I’ve lost track after the personal attacks from Paul Schiller, James Mathis and Micheal Williamson. I find it funny that only one employee, the Public Relations Director, defended the Big Purple Building, even if he didn’t tell people he worked there, I’ll give him credit (it’s kind of his job).

Besides Joy Crane I have only had artists privately support me on this crusade, which is unfortunate, because if the 34 rejected artists spoke out publicly, instead of privately they could add some pressure. I know several of them have had words with the Pavilion.

I have determined that our local newspaper doesn’t support individual artists, and only protects the establishment, even misleading the public with some questionable accounting interpretations and misquoting me in an article praising the executive director.

I have a pretty good idea who two of the jurors are, and one of them is a little nervous since she displayed in arts night this year to.

I will have an update tommorrow on where we are at with the situation.

Conflicts of interest can cast doubt on art shows
By Joy E. Crane
Sioux Falls
Published: June 28, 2007 – ARGUS LEADER

I read the letter from James Mathis in which he portrays Scott Ehrisman’s earlier letter as a personal attack against Paul Schiller. I think Ehrisman is frustrated with secrecy and also has a lack of trust in the basic fairness of the system. It is common practice for a juried show to publicize who its judge and/or jurors are. If that information is withheld, it’s only natural to become suspicious.

I have been reading the book “Ethics and the Visual Arts,” which is a collection of essays on various problematic aspects of the art world. One chapter talks about conflict of interest policies for museum professionals and trustees. An excerpt taken from the handbook of the Canadian Art Museum Directors Organization states, “Artists who are trustees may not … be considered for an exhibition of their work, either solo, group or juried.”

One easily can see how a museum trustee entering his art in a juried show for the same museum on which he sits as a trustee would present a likely conflict of interest. Can you imagine the pressure felt by the jurors to accept the trustee’s art, possibly in place of work by another artist without official ties to the museum but whose work is deemed to have more merit? Bring the chance for the prestige and personal gain of winning Curator’s Choice, People’s Choice or Artist’s Choice, which could include cash, gifts and/or solo exhibit awards, into the picture, and the potential ethical breach looks even more serious.

The Washington Pavilion’s Arts Night exhibits the juried art for more than a month in its main gallery before the auction and also has a “Meet the Artists” reception a couple of weeks before the big auction event itself so artists can show other examples of their art and offer them for sale to the public without the Pavilion taking any commission. Many artists don’t have much money, so this is very nice.

The Arts Night 2007 brochure lists Schiller as a member of the Washington Pavilion Management Inc. Board of Trustees. His successful advertising firm, Lawrence and Schiller, is listed under “Event Sponsor Silver” and “Sp cial People to Thank,” and one of his photos is on the auction list along with the Web address of his photography business, Acts of Nature.

In view of the above, I would recommend that Schiller not involve his photography in any Pavilion exhibitions or juried competitions (art, marketplace or otherwise) as long as he sits on any Pavilion board.

We probably will never know if he sat on the Arts Night jury, but if he did, it’s just another reason that he never should have entered his photo in Arts Night.

Nothing personal.

So far we have had an unethical board member, his BFF, an anonymous public relations director/employee and a high school student defend the Pavilion’s Arts Night. Oh, and a misquoting, establishment loving arts reporter. Seems the well is gonna run dry here pretty soon, then what? The juror’s names might be released?

I couldn’t agree more with Ms. Beck’s letter, it is an honor to show in Arts Night, but don’t cloud the issue. I suggest Ms. Beck do some reading on ethics in juried shows. I also hope that here parents taught her something about respect, it is a two way street. Even though it was an ‘Honor’ to display my work at the Washington Pavilion (even if they stifled my marketing) it should also be an honor for them to have so many talented local artists in our community contributing to the place.

It is simple, respect the donating artists by telling them who their judge and jury was. Art is just not about honor, it is about respect and integrity to.

Determination, passion rewarded at Arts Night
By Kelsey A. Beck
Published Argus Leader: July 17, 2007

As a typical teenager, I spend my summer sleeping until noon, working at my first job and going on road trips every now and then. However, this spring I was given an experience not many people my age can say they have received: the chance to hang a piece of art in the same gallery as the most prominent artists in the city.

It was an honor being one of the select few chosen for Arts Night 2007 because it meant I took the place of someone who worked equally hard and invested just as much.

For the event I chose a photograph of the lit marquee on the Orpheum Theater downtown. I chose it because it won the grand prize of the Archeology and Historic Preservation Month photo contest.

I brought my piece to the Washington Pavilion in hopes it would be well-received, and to my luck, it was. I was extremely excited to get my acceptance letter because I had gone through the process start to finish the previous year with my dad and knew the fun of the events to come.

First up was Meet the Artists Night, where the public meets the faces behind the paint, ink, camera, etc. I met many wonderful people who loved my piece and couldn’t believe I still was in high school.

