The article, riddled with factual errors and omissions characteristic of a student and/or mainstream media, lays out a revisionist’s version of what happened behind the scenes of the scandal. During the interview, conducted by a journalism graduate student and admitted “close friend” of the former White House appointee, Sergant states that he was called to a meeting in the West Wing at the end of his four-month stint in the White House’s Office of Public Engagement. The White House, fully aware of his role as an art activist during Obama’s election campaign, offered Sergant two jobs. One was to continue at the White House, and the other was as the Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Sergant selected the NEA.

President Obama and Yosi Sergant

“I think [the West Wing] made a bad decision to put me in a job without giving me any kind of guidance, not providing me with any kind of mentorship,” said Sergant in the interview. He continued, “That was a bad decision. I’d never worked in government before.”

However the White House knew where Sergant’s expertise resided, and how he would potentially put it to use in an arts position. He was the promoter behind the now famous Obama Hope poster. Sergant indicated in the interview that he was given some direction by the White House in his new position at the NEA. “The idea was that Yosi would help pave the way for the new director’s arrival,” wrote Hillel Aron, referring to Rocco Landesman, incoming Chairman of the NEA. On paving the way, Sergant said, “I started working on things that I knew were happening, that I thought would be safe… and I was wrong.” 

And, frankly, why wouldn’t he have thought it to be safe – he was working with the White House at the time. The project that Sergant was referring to was United We Serve, a national service initiative orchestrated by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Among the many controversial comments during the call, Sergant stated, “I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service. And then my ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table.”

It was this encouragement, at a time when town halls had gone nuclear over the issue of health care, which ultimately put Sergant in hot water.

Following a statement made in my first article regarding the invite coming from the NEA, the Washington Times reported that Sergant claimed he did not send out the invite. After revealing that the invite I received was in fact sent directly from Sergant, on September 1st the Washington Times published an article entitled “Official Dishonesty.” Aron reports that Sergant called the White House the next day asking if he should resign. Sergant stated, “They did not think that what I did merited the response of the media.”

However, at the time Sergant contacted the White House, they were unaware of exactly what the conference call revealed about their arts effort. In an email marked “Importance: High” and sent on September 11^th, Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, asked, “Do either of you have a recording or transcript of the CNCS call you did with Yosi & NEA on 8/10.” The response from two federal officials at the Corporation was that they did not have a transcript or a recording of the call:

The full transcript was released on September 21st, revealing controversial conduct by not only Yosi Sergant, but Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Engagement, and Nell Abernathy of the Corporation for National and Community Service. In reaction to the conduct on the call, including comments I highlighted by a White House employee Buffy Wicks, the following day the administration backpedaled from an earlier claim that I had “misconstrued the purpose” of the call. The administration issued new guidelines, as reported by ABC News’ Jake Tapper, “to prevent such a call from ever happening again.” The memo, written by White House Counsel Gregory Craig, provided new guidelines to all federal agencies for public outreach meetings. “We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton in an issued statement. “We are fully committed to the NEA’s historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment.” This White House statement appeared to concede that the effort was outside of the NEA’s original purpose.

To date, Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy still remain in their positions while Sergant has been left with Michelin stains.

Sergant seems to disagree with the White House’s actions. “I don’t believe that what I did was wrong,” Sergant stated in his interview with Aron. “I believe that what I did came at a time when all the focus was on health care reform, and [that's] where they needed to put their time and energy… could they have stood up for me if they wanted to? Sure. Am I worth the political capital? They had just lost Van Jones.”

Why would Sergant feel as if he did something wrong – he was in fact working with the White House on this arts effort.

Writer Hillel Aron and Yosi Sergant

The writer and Sergant claim that there was no political advocacy on the call. However, both the NEA and the White House have released separate statements stating that some of the language was “not appropriate” and admitting that there were “appearance issues,” respectively. During the interview Sergant stated that he never mentioned “Public Option” in his encouragement, but rather offered “blood drive” posters as an example of the type of art that he hoped would come out of the meeting. But that does not pass the smell test for what actually happened. The example that Sergant and the other federal employees highlighted during the conference call was a Rock the Vote project designed to “engage young people, in particular, on the issue of a new environmental movement.” Given that the call participants were avid Obama supporters, the art that came out of the meeting was, unsurprisingly, highly political in nature – a fact that cannot be changed by a friend attempting to rewrite history. Also omitted from the story was the fact that after resigning, one of the first projects Sergant worked on with another activist call participant was called “Public Option Please” that attacked Joe Lieberman’s wife in hopes of getting his vote for the senate’s version of health care reform.

