Although Raymond and I have very different personalities, we’ve become adept at conflict resolution. We do believe we’ve had a positive impact on one another. We believe our relationship is healthy, comprised of him, me, and us, and people seem to enjoy all three entities.
ROBBING DR. BARNES’S GRAVE
Philadelphia Daily News, Thursday, September 25, 2003
TO: MONTGOMERY COUNTY ORPHANS’ COURT ATTN.: HON. STANLEY OTT
Dear Judge Ott:
I rolled over in my grave last Saturday when Lincoln University chose not to fight the attempt to move my art from Lower Merion into the city by those now running the foundation I created.
As the fate of my collection now rests in your hands, and as neither of these parties appears to be speaking for me now, I have no alternative but to try to speak for myself.
I don’t think I could have been more clear when I wrote my will: “All the paintings shall remain in exactly the places they are at the time of the death of Donor and his said wife.”
Apparently, I wasn’t clear enough for the likes of Governor Rendell, Attorney General Fisher, the Annenberg Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Lenfest Foundation. Some things never change. This group is the latest version of the same establishment crowd I fought while alive.
These types of people were never my kind. If they were, I would have opened an art gallery and invited them in. Instead, I created an educational institution and clearly stated in my will those who were to benefit:
“It will be incumbent upon the Board of Trustees to make such rules and regulations as will ensure that the plain people, that is, men and women who gain their livelihood by daily toil in shops, factories, schools, stores and similar places, shall have free access to the art gallery.”
Please don’t let them get away with it. At least not without making them each answer a few questions that have yet to be raised.
Governor Rendell: Why are you willing to raise $100 million if the Barnes collection is moved into town, but unwilling to raise one dime should the same paintings stay in a nearby part of the commonwealth you govern?
Attorney General Fisher: Why all the sudden interest in my art collection? Where were you (and where was the oversight of your office) when the Barnes Foundation was being run into the ground?
The Annenberg Foundation: Be careful what you wish for. Perhaps down the road some group will seek to unravel Walter Annenberg’s similarly specific gift of 52 paintings to the Metropolitan Museum. Annenberg himself required that his collection be shown as a group and banned all outside loans.
Here’s a solution: Why not re-route those paintings from Manhattan to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway right now?
The Lenfest Foundation: Isn’t Gerry Lenfest the same fellow who recently gave a “permanent” art exhibit consisting of 59 Pennsylvania Impressionist paintings and a $3 million endowment to the James Michener Art Museum in Doylestown? Maybe it won’t be so permanent after all.
AND the Pew Charitable Trusts: Maybe someone should take a look at whether your meddling in this squabble squares with the intentions of the Pew family members.
I’m tempted to go ask Joe Pew right now what directives he and his family left behind that you think enable your involvement.
It was my fondest hope that a historically black college like Lincoln would have control of my art, and now all of these lily-white do-gooders have instead turned back the clock.
If the real agenda of any of these folks were to “save” the Barnes Foundation, they would have been heard from long before now, and they would be offering to raise money to bolster the endowment regardless of location.
For a quarter of what Governor Rendell is promising to raise for the relocation, they could put the Barnes in clover, forever.
If I had died in Red China, I would have expected my property to be state controlled. But I didn’t. And, as far I know, the United States is still a place where you can work hard, accumulate the fruits of your labor, and determine what is to be done with that personal wealth at the time of your death.
Judge Ott, don’t let them do this to me. Everyone else wants to ignore the law—the courts are supposed to uphold it.
Sincerely,
Albert C. Barnes
AFTERWORD
On December 15, 2004, Judge Ott ruled that the Barnes Foundation could move from its Merion location to the city of Philadelphia (although litigation continued for years thereafter). It opened its new home on a 4½-acre site on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway on May 19, 2012, where it has had great success. By October 2015, the foundation celebrated its one-millionth visitor to its new location. Tod Williams and Billie Tsien Architects, a New York City–based husband-and-wife team, designed the Barnes’s new home. Coincidentally, we were seated together at the 2016 Pritzker Architecture Prize Ceremony, which I attended with my mother at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City on April 4, 2016. I think they did a spectacular job and I told them so. I particularly appreciate that the interior of the building that houses the paintings is a precise replica of the original gallery in Merion. The foundation’s website (BarnesFoundation.org) notes that visitors can immerse themselves “in the greatest private collection of impressionist, post-impressionist and early-modern paintings,” which consists of “more than 3,000 masterpieces, including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos, 16 Modiglianis, and 7 Van Goghs, plus textiles, metalwork, decorative objects, African sculpture, Native American ceramics and jewelry, and Pennsylvania German furniture.”
And while I recommend visiting the Barnes to all my out-of-town guests, I remain unsettled about the way in which Dr. Barnes’s desires were disregarded. For those interested in the backstory regarding the foundation and the move, I recommend a 2009 documentary directed by Don Argott called The Art of the Steal.
MAUREEN FAULKNER,
STILL ON THE JOB
Philadelphia Daily News, Thursday, October 23, 2003
TWENTY-TWO YEARS after a degenerate taxi driver shot her husband, Maureen Faulkner is not only still defending Danny’s honor, but she’s doing so with a new sense of purpose.
