IAPN and PNG asked the State Department IG to review the practices of the ECA's Cultural Heritage Center. The Bush Administration State Department IG (who later resigned under pressure over an appearance of conflict related to the Iraq reconstruction effort (see http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/embattled-state-dept-inspector-general-resigning/)) simply punted the request back to ECA, which shortly thereafter departed from existing precedent and the Cultural Property Advisory Committee's recommendations before imposing import restrictions on coins of Cypriot type. See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/import-restrictions-imposed-on-cypriot-coins/?searchterm=IG

Of course, having been rebuffed by the Department of State IG (and perhaps having been retaliated against for even bringing up concerns about process), the ACCG, IAPN and PNG had no recourse but to litigation.

Hopefully, the Obama Administration State Department will take the concerns about how ECA handles requests for import restrictions on cultural goods more seriously than did the Bush Administration's State Department. So far, the jury is still out. While ECA has reconsidered its initial decision to disallow public comments on the interim review of the Italian MOU (see http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/10/public-hearing-on-interim-review-of.html), it has also refused to reconsider the Bush Administration's extensive FOIA withholdings of documents relevant to the decisions to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot and Chinese type-- this despite a directive from the Obama Justice Department to reevaluate such issues. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/06/judith-mchale-confirmed-to-dos-public.html

PR Newswire Release about ACCG Auction

The ACCG has issued a press release about its annual benefit auction. See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/benefit-auction-raises-more-than-32000-for-collectors-legal-fund-64237382.html

Most of the ACCG's efforts are performed on a volunteer basis, but prosecution of cases before the federal courts will tap into ACCG's funding. The annual auction helps pay for these legal expenses.

ACCG has three law firms assisting it. Scott Hodes, a lawyer with extensive experience in the area, is handling the Freedom of Information Act case brought on behalf of the ACCG, IAPN and PNG against the U.S. State Department. For Mr. Hodes' website, see: http://www.infoprivacylaw.com/

ACCG has also imported coins for purposes of a case to test the current Chinese and Cypriot coin restrictions. That case will be pending in US District Court in Baltimore. My firm, Bailey & Ehrenberg, PLLC, is representing the ACCG in that matter at highly reduced rates. For more about Bailey & Ehrenberg, see http://www.becounsel.com/ In addition, ACCG has also retained the services of Serko Simon Gluck & Kane, LLP, a Customs law firm, to assist in the technical aspects of the case. See http://www.customs-law.com/ourfirm.php That NY Based firm has also offered reduced rates in recognition of the importance of ACCG's efforts to protect the rights of those interested in the legitimate, international exchange of ancient artifacts.

ACCG Auction Nets $32,000 plus

ACCG has announced that its auction to fund litigation against the U.S. State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has netted over $32,000. See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/accg-benefit-auction-nets-32-000 The lots of coins and books attracted almost 2,000 bids.

It is unfortunate that it has been necessary to take legal action that then must be funded. But, concerns raised with State Department officials about problems with the system of imposing import restrictions on cultural goods have fallen on deaf ears, and while certain legislators have tried to help, the State Department has to date successfully "stonewalled" them as well.

These concerns have remained largely unchanged through the Clinton, Bush and now Obama Administrations. For example, the State Department has refused to reevaluate its decision to withhold documents in a pending FOIA case brought on behalf of ACCG and other numismatic groups despite an Obama Department of Justice mandate.

For more about these concerns (which are shared by a number of former CPAC members), see
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search/label/IFAR

Collectors Challenge U.S. State Department Bureaucrats After Baltimore Seizure

The Wall Street Journal's "Market Watch" has picked up the ACCG's latest press release about a prospective "test case" concerning the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' controversial decisions to impose import restrictions on coins of Cypriot and Chinese type. See: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/collectors-challenge-us-state-department-bureaucrats-after-baltimore-seizure-2009-09-15

Now that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seized the Cypriot and Chinese coins that the ACCG imported for that purpose, the matter should go before a U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

Information gleaned from companion Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation suggests that the decisions of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs were arbitrary and capricious. As the press release explains,

Information from another Freedom of Information Act lawsuit suggests that the DOS failed to follow the recommendations of its own experts on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) in extending restrictions to Cypriot coins, and then misled Congress about this decision. Other information implicates DOS bureaucrats adding coins to the Chinese MOU even though Chinese officials never asked for their inclusion.