The writer also claims that Sergant “simply copy / pasted the text from a United We Serve e-mail.” However FOIA documents clearly show that Sergant helped develop and edit the invite with Nell Abernathy, a fact that Aron’s graduate journalism professors may like to know if he is being graded on accuracy. If Aron’s article was written for his fiction professors, I retract this criticism.

I’ve stated throughout my articles that the White House was ultimately to blame for this controversial arts effort. The administration was fully aware of Sergant’s activist affinity and placed him in a position to put that skill to work. Unfortunately, political activity at a federal agency, indirectly or otherwise, is prohibited. The fact that the NEA and the White House threw Sergant under the bus is not a fact lost on the person left smelling like rubber.  When asked by Aron if he thought someone from the White House was going to stick up for him, Sergant responded, “I knew they wouldn’t.”

It would appear through these new statements, Mr. Sergant, in part, agrees with me that the White House has mud on their hands – albeit for different reasons. The only question left for Sergant is, how much longer will he let the White House affect his integrity and blame him for actions he was appointed to perform.

In the first nationally televised interview with the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts since the infamous August 10th conference call, PBS NewsHour’s Jeffrey Brown got straight to the heart of the controversy that many of us at Big Hollywood have been so diligently covering – its involvement in propaganda. How did NewsHour broach this topic, you may ask – by actually participating in propaganda.

You see, in the almost 8.5 minute interview, Chairman Rocco Landesman was asked a total of ZERO times about the NEA’s involvement in the meeting. He was asked ZERO times about the resignation of his Communications Director. He was asked ZERO times about NEA grantee Americans for the Arts’ involvement in advocating for health care reform legislation after the call.  And he was asked ZERO times about “non-partisan” organization Rock The Vote’s launch of a universal health care campaign only days after the call.

Instead, what the PBS NewsHour chose to use as a theme of the segment was Rocco Landesman’s message that the NEA’s budget is “pathetic.”

“Why do you think the arts are so undervalued in our society,” asked NewsHour’s Jeffrey Brown. Landesman answered with a list of governments that support the arts with far more taxpayer dollars, concluding, “We are, among all the developed world, the weakest supporter of the arts on a public basis.”

Now PBS will claim that they did their journalistic duty by asking Landesman about his “controversial” Peoria comment. But that whole controversy was nothing compared to the use of an agency to push legislation. It is just a safe way for a journalist to claim that the hard questions were asked.

“The great thing about this particular post, whatever the limitations of the budget, is that it’s a great bully pulpit,” said Chairman Landesman. And with that, the Chairman wraps into one statement what so many limited government types see as the problem with the NEA – it gives the government an opportunity to bloviate on the taxpayer’s dime.

The segment ended with PBS’ Gwen Ifill stating, “For the record, the National Endowment for the Arts is one of the funders of the NewsHour’s arts coverage.”

Wait – What did she just say?!?

A note to Mr. Brown and Ms. Ifill: The elitism witnessed in the Peoria statement is not controversial. Using a federal agency for propaganda, however, is. With your segment, PBS’ NewsHour can be added to the list of accomplices. Don’t you think we know that by making an NEA segment about the “pathetic” funding of the agency, PBS is also making a plea to the public for funding as well?

A taxpayer funded agency uses taxpayer airwaves to broadcast a request for more taxpayer dollars – it would actually be knee-slappingly funny if it weren’t so mind-numbingly infuriating.

Chairman Landesman’s claim that Yosi Sergant, the former NEA Communications Director, acted “unilaterally” on the controversial August 10th conference call is not only beginning to erode, but new documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act show that another federal employee thought the arts effort was entering murky legal waters.