With very little fanfare, Maureen has begun making education grants to students whose parents have been murdered or incapacitated by violent crime.
The money comes from the nationwide outpouring of support that Maureen has received in the face of the Hollywood left’s rallying to the aid of the man who was convicted of Danny Faulkner’s murder. (You know his name. I will not stain this column by repeating it.)
Many years ago, Maureen Faulkner reached a point where she couldn’t take it anymore. More than 100 websites were created in support of the cop killer. Colleges were inviting him to speak via tape at commencement. A cottage industry of lawyers, so-called experts, and liberal apologists were feeding off the sham that was his defense. And there seemed to be an endless supply of funds for their shenanigans.
So she formed Justice for Police Officer Daniel Faulkner to honor the memory of Danny and spread the truth about the manner in which he died. Through a series of fund-raisers—and without ever hiring a single person—she collected the money necessary for the fight.
Soon, Maureen Faulkner was able to fund a website containing the entire 1982 trial transcript [http://murderpedia.org/male.A/images/abu_jamal_mumia/justice-police.pdf]. When the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Ed Asner sponsored a full-page ad in the New York Times spreading lies about the case, Maureen was able to respond in kind, publicizing portions of the transcript that the Hollywood left hoped the public would never see.
And in 2000, she quietly formed the Daniel Faulkner Educational Grant Fund as a means of channeling some of the pro-Faulkner money to a charitable purpose. She decided to help educate the kids of crime victims.
Tonight, four more awards, each for $5,000, will be made to these worthy students: Vilika Meade (Art Institute of Philadelphia), Willima Billy Keitt (Kutztown State University), Michael Selby (Frankford School of Nursing), and Ed
ward Fields (University of Pittsburgh).
These four now join Aking Beverly, Justin Frisby, Erma Aponte, Dana Dutch, and Charles Ritterson, who have previously benefited from Faulkner education grants.
Erma Aponte’s personal tragedy is typical. Her father was murdered close to Christmas in 2000 while driving a taxi in North Philadelphia. Before reporting for work the night he was killed, he’d told Erma that he’d try to earn the $50 she needed for an application to computer school. Erma is one of six Aponte kids now fatherless.
Jerry Watkins, who administers the grant program, told me, “I called her to tell her she was the recipient of $5,000 from Maureen Faulkner to continue her education. She told me that very day she had been in court to hear a jury find her father’s killer guilty of murder. [She said,] ‘It shows my dad is still watching over me.’”
Watkins, one of several Faulkner volunteers, told me that the requirements include a parent having been murdered or incapacitated by violent crime, Philadelphia residency, an educational plan, and financial need.
Tonight’s presentation will take place at 6:30 at Geno’s Steaks in South Philadelphia. Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and ex-commissioner John Timoney are expected to be there.
Why Geno’s? Because one of Maureen’s biggest boosters has been owner Joe Vento, who three years ago hosted a block party and gave a full-day’s gross to the Faulkner cause—$60,000.
Maureen Faulkner’s channeling of her energy into educating the children of victims of violence does not mean the fight against Danny’s attackers is over. Two weeks ago, Paris named his murderer an honorary citizen, and last week she debated actor Mike Farrell on the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News.
With class and conviction, Maureen continues to make Danny proud.
AFTERWORD
In 2007, Maureen and I released the book we’d written together, Murdered by Mumia, which spent two weeks on the New York Times Best Sellers list. We did a number of well-attended signings in the Philadelphia area, and the response was really extraordinary. The number of people who stood in long lines to meet Maureen and me was richly rewarding for a project that had taken two years to complete and for which I donated all of my author proceeds (roughly $200,000) to her charity.
One funny memory is from the day we launched the book with a joint appearance on NBC’s Today show, where we were to be interviewed by Matt Lauer. As we sat waiting to begin the segment, Matt was on an adjacent set, but someone had placed his interview notes on a coffee table in front of us. I didn’t touch them but snuck a peek at his index cards and saw that he was going to begin by asking Maureen about recently released photographs of the crime scene of her husband’s murder that were then being used to peddle yet another conspiracy theory about the case.
I tried to cover my lapel mic as I whispered to Maureen, “He’s going to ask you about the new photos.” A look of horror crossed her face as we were set to speak to an audience of millions, and I wasn’t sure why. Maureen was a seasoned pro at batting away any conspiracy theory thrown her way.
“What nude photos?” she whispered. I burst out laughing and put her mind at ease. It was a funny moment in an otherwise stressful environment.
ONE VOICE FOR KATZ
Philadelphia Daily News, Thursday, October 30, 2003
IT TOOK THE EDITORIAL PAGE of this newspaper until paragraph 22 of a 25-paragraph endorsement of John Street to say what matters most:
“If he is guilty of anything, it is in unfairly demonizing this federal investigation as a racial and partisan witch-hunt.”
This statement should have been the lead, and it alone justifies a vote for Sam Katz. Here’s why.
