Archaeo-Blogger and Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire wants to mandate additional record-keeping for dealers in cultural goods in the name of "transparency." Leaving aside whether creating more red tape will accomplish anything other than to place additional administrative burdens on the small businesses of the antiquities and coin trade, one wonders whether he would also acknowledge that transparency should be a two way street.
So, how about some transparency for the State Department and CBP concerning their process for imposing import restrictions on cultural goods? Or how about imposing new record keeping requirements on archaeologists, such as requiring them to publish their findings within in a reasonable time on the Internet so they will be easily accessible to interested members of the general public?
After all, State, CBP and the archaeological community all purport to act in the public's interest, so is some transparency from them too much to ask?
Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transparency. Show all posts
Closed CPAC Meetings on Chinese and Cambodian MOU's
There was a time under the Bush Administration that CPAC conducted open meetings in conjunction with their interim reviews of controversial MOU's, like that of Italy. Under the supposedly transparent Obama Administration that is no longer the case. The Chinese MOU in particular has been very controversial. So why not hold an open CPAC meeting where the public can comment on how China has responded to what is asked of it under the current MOU?
Labels:
bureacracy,
Cambodian MOU,
China MOU,
CPAC,
Import Restrictions,
transparency
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.
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.
Labels:
ACCG,
Blogging,
bureacracy,
double standards,
FOIA,
FOIA Lawsuit,
transparency
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://ordinarymag.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.
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://ordinarymag.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.
Closed "Open Access" Debate?
One of the archaeologists that has taken the AIA to task on its "Open Access" Position apparently feels free to edit my comments to his blog here: http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/petty-bull-and-open-access-pitbulls-how-to-control-your-message-online/
I'll let the reader judge whether his own attempt to steer the debate about "open access" away from its broader implications is warranted or not. Here is my comment in its entirety:
This actually appears to be a bit of a childish response to this press release. You admit the content is largely accurate; what you disagree with seems to be the fact that an advocacy group with a different perspective than your own has used the Open Access website for its own purposes-- welcome to the Internet! If you want, I can point out to you several archaeological blogs that regularly do the same thing. And why not? Your group put this statement out on the web for all to see. To change the link to change the message may have some "gotcha" appeal to people who agree with you, but it does also suggest that you think only fellow archaeologists have the right to criticize AIA policies.
As to what this has to do with import restrictions point, see my blog here: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-seeks-to-maintain-monopoly-on.html Basically, it is fair to point out that the AIA has suggested in public meetings before the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to promote numismatic research which then can be shared with the public.
Incidentally, it is the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, not the American Coin Collectors Guild as you state. (Though, of course, you are correct to point out the error related to the AIA.).
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa, ACCG Board Member
I'll let the reader judge whether his own attempt to steer the debate about "open access" away from its broader implications is warranted or not. Here is my comment in its entirety:
This actually appears to be a bit of a childish response to this press release. You admit the content is largely accurate; what you disagree with seems to be the fact that an advocacy group with a different perspective than your own has used the Open Access website for its own purposes-- welcome to the Internet! If you want, I can point out to you several archaeological blogs that regularly do the same thing. And why not? Your group put this statement out on the web for all to see. To change the link to change the message may have some "gotcha" appeal to people who agree with you, but it does also suggest that you think only fellow archaeologists have the right to criticize AIA policies.
As to what this has to do with import restrictions point, see my blog here: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-seeks-to-maintain-monopoly-on.html Basically, it is fair to point out that the AIA has suggested in public meetings before the State Department�s Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to promote numismatic research which then can be shared with the public.
Incidentally, it is the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, not the American Coin Collectors Guild as you state. (Though, of course, you are correct to point out the error related to the AIA.).
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa, ACCG Board Member
The Farce Continues: CPAC Hearings on Requests from Bulgaria and Belize
The State Department has announced that CPAC will receive public comments on new requests for import restrictions from Bulgaria and Belize.
For more, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Despite Obama Administration promises of greater government transparency, the public summaries of the requests provide little more than a history lesson about the cultures in both countries and some general information about looting in each country. Nothing at all is said about what particular objects are subject to possible restriction or any particular justifications for such actions.
And once again, the public comment period is exceptionally short, ending on November 2nd.
Accordingly, one must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible.
And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible?
While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?
For more, see http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/whatsnew.html
Despite Obama Administration promises of greater government transparency, the public summaries of the requests provide little more than a history lesson about the cultures in both countries and some general information about looting in each country. Nothing at all is said about what particular objects are subject to possible restriction or any particular justifications for such actions.
And once again, the public comment period is exceptionally short, ending on November 2nd.
Accordingly, one must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible.
And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible?
While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?
Generally Pro MOU Media Outlets Question Greek MOU
The Art Newspaper and "Culture Grrl" have been generally supportive of repatriation efforts, but each has expressed some misgivings about the recently announced MOU with Greece. See http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Clinton+signs+memorandum+with+Greece+restricting+import+of+antiquities/24369
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2011/07/greek_cultural-property_agreem.html
And no wonder. The articles point to the lack of transparency, the apparent overbreath of the coming restrictions and Greece's own abysmal record in protecting its own cultural patrimony.
They might have also mentioned that approximately 70% of the public comment posted on the regulations.gov website either opposed the MOU in toto or the extension of import restrictions to coins.
Apparently, Secretary Clinton considers "confidence building measures" for the bankrupt Greeks to be more important than the views of American citizens or the legal limitations the governing statute places on such MOUs. But does the ordinary Greek citizen really care? See http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2011/07/repatriation-effects-greeces-national.html
And what will American voters who collect ancient art and coins think about these new restrictions? The ever political Hillary Clinton should also consider that as well.
and http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/2011/07/greek_cultural-property_agreem.html
And no wonder. The articles point to the lack of transparency, the apparent overbreath of the coming restrictions and Greece's own abysmal record in protecting its own cultural patrimony.
They might have also mentioned that approximately 70% of the public comment posted on the regulations.gov website either opposed the MOU in toto or the extension of import restrictions to coins.
Apparently, Secretary Clinton considers "confidence building measures" for the bankrupt Greeks to be more important than the views of American citizens or the legal limitations the governing statute places on such MOUs. But does the ordinary Greek citizen really care? See http://safecorner.savingantiquities.org/2011/07/repatriation-effects-greeces-national.html
And what will American voters who collect ancient art and coins think about these new restrictions? The ever political Hillary Clinton should also consider that as well.
CPAC Meetings on Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali
The State Department has announced CPAC review of the MOU's with Bolivia, Guatemala and Mali. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-02/html/2011-13693.htm
According to the notice,
During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.
This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....
Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.
According to the notice,
During its meeting on Monday, June 27, the Committee will begin its review of a proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Bolivia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Pre-Columbian Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial and Republican
Periods of Bolivia [Docket No. DOS-2011-0092]. An open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal to extend will be held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
On Tuesday, June 28, the Committee will conduct interim reviews of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Objects and Materials from the Pre-Columbian Cultures of Guatemala, and of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Mali Concerning the Imposition of import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Mali from the Paleolithic Era (Stone Age) to approximately the Mid-Eighteenth Century. Public comment, oral and written, will be invited at a time in the future should these MOUs be proposed for extension.
This continues the anti-transparency trend at the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The public is no longer welcome to provide testimony on whether a source country is living up to its side of an MOU during an interim review hearing. Instead, comments are only welcome at the very end of the process-- when the train has almost arrived at the station.....
Not that anyone really believes that the State Department holds source countries to their promises to secure such MOU's. If they did, its doubtful many of the MOU's would continue to be extended and even expanded time and time again.
Labels:
Bolivia,
bureacracy,
CPAC,
Guatamala,
Import Restrictions,
Mali,
transparency
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
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.