–

In an email dated July 30, 2009, Nellie Abernathy, a representative of the federal program United We Serve, sent an email to Sergant to inquire of his interest in attending a meeting regarding 9/11 events – the culmination day of the United We Serve campaign. In the email Abernathy states (emphasis added):

“Just got off the phone with [redacted]. They’re interested in helping produce some 9/11 events and will be in DC next week. Any chance you could join us for a meeting Tuesday morning? Or does this fall into that sketchy grey we might get arrested area?”

Sergant responded, “I’d love to.”

The subject of the email correspondence was entitled “rock the vote,” which presumably should have been redacted (blacked out) in the subject line given that the organization is a non-government group and the other subject lines in the email chain were redacted.

Readers following this story may recall that Rock the Vote was a presenter on the controversial August 10th conference call that encouraged an arts group that worked on Obama’s election campaign to create art on issues that were being vehemently debated nationally; including health care, energy, and the environment. As a presenter Bates stated the following, “We just wanted to give you one quick tangible example of things that can be done.” Bates then went on to explain how Rock the Vote was considering having an artist create an art installation from urban waste to engage young people “on the issue of a new environmental movement.”

Rock the Vote is a non-profit voter registration organization that is frequently involved in partisan political activity – a conflict that Abernathy appears to address in her email correspondence with Sergant. Eleven days after the August 10th conference call, Rock the Vote announced a health care design competition. The contest announcement read:

“We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system…We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care now.”

The new FOIA documents also show that additional federal employees were aware of this arts effort, including another NEA employee by the name of Elizabeth Stark. Email correspondence between Abernathy, Sergant, and Stark show that a United We Serve meeting was arranged by Stark for Sergant.

Philip Martin, an outreach coordinator for United We Serve, also appears in the FOIA documents, showing that he was aware of Sergant’s efforts and was working with him on another arts outreach program in Philadelphia. The federal employees that were aware of this arts effort continue to grow and now include Yosi Sergant (NEA), Elizabeth Stark (NEA), Nellie Abernathy (United We Serve), Philip Martin (United We Serve), Buffy Wicks (White House Office of Public Engagement), and Kalpen Modi (White House Office of Public Engagement).

Chairman Landesman’s claim that Sergant acted “unilaterally” is becoming harder to swallow.

When Broadway Producer/Theatre Owner Rocco Landesman took the reins of the National Endowment of the Arts last August, he told the NY Times:

“I wouldn’t have come to the N.E.A. if it was just about padding around in the agency,” he said, and worrying about which nonprofits deserve more funds. “We need to have a seat at the big table with the grown-ups. Art should be part of the plans to come out of this recession.  If we’re going to have any traction at all, there has to be a place for us in domestic policy.”

An odd assertion considering the job description of the role he’s filling at this non-partisan, independent, government agency is, basically to “Worry about which nonprofits deserve more funds“.  Seriously, that’s the job, always has been.  And when one reads the original legislation creating the agency Landesman now runs, there is nothing to be found about being a part of domestic policy.  But, the same party who can read “Promote the General Welfare” in our Constitution and re-interpret it to mean that Barbara Boxer can decide which doctor I can visit, can easily over-reach with the NEA legislation too, I suppose.

It seems that in 1965 the Congress decided to create the agency for a variety of reasons, my favorite one being:

The world leadership which has come to the United States cannot rest solely upon superior power, wealth, and technology, but must be solidly founded upon worldwide respect and admiration for the Nation’s high qualities as a leader in the realm of ideas and of the spirit.

Ha!  American Exceptionalism was one of the reasons for the creation of the NEA?  Funny that Rocco’s new boss probably wouldn’t agree with this premise.

I made one prediction back in August when I commented on Rocco taking the reigns of the agency.

He will have the highest profile of any NEA Chair before him. It has often been said that the most dangerous place on Broadway is between Rococo Landesman and a microphone.

Jeez.. when I’m right, I’m right.  The past 12 weeks have seen this NEA Chairman granting more interviews than Balloon Boy’s dad.   In light of Rocco’s recent debacle of a speech in Brooklyn to “Grantmakers for the Arts” and the ongoing obfuscation regarding the NEA Conference calls exposed by my colleague Patrick Courrielche, we here at Big Hollywood felt this was a good time for a quarterly evaluation of Rocco’s first 12 weeks as the Chairman of the NEA.