The press release also notes that former CPAC members share some of the concerns that prompted ACCG to pursue its "test case." For more, see: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/search/label/IFAR

CPAC Chair Kislak's Views of the ECA and the Process for Imposing Import Restrictions on Cultural Goods

Then CPAC Chair Jay Kislak also provided his thoughts about the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' handling of the imposition of import restrictions on cultural goods at the April 17, 2008, IFAR panel discussed further below at http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/07/ifar-event-who-what-why-and-how-of.html .

Mr. Kislak is probably best known for his service as a naval aviator in WWII, his successful career in real estate and his extremely generous contributions to the Library of Congress. See: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/kislak/kislak-about.html Still, anyone interested in CPAC and how it operates can't but also appreciate Mr. Kislak's efforts to bring a level of transparency and fairness of process to that body's proceedings.

Mr. Kislak's comments at the IFAR panel related to those issues, though ironically as Mr. Kislak himself explained, "I did not prepare a speech because if I had, I would have had to present it first for review to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and I was not about to do that."

Jay I. Kislak, "The Chairman's View," in “The Who, What, Why and How of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC),” 10 IFAR Journal Nos. 3 &4 2008/2009 at 37. (hereinafter IFAR Panel).

Mr. Kiskak first discussed the differing interests of art museums and archaeological museums. He observed, "The archaeological museums are deeply committed to the same doctrine that the archaeologists are. That is, they will not touch anything that they did not take out of the ground themselves or that somebody did not take out in the way they wanted them to." Id.

He continued, "There are extremists on both sides. Some are extreme in the direction of dealers and collectors... To the other extreme, there are archaeologists that won't even look at an item, however how long it has been out, if they do not know where it came from and how and why, and if it was not excavated by a certified archaeologist. They will not even study it and put it in context." Id. at 37-38.

Mr. Kislak then discussed the composition of the Committee, lamenting that trade representatives did not have the breadth of international sales experience the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) contemplates. Id. at 38.

He also noted that because the CPIA contemplates that the CPAC will be made up of a "diverse group," "it is not always easy to keep things going." Id. For example, Mr. Kislak suggested that before joining the Committee he was "criticized vehemently by the archaeologists... because [he] collected... some Pre-Columbian artifacts." Id. Indeed, as a collector, he believes that he was "royally hated in some quarters." Id.

Mr. Kislak then expressed concerns about the process and ECA staff. He stated,

CPAC has public hearings, but they are too short. the public does not get enough chance-- five minutes really-- to be heard. To bring people down to Washington, let them make the trip from wherever they are coming [from], and [let them] speak only for five minutes, is not enough. But we do not have much choice based on the time allotted.

To what extent can we talk about the staff? First, let me tell you the definition of a bad bureaucrat that I heard last week at the Library of Congress. A bad bureaucrat is one who does something. The staff, by nature, has to be involved and also knowledgeable about the archaeological and ethnographic materials that are the subject of our discussions. Although the staff that I have seen are capable, extremely bright people who know quite a bit about what they are doing and do a fairly good job of attempting to be evenhanded, sometimes when somebody has a background in archaeology (as is the case), it becomes a bit difficult not to be slanted. However, the staff are government employees-- bureaucrats -- who run what we are doing.

Id.

Mr. Kislak continued,

To some extent I question CPAC’s necessary importance. First of all, the Committee has no power. Patty Gerstenblith stated this clearly. The Committee is purely advisory, and it is advisory to the U.S. President. He has delegated power down through the State Department. Has that power been abused? I can think of at least one occasion where the Committee’s decisions-clear-cut and unequivocal- were not adhered to. Practically every other decision has been adhered to, but on at least one occasion, that was not the case.

Id. at 38-39. (Mr. Kislak subsequently made a declaration in the ACCG, IAPN, PNG FOIA action that confirmed that ECA rejected CPAC’s recommendations with regard to coins. Declaration of Jay I. Kislak (April 20, 2009). filed in Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, et al. v. United States Department of State, C.A. No. 07-2074 (D.D.C). See http://www.accg.us/issues/news/doc19-3.pdf That Declaration also suggested that ECA failed to report to Congress about CPAC’s recommendations as well as the decision to reject them. Id. )

Mr. Kislak also participated in the question and answer period at the end of the IFAR panel.