While the art was shown, various family members visited the Everist Gallery to vote for me for the People’s Choice award. One of the gallery workers voted for me as well. Even though I had no chance of winning and didn’t expect to, it was amazing to know that I got at least one vote that wasn’t biased.

Fast forward to Arts Night 2007. The auction is held on the stage of the Great Hall with all of the art as a backdrop. All I could say to my dad from the time I was accepted to the time we left the stage after the auction was that I was so pumped to be there.

One of the things I was looking forward to most was the meal. Leonardo’s Cafe always does a fabulous job, and this year was no different. At around 8 p.m., the awards were given, and the auction began. I can’t express how exciting it was to watch some of my personal favorites go as well as my own.

Looking back on all of the events makes me realize it didn’t come without work. I recently dug up some of my first pictures and laughed to myself because the majority were out of focus. It was funny because I remember at the time that I loved taking pictures no matter what came out of the camera.

Those first shots were taken seven years ago, and to this day I love photography just as much, if not more. Throughout my life I have been interested in many different things, but photography stuck. I believe that’s how I got to have a piece at the Pavilion: failure, determination and passion.

I want to thank the Washington Pavilion. I know Arts Night is a fundraiser for the Visual Arts
Center, but in return, the event gave me so many life lessons. For instance, by the end of the night, I was accustomed to shaking the hands and talking to some of the biggest professional business people in town. For someone who used to live comfortably in a box, that was quite an accomplishment.

I wish there were other words beside “thank you” because it seems I’ve overused that. I want anyone who helped put Arts Night together to know that I am truly grateful and can’t wait for next year.

UPDATE: Unruh was investigated and no wrongdoing was found. Thank you to the NICE Abstinence Clearinghouse employee who found this original post. I’m no longer miserable.

July 27, 2006 POST

 CREW, a Washington, DC watchdog group has filed a formal complaint about the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and the Alpha Center to the IRS.  The two ‘supposed’ non-profits in Sioux Falls, SD have been accused of breaking non-profit tax laws because the organization‘s president and founder has been lobbying congress and endorsing political candidates.

Of course none of this surprises me. Leslee pays herself over $150,000 a year to run the organizations.  Women like Leslee who use the abortion issue for financial gain are pathetic and hypocritical. If they are investigated and found guilty a number of things could happen: Non-profit status revoked, heavy fines and penalties and possible jail time for Leslee (I’m pushing for the jail time). Of course, none of this can happen unless the IRS takes action, which could take years. Of course officials from the NAC and Alpha Center called the action from Crew “false and mean-spirited.” I guess we didn’t expect them to admit it was true, but mean-spirited? I guess watchdog groups like CREW are assholes because they expect people like Leslee to uphold the law? Go figure. Of course our conservative local newspaper (the one that has been called a liberal-rag by locals) said that CREW was a ‘liberal-leaning’ organization. Again, what is so liberal or conservative about expecting Leslee to uphold the law. The label ‘liberal’ was unnecessary in the column to describe CREW. Of course this is the same paper that endorsed Bush in the 2004 election and has written many articles that were blatantly anti-union. Yeah, liberal-rag . . . give me a break!
Here is details from CREW’s complaint about how much Leslee got paid in 2003-2004:

According to NAC’s Form 990s, Ms. Unruh received $57,547 in 2003 and $109,920 in 2004 from NAC for an average of 40 hours of work per week. See Exhibit A. According to Alpha Center’s Form 990s, Ms. Unruh received $45,272 in 2003 and $42,456 in 2004 from Alpha Center for an average of 30 hours of work per week. See Exhibit B. It is difficult to believe that Ms. Unruh would have had the opportunity to lobby as an individual when she was being compensated for two full-time jobs, working an average of 70 hours per week. 3 Neither NAC nor Alpha Center has elected to have their lobbying activity measured under IRC ‘ 501(h), therefore their lobbying is measured under the “no substantial part” test. Public charities that operate under this measurement have functionally less legal lobbying capacity that those that operate under the 501(h) expenditure test. See CPE Lobbying Text at 280. In addition, public charities that operate under the “no substantial part” test may not rely on the definitions of lobbying under the 501(h) regulations. See 26 C.F.R. 1.501(h)-2(a). It is worth noting that NAC listed in the Projects and Accomplishments section of its 2003 Form 990, that it “Traveled to Washington, DC to Lobby for Abstinence for Africa in the Global AIDS Initiatives” See Exhibit A. Although this type of activity may not be lobbying under the 501(h) definitions of lobbying, it likely nonetheless counts as lobbying under the “no substantial part” test.

This from a strip titled ‘the 9 types of Boyfriends’

 

 

My new Cartoonist website is up and running. I will be posting ALL of my cartoons on there over the next few days. Enjoy!

www.southdacola.com