A report card, if you will.

Subject:  ENGLISH

His use of the language is halting if not grammatically correct.  He still speaks in the vernacular of a Broadway Producer, so I’m used to his inherent, knee-jerk narcissism. (In trying to explain the “Facts” regarding the NEA Conference Calls, he felt compelled to add this paragraph):

Although my time here has been brief—in fact I arrived at the agency on August 11th the day after the conference call—I am proud to lead the National Endowment for the Arts, proud to work with its capable and energetic staff, and proud to play a role in enhancing the quality of life for the people of our great nation.

Pssst:  Hey, Rocco… It’s not all about YOU! My big bone to pick comes in the form of his slogan for the agency:  ”Art Works.” It’s as elegant as Tom Delay on “Dancing With the Stars.” I thought the Lefty Boomers were supposed to be the hip and creative ones.  ”Art Works” sounds like something a bureaucrat from the New Deal would come up with.  Couldn’t Yosi think of something a little more “Hip-Hop” before he was forced to leave?

GRADE:  C

Subject:  HISTORY

Much has been said about Rocco’s assertion that President Obama “is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.”  He now contends that this was a joke (I will take issue with this claim when we discuss his grades in the “Citizenship” category).  For him to sycophantically joke about something like this, knowing that the obnoxious delusion of grandeur President Obama holds (or is thrust upon him by his most fervent, cult-like followers) is probably the most widely-recognized Achilles’ heel of his personalty, shows either an error in judgement or just plain ignorance of not only history, but Obama’s place in it.

GRADE:  F

Subject:   MATH

In Rocco’s first interview (with the NY Times, naturally) he lamented the NEA’s budget size:

Though he would not put a dollar figure on his own fiscal goals, he called the current appropriation of $155 million “pathetic” and “embarrassing.” ….  “We’re going to be looking for funding increases that are more than incremental,” he said.

$155,000,000.  Pathetic and embarrassing.   Hey Rocco:  Take it from a Republican who actually FAVORS the NEA (that would be me)… when your President is calling this economy the worst since the Depression, unemployment is hitting 10% and we have the largest deficits in the history of our great nation… don’t refer to $155,000,000 as pathetic and embarrassing.  It suggests you don’t have a good handle on numbers.  Feel free to lobby for more funds, just don’t do it through the NY Times, it actually HURTS your cause.

GRADE:  D

Subject:  SOCIAL STUDIES

Rocco seems to have a penchant for talking down to small-town, rural America (I know, seems shocking that someone associated with President Obama would come across as an elitist, urban snob, but just go with it for the sake of argument). In explaining his plans to move away from the Bush Administration’s policy of even-handedly and democratically spreading NEA grants out across all congressional districts, Rocco said:

“I don’t know if there’s a theater in Peoria, but I would bet that it’s not as good as Steppenwolf or the Goodman,” he said, referring to two of Chicago’s most prominent theater companies.

This caused a bit of a firestorm from small-town Illinois as I reported back in August.  Rocco’s oh-so-clever response was to announce that his upcoming Art Works Tour of regions of the USA would kick-off with a viewing of “Rent” in the afore-maligned Peoria.  Even though this reeks of the “Big Broadway Producer” deigning to grant an audience to the little people of Peoria, he seemed to stifle the impression of elite snobbery, until last week’s speech:

I know firsthand that great art can come from the unlikeliest of places. A few years ago, I visited Eric, Oklahoma, where a museum was being dedicated to one of my idols, the great country music songwriter and singer, Roger Miller. He wrote the music for my first show, “Big River.” While driving the 140 miles from Oklahoma City to Eric, you pass the hometowns of Sheb Wooley, one of the creators of rock and roll, the songwriter Jimmy Webb, and Garth Brooks. What is in the water there? There are certainly no music conservatories, probably precious few music teachers, no colleges, no arts centers, nothing. Just an inexplicable concentration of genius.

Seriously, does ANYONE from the middle of our country proof these speeches?  (I know, I know, Rocco will be the first to tell you he is from Missouri.. listen real close:  He’s a New Yorker, OK?) Oklahoma Blogger Meredith Dake at her Pointed Observations blog does a thorough, Oklahoma-style fisking of this paragraph, including an actual explanation of what IS in the water there.  My favorite observation:

The next point that he makes is that he didn’t find anything from his drive from Will Rogers to Eric, Oklahoma. To be quite honest, he didn’t pass through the major metropolis areas (though, having been through the Brooklyn area, I’m not sure how much of Brooklyn has “artistic merit”). He was driving to a place that has a population of 1,076 people and maybe has 3 stoplights. But, what he did pass by was USAO. Rocco, if you would have looked to your right, you would have seen the University of Science and ARTS of Oklahoma!

She also points out that in describing the amazing wonder of great musicians coming from this “unlikeliest of places” Rocco seems to be providing the best argument for the disbanding of the NEA:

We also have the Oklahoma Arts Council, which is locally funded and receives few federal dollars. The only federal dollars that I found that the OAC received was from the stimulus. Do you know what this means, Rocco? We don’t need you.

GRADE:  F

Subject:  ECONOMICS

Rocco seems to be all about the arts as “Anchor Store” in the great “Mall” that is “Downtown America“:

Any discussion of policy for coming out of this recession, any plan that addresses economic growth and urban and neighborhood revitalization has to include the arts. We know, and we can prove, that when you bring art and artists into the center of town, that town changes.

I’m going to be generous here, because this concept is actually reflective of supply-side philosophy straight out of Jack Kemp’s playbook (dare I say “trickle-down” arts policy?).  But, the big problem with this whole approach is:  It’s not the JOB of the NEA!  I’m sorry that Rocco is already bored with the position that he admits he lobbied to get, but just because he has professional ennui’ doesn’t mean we need to grant new powers to the NEA that the Congress never intended. Rocco, YOU take the grant money and give it to the most worthy grant recipients.  CONGRESS decides if urban revitalization needs to occur via the arts… or, more correctly, LOCAL governments will make those decisions, not the producer of “Carrie: The Musical” who happened to get a new gig because his friends bundled a big pot of donations for the President.

GRADE:  Incomplete

As with any report card, the student isn’t just graded on his ability in the academic demands of the school.  He also must excel at the basic citizenship requirements; sharing, truthfulness, playing well with others, etc.  How is Rocco doing in CITIZENSHIP?

• In responding to Mitt Romney’s criticism of stimulus money going to the NEA, Rocco said:  ”“The arts are a little bit of a target. The subtext is that it is elitist, left wing, maybe even a little gay.”  I see.  Is this a new spin on an old tactic?  If you are against the President’s health care plan, you are a racist.  And if you are against stimulus money going to the NEA, you are a homophobe.  Love it, Rocco, love it.
• In reacting to the NEA conference call debacle, Rocco issued a smarmy recitation of “Facts” which dripped with condescension and intolerance toward anyone who thought that perhaps the calls were slightly irregular.  His “Facts” never mentioned his employee, Yosi Sergant, by name, only that he had been re-assigned.  He never explained what his new job was, and within two weeks, Yosi was gone.
• When recently ridiculed for his sycophantic suck-up of the President he claimed he was only making a joke and he doesn’t REALLY think Obama “is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.” OK, Rocco, we believe you, why would you lie?
• He recently lashed out at critics in newspapers, the Internet and on cable news as “quote-un-quote journalists“.  Now, the left-wing choir he was preaching to took him to mean Glenn Beck and me and my colleagues here at Big Hollywood.  What Rocco and his devotees aren’t acknowledging is that journalists (without the quotation marks) at the Washington Times, Wall Street Journaland NY Post have also criticized the call and the NEA’s efforts associated with it.  Now, I understand that Rocco’s folks don’t LIKE these newspapers, but does that mean they can just reject them and question whether they are “real” journalists?  Oh, well, since that’s what the administration is doing to Fox, I guess the answer is “yes.”

These incidents and Rocco’s reactions to them call into question his ability to “play well with others.” But, knowing Rocco, I suspect he will wear this particular critique as a badge of honor.

Given his performance over the first 12 weeks of his chairmanship, his overall grade for the 1st quarter is, unfortunately, less than impressive.

OVERALL GRADE:  D-

But, how do things look for the future?  Is Rocco interested in turning his grades around?  I don’t hold out much “hope” for that “change.” Let’s take a look at his wrap-up of last week’s speech:

And will we “advocate” for the President’s agenda as well? If it’s a particular program – e.g. health care reform – no, of course not. But the President picked me for a reason and I decided to go to Washington and sign on with a federal bureaucracy – ugh! – for a reason. And that reason is that within the ethos of this White House, where words like change and hope and aspiration have real meaning, the arts can play a starring role.

If I read this correctly, Rocco is saying that he and the NEA won’t advocate for policies per se, but because of his belief in Obama and what Obama stands for (“where words like change and hope and aspiration have real meaning”) he intends to have his agency “play a starring role” in promoting the IDEA of Obama.  Advocating for the White House itself, if not for their individual policies. He defiantly continued:

“Whatever might be said on television, radio or blog sites, I have no intention of walking away from the compelling themes of this presidency…”.

Rocco, if you are hell-bent on re-defining your role from “Chief Grant Maker for the NEA” to “Chief Advocate for the Obama White House,” you better start caring about what might be said on the Internet and television.  

Don’t believe me?  Ask your former employee, Yosi.

About ten days ago, in a widely ridiculed address to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference – so widely ridiculed he had to walk his Obama-Caesar gushing back some – embattled NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman took a moment to launch a shot at his critics:

Am I starting to sound like an advocate? Well, that seems to be a touchy subject. Some quote-unquote “journalists” have recently accused this agency of losing its independence and becoming a propaganda machine.

Ooh, ouch, that stings: “quote-unquote journalists.” I would have responded sooner but the insult went over my head. You see, in the world where I reside — the land of Where Decent People Try To Do The Right Thing –  accusing someone of “not being a real journalist” is like accusing them of “not being a dishonest left-wing poseur with more affectations than a washed-up Shakespearean stage actor.”

But what a punk thing for Landesman to do; acting like the big mouth kid who after a well-deserved playground thumping runs home to talk big in front his fat, fawning Aunts. Gee, Rocco, if you and yours hold so much contempt for your critics, why respond to their criticisms in such dramatic ways:

• NEA admits to inappropriate language during NEA call.
• NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant resigns.
• White House issues new guidelines.
• NEA scrubs leftist call for health-care reform from website.

Too busy scrubbing a website and accepting Yosi’s resignation, Rocco might have missed that someone who probably meets his definition of a “journalist” (i.e., an Obama supporter) had this to say about an NEA conference call that occurred a little more than two weeks after the now-infamous August 10th call:

I’m “creeped out” too…even though, like many on the call, I supported and (with reservations) still support the agenda of the new President.

By any standard, Lee Rosenbaum is a respected and prominent writer in the art community who contributes to, among others, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and New York Public Radio. On August 27th she participated in a conference call hosted by Kalpen Modi (Kal Penn of “Kumar” fame) of the White House Office of Public Engagement (the same office as Buffy Wicks) and Robert Lynch, president and CEO of Americans for the Arts — a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization that, just  two days after the August 10th conference call, joined a host of other national non-profit art organizations in calling for health-care reform, including the “public health insurance option.”

The invitation for the August 27th call was posted on the Americans for the Arts website (it has since been scrubbed, but screen shots are available below), and came directly from Modi. The invitation reads in part: [emphasis added]

“Please join us for a United We Serve / Arts conference call … I’ll be facilitating the call. We’ll also have representatives from” The Corporation for National and Community Service, National Endowment for the Arts, and Americans for the Arts.

“The purpose of United We Serve – a project of the White House and Corporation for National and Community Service – is to engage all Americans in the nation’s economic recovery at a time of great challenge and great opportunity. … The president and First Lady are challenging people young and old, in communities large and small, to roll up their sleeves and work together to tackle some of the nation’s toughest issues: education; health; energy and environment; community renewal; and safety and security. …

Though Modi’s invitation went out prior to Courrielche’s August 25th Big Hollywood expose’ of the August 10th call, Modi’s actual conference call (which Courrielche did not participate in) took place 2 days after the Big Hollywood piece published –  and Ms. Rosenbaum wonders if that might have caused “second thoughts about commandeering their constituents for this political adventure[.]” For starters, though the invite said they would, the NEA and the NEH did not participate:

This was the second such conference call: In a post on the Big Hollywood blog (excerpted yesterday by the Wall Street Journal), Patrick Courrielche, who reported that he was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to participate in the first telephone discussion on Aug. 10, came away fearing that the arts were at risk of “becoming a tool of the state.” …

At the beginning of the second conference call, last Thursday, Modi informed us that “unfortunately our colleagues from NEA and NEH [the National Endowment for the Humanites]” were tied up in meetings and couldn’t participate, as had been planned.

Could it be they were having second thoughts about commandeering their constituents for this political adventure? We can only hope so.

The mind reels at how much more “creepy” Ms. Rosenbaum’s conference call might have been had Courrielche’s article not posted just two days earlier. 

Maybe as creepy as those “quote-unquote journalists” at the right-wing extremist Boston Globe found the whole sordid affair.

If Landesman wants to help our side further the Obama-worship narrative with swaggering, grandiose comparisons of the president to Julius Caesar, I’m all in favor of that. What is troubling, though, is when a man in charge of millions of federal dollars saves all his contempt for those who point out wrongdoing and none for the actual wrongdoing.

Stage Right contributed to this article.

*****

–

NEA Chair Rocco Landesman

Jonah Goldberg in today’s National Review:

“Last week, Landesman gave the keynote address to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference. In fairness, Landesman did not reaffirm the White House and NEA’s obvious initial intent to turn the allegedly independent government agency into an adjunct of Obama’s “Organizing for America” operation. He was more subtle than that.

“Instead, Landesman embraced a timeless tactic of power politics. He debased himself with incandescently vulgar obsequiousness to his supreme leader. “There is a new president and a new NEA,” he proclaimed. “This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

“After more fawning praise for the “Optimist in Chief,” he added that proof of Obama’s desire to take the NEA in exciting new directions was the president’s “out-of-left-field choice to head the NEA, a signal I certainly took to mean he wasn’t interested in business-as-usual for the arts.” One must trust that Landesman’s interpretation of his own appointment is accurate.

“Let us pause to reflect on Landesman’s odd — by which I mean absurd — historical analysis. Obama has written two books, one good, the other a plodding concatenation of political clichés and bromides. Ulysses S. Grant’s memoirs, published by Mark Twain, were a literary triumph. Woodrow Wilson wrote many books of great import but of less literary worth. JFK won a Pulitzer for one of his books — the one he didn’t write, alas. But Richard Nixon wrote plenty, as did Herbert Hoover, including two definitive texts, one on mining, the other on fishing.

“Oh, and Lincoln never wrote any books.”

Read the full article here.

Dear Chairman Landesman:

With all this fuss on Big Hollywood.com, Big Government.com and elsewhere over the NEA’s government-funded forays into partisan political propaganda, I thought maybe we could help each other out. 

–

Right now, you probably want to support some art that addresses vital current issues from a right-wing perspective in order to demonstrate your impartiality (ha ha!), and I just want to cash in your organization’s evident willingness to spend good tax money on any kind of nonsense that can be passed-off as “art” (ca-ching!)   

Well, I am uniquely suited to provide you with just what you’re looking for!  As a college student, I got a “B” in my Visual Arts 1 class for dressing up a juniper bush in one of my Hawaiian shirts to draw attention to man’s essential oneness with nature while providing a stinging critique of America’s consumerist culture.  Sure, my black-clad, Bauhaus-loving classmates protested that I was a fraud who was more concerned with collecting four easy credits than internalizing our professor’s commie insights about how expressionism equals imperialism, but hey – aren’t all great artists rebels?   Or, at least, weren’t they before last January 20th?

Just kidding, dude!  Anyway, as your organization’s visual arts mission statement says:

Grants in the visual arts support projects undertaken by organizations that encourage individual artistic development, experimentation, and dialogue between artists and the public through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public programs.

Sounds awesome!  Now, I went to the NEA’s grant application site and there’s a long complicated process for getting grants that seems to involve me becoming a federal contractor.  Nothing like the government for taking something simple – like you writing me a fat check – and turning it into a bureaucratic death march!  Can’t wait until you folks take over health care! 

Anyhow, instead I think I’ll just cut to the chase and sketch out my proposed projects for you here.  You can fund the one – or ones! – that you like best:

1) My first proposed project is an interpretive dance piece to be performed on the streets of Greenwich Village titled “The Cry of the Employed.”

This innovative performance involves me using motion and song to tell the story of a beleaguered taxpayer forced to subsidize the ridiculous indulgences of pseudo-intellectual no-talents who try to pass off their pretentious junk as art.  Dressed in business suit and button-down shirt with a sensible tie, I will confront passing goateed hipsters and pierced bohos, acting out the story of a man who works hard only to have his money siphoned off support the antics of a bunch of pompous deadbeats.  My choreography will draw from the traditions of ballet, kabuki and Appalachian folk dance while incorporating maracas and jazz hands.  And yes, there will be krumping.

2) My second proposed project is a performance art piece that was going to be called Chocolate Thunder until I Googled it and found that this is the title of a very , very specialized series of erotic videos.  Instead, my piece will be called Suburban Fudge.  Out of an abundance of caution, I have not Googled this title.

In the tradition of pioneering NEA grant recipient Karen Finley, who famously covered herself in chocolate to demonstrate the corrosive effects of patriarchal hegemony, I plan to slather myself in rich, creamy Hershey’s to demonstrate the glory of corporate America.  This act will reaffirm my allegiance to Big Chocolate and underscore my belief that the best hope for American progress is a vigorous, lightly-regulated private sector.  Using my body, I will also form a Laffer Curve then engage in some dramatic readings from Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose.  And I will personally keep any profits from the performance, an act which itself is central to the integrity of the piece.

3) My third proposed project is an installation that takes Andres Serrano’s infamous Piss Christ, the crucifix in a jar of the artist’s urine, to the next level.  I call it Pee Health Care Reform Bill.

Now, the draft health care bill is well over 1000 pages long, so I’m not sure I can personally handle the, uh, logistics of this project.  This is where the NEA comes in.  I plan to use my grant to buy a keg of frosty Dos Equis Lager for me and my buddies.  After we drink it we can, well, get “creative” Serrano-style!  We’ll also need limes, and some snacks would be nice too.  I think I could get you a final product for, say, $25,000.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my email – though I have to say that as a conservative I am horrified by the fact that there’s an Internet domain out there with the name of “arts.gov” since the only proper involvement of the government in the arts is not to have any role at all.  Well, guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that, right?

I sure hope you dig my personal vision enough to cut me a check – just don’t forget the second “h” in “Schlichter” on the payee line!  And remember, because I’m a heterosexual right-wing gun-owning veteran with a real job, you’ll be able to check several important diversity boxes for your organization for the first time in its illustrious history! 

I’m looking forward to seeing you at the premiere of Suburban Fudge, but don’t forget to bring a jacket – the first three rows will get wet! 

Best,

Kurt A. Schlichter
Future Performance Artist

NEA_Statement –

–

Although I appreciate Chairman Landesman’s actions in adding additional safeguards to protect the integrity of the NEA mission, I thought you should be aware of some of the details not mentioned in his response.

Chairman Landesman made no mention of a NEA grantee, Americans for the Arts, which was on the August 10th conference call and within 2 days of the meeting sent out a press release, endorsed by 16 other NEA grantees, urging Congress to pass legislation creating universal health care. That fact was first reported by the Washington Times.

Chairman Landesman also has claimed that the former Communications Director of the NEA, Yosi Sergant, acted “unilaterally and without the approval or authorization of then-Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell.”  The Chairman, however, makes no mention of the fact that both the White House and The Corporation for National and Community Service were fully aware of the efforts of Sergant. The White House and The Corporation helped organize and plan the August 10th conference call with Sergant. This has been corroborated through statements made by the moderator of the call, Michael Skolnik, a presenter on the call, Thomas Bates of Rock the Vote, as well as through comments made by the Corporation and the White House during the conference call.

Finally, the Chairman states that the