There, Mr. Kislak first commented on questions of conflict of interest issues that have been raised with respect to various members. He noted,

[N]o longer is anyone requested to recuse himself, at least since I have been chairman.... Complaints on this subject from both ends of the spectrum have been made to the Committee. They have also been made to the State Department, that the Department did not even want it discussed. I insisted that if a letter came in addressed to me as chairman, the Committee would hear about it. I fought tooth and nail not to keep it secret because I don't believe in secrecy. There's no reason in the world for it to be secret. The conclusion was made that whether somebody should recuse him or herself was between that person and his conscious.

IFAR Panel at 40.

Mr. Kislak then commented on issues of secrecy and transparency. He stated,

The question of secrecy has been one of my pet peeves.... Occasionally, people have said, "Well, we do not want to disclose where the sites are." The sites were indicated in their requests, and the looters have already been there. I think this is a rather weak argument. This is the only advisory committee that I have ever been able to find that conducts everything in secret and will not disclose anything. Several members of our committee would like it more open, even some who are dedicated archaeologists.

Id. at 41-42.

Mr. Kislak related Committee transparency to larger issues. He stated,

In every other branch of government, there is disclosure, information is made public. We have a democracy, and it is government of the people, for the people, by the people, not by the bureaucrats over them. A major question with this Committee is: Are we, as members of the Committee, there to receive the information staff chooses to give us, and then, because we are appointed by the U.S. President, sign off and recommend something to the decision maker? Or, are we the Committee for whom the staff works? Even Patty [Gerstenblith] will tell you, the latter is what the law says-- that staff will be provided by the USIA [ECA's predecessor agency] or by another agency of the executive branch. But that's not the way it actually works. It should be that the staff will work for us and do what we want them to do, and look for the information that we want them to look for, where we want them to look for it. But we can look long enough, and we're out of office, and they are still there. Unfortunately, that's the way government works.

Id. at 48.

In response to a question from the audience about how change can be effected, Mr. Kislak concluded,

You cannot do anything by writing the Committee; you cannot do it by writing the State Department. Write your Congressman if you want something done, because this Committee is going to continue in secrecy so long as the people controlling it can control it that way. And I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily against any actions that were taken on any of the MOU's which were recommended by the Committee and put into action. I am, however, opposed to the way it is done because I think it is absolutely, completely, un-American, and I don't mind saying that. Not anywhere in our government do we do things this way, except with this group. Patty seems to disagree, and I know she's wrong.

Id. at 48-49.

This is the last of series of posts related to the IFAR Panel. Critics within the archaeological blogosphere of the ACCG, IAPN and PNG FOIA case and the ACCG's prospective customs action should take particular note. None of the IFAR panelists represent the interests of the numismatic trade or coin collectors. Yet, the statements of at least three former CPAC members (Kislak, Josephson and Fitz Gibbon) raise identical questions to those raised in this litigation.

PNG Renews Commitment to Combat Import Restrictions on Coins

PNG has issued a press release indicating that it has renewed its commitment to fight against the imposition of import restrictions on coins. See: http://www.coinlink.com/News/general-collecting/professional-numismatists-guild-assists-in-combating-coin-import-restrictions/

PNG mainly represents U.S. coin dealers that sell U.S. coins. PNG also has concerns with issues such as Chinese counterfeits of U.S. coins. See http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/12/scary-counterfeit-coins-from-china.html

Given these other concerns, PNG's decision underscores the severe practical problems that import restrictions raise for the small businesses of the numismatic trade. Producing invoices is one thing. Documenting a coin's whereabouts potentially back 5 or more years is something entirely different, particularly when you are seeking that information about large numbers of low value artifacts like coins, from foreign sellers who can more easily sell to some other foreign buyer without such "red tape." Indeed, such information may not even be available at all.

This problem is exacerbated because U.S. customs has relied upon archaeologists with an axe to grind against collectors to help them detect and identify illicit "cultural property." This, of course, is a recipe for unfair enforcement.

To date, import restrictions have been imposed on ancient coins of Cypriot and Chinese type. The State Department has previously rejected calls for similar restrictions on ancient coins of Italian type.

PNG has also joined another trade group, IAPN, and the ACCG in seeking more information about such import restrictions in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case.