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.
Robert Korver Resigns from CPAC to Protest New Restrictions on Coins of Italian Type
Robert Korver has resigned from his position on the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to protest the State Departement Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' and U.S. Customs' decision to impose new import restrictions on "coins of Italian type." See http://www.coinworld.com/articles/korver-resigns-from-cpac-in-protest-over-impo/
Such coins had been previously exempted from restrictions in 2001 and 2006. Based on his resignation, it again appears that CPAC recommended against import restrictions, but ECA rejected that advice-- just as it first did on the Cypriot renewal of 2007.
Was this action justified by the facts on the ground (which if anything suggest that all restrictions should be scaled back), or did the bureaucrats at ECA merely act to try to help justify their earlier controversial decision on Cypriot coins and/or what they want to do anyway on the proposed MOU with Greece?
Korver had served on CPAC since 2003.
Hopefully, ECA will be called to account either by Congress or in the pending ACCG test case in Baltimore.
Such coins had been previously exempted from restrictions in 2001 and 2006. Based on his resignation, it again appears that CPAC recommended against import restrictions, but ECA rejected that advice-- just as it first did on the Cypriot renewal of 2007.
Was this action justified by the facts on the ground (which if anything suggest that all restrictions should be scaled back), or did the bureaucrats at ECA merely act to try to help justify their earlier controversial decision on Cypriot coins and/or what they want to do anyway on the proposed MOU with Greece?
Korver had served on CPAC since 2003.
Hopefully, ECA will be called to account either by Congress or in the pending ACCG test case in Baltimore.
Labels:
bureacracy,
coins,
CPAC,
Cyprus MOU,
ECA,
Import Restrictions,
Italian MOU,
transparency
State Department Still Lacks Transparency Despite Obama Promises
It's "Sunshine Week," an annual event meant to promote government transparency. Unfortunately, the cultural bureaucrats in the State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs have yet to act upon President Obama's promises for more open government. If anything, based on what they have said at oral argument in the ACCG-IAPN-PNG FOIA appeal, they believe the issue of how import restrictions on cultural goods are made is none of the public's business. I guess their only defense is that they are in good company; other agencies have also failed in this regard as well. See
http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2011/03/sunshine-week-begins-with-a-thud.html
http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2011/03/sunshine-week-begins-with-a-thud.html
State Department Secrecy Continues: Closed CPAC Meeting on Greek MOU
The State Department has announced a closed CPAC meeting to continue discussions about the Greek MOU scheduled for February 23-24, 2011. See
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-2397.htm
Based on the Government's statements in briefing in the ACCG Customs case, it appears Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs bureaucrats have reacted to adverse publicity to their rejection of CPAC's recommendations about Cypriot coins by simply no longer seeking CPAC's advice on the subject.
I have to suspect the tone deaf State Department bureaucrats will ignore the overwhelming public comment against including coins in the Greek MOU just as they did with respect to imposing import restrictions on "coins of Italian type," but I guess we will just have to see.
In any event, Assistant Secretary Ann Stock should be ashamed about how the bureaucrats under her command manipulate the law to achieve a predetermined result, facts, law and public comment be damned.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/2011-2397.htm
Based on the Government's statements in briefing in the ACCG Customs case, it appears Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs bureaucrats have reacted to adverse publicity to their rejection of CPAC's recommendations about Cypriot coins by simply no longer seeking CPAC's advice on the subject.
I have to suspect the tone deaf State Department bureaucrats will ignore the overwhelming public comment against including coins in the Greek MOU just as they did with respect to imposing import restrictions on "coins of Italian type," but I guess we will just have to see.
In any event, Assistant Secretary Ann Stock should be ashamed about how the bureaucrats under her command manipulate the law to achieve a predetermined result, facts, law and public comment be damned.
Labels:
ACCG,
ancient coins,
CPAC,
Greek MOU,
Import Restrictions,
transparency
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)