Watching our mayor’s race, an out-of-town friend said to me, “Only in Philadelphia could an elected official be identified as a subject of a federal investigation and see his odds of re-election increase.”
How true. And how embarrassing.
We like to think that the Philadelphia of the New Millennium is the city that pulled off a national political convention, just christened a National Constitution Center, and has all the hot restaurants, the Kimmel Center, and the gorgeous Pennsylvania Convention Center.
Forget it. In the eyes of the nation, we’re headed back to being the city that burned down a neighborhood, pelted Santa with snowballs, and blew the Bicentennial.
Attract business to Philadelphia in this climate? Bring a convention to town against this backdrop? Stop the brain drain? Reverse the suburban exodus? You gotta be kidding. Think laughingstock and national embarrassment instead.
Thankfully, with one day of effort, we can turn that around. But it will take something monumental. It will take the strongest electoral rebuke of our lives.
City government needs a housecleaning. And nothing less than a total rejection of those responsible for returning us to national prominence in the most negative of lights will suffice.
Here is the threshold question voters need to ask: How did it come to this? One answer is that it’s the fault of J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, and John Ashcroft. Good sound bite—but totally lacking in logic.
Here is another answer as to how we got here: The pay-to-play culture in city government has finally caught up with it.
Connecting the dots of the published accounts would lead a reasonable voter to conclude that the feds have been looking for the last two years at the way in which city business gets done—because something stinks in City Hall. If that’s the basis of the investigation, then there would be no more logical time to tighten the screws of a probe than in the middle of a campaign.
And remember, nobody cried race or partisanship when any of these investigations first made the newspapers.
Remember too that investigators must have been able to convince a federal judge, someone who has the same job as Governor Rendell’s wife, a person immune from politics by virtue of a lifetime appointment, to permit the bugging of the mayor’s office. To sign such an order, that judge must have determined that crimes have been or are about to be committed and that there is probable cause to believe the office is being used in connection with those crimes. Common sense would dictate that an even higher level of scrutiny would be applied to the decision to bug a U.S. mayor in a major city than a random citizen.
Why did the mayor tell us his office was bugged? So that in the midst of a lackluster campaign being run on his behalf, he and his supporters could manipulate this discovery to suit their political objectives by appealing to people’s worst instincts.
And that is the reason that the rebuke is necessary. It isn’t because John Street is under investigation. He is absolutely owed the presumption of innocence. No, John Street deserves to be thrown out of office because as mayor he is playing the race and partisan cards, and in the process, destroying our ability to get along when this election ends.
Voters need to call Mayor Street on the fact that it was he who created the speculation and concern that this is racially motivated, and ever since he has failed to rein in those around him who play the race card. In the final debate, he would not even condemn Ron White’s outrageous comment that he was involved in the probe because “I am a black man in America doing what I think needs to be done, and people resent that. They resent that, that black men in America are supposed to be bowing down all the time and not doing nothing but having babies and not taking care of them.”
Voters need to reject the playing of the race and partisan cards.
Voters need to reject John Street.
AFTERWORD
Bear in mind, this is me vociferously disagreeing with my own newspaper’s editorial endorsement of the reelection of Philadelphia mayor John F. Street. And here’s why. On October 7, 2003, about a month before Election Day in a hotly contested mayoral race, a listening device planted by the FBI was discovered in the office of Mayor Street. The race was an election rematch between Street and Republican Sam Katz. The latter, despite an enormous registration edge for Democrats, had come within a whisker of beating S
treet four years earlier. Now, you’d think that the discovery of a bug and an FBI corruption probe would politically sink the man in whose office the listening device was discovered, right? Not so fast. The Street campaign, relying on the expertise of David Axelrod, who would later guide a certain junior senator from Illinois to the White House, saw this as an opportunity. They spun the bug as evidence of a racist, partisan witch-hunt, initiated by the Bush administration and John Ashcroft’s Department of Justice. Well, the strategy worked. Street was reelected as mayor with 58.35 percent of the vote, which was a larger margin than he racked up four years earlier without the probe! Not that it mattered to the electorate, but U.S. Attorney (now Representative) Patrick Meehan was able to deliver nearly two dozen convictions in corruption cases, including the city treasurer, related to the probe that led to the bug. Mayor Street was never accused of wrongdoing. In his 2015 memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics, my now–CNN colleague David Axelrod writes about how it all went down: “I got a call from George Burrell, Street’s savvy political deputy at City Hall. ‘I think we have a problem.’ ‘Problem?’ I asked warily. ‘Yes, it seems we’ve found a bug in the mayor’s office.’”
After learning that the bug belonged to the federal government, Axelrod saw an advantage. “It struck me, as I thought about it,” he writes, “that this was our problem but also our opportunity.”
In an overwhelmingly Democratic town, a probe launched by the Republican Justice Department in Washington would surely be greeted with skepticism, perhaps even outrage. I called Burrell back. “We need to hold a press conference on the steps of City Hall and accuse John Ashcroft of trying to steal this election.” . . . When Street confronted reporters, frantic over the news, he came armed with a line I had written for him: “I’m happy to speak into a microphone I can see.”
Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right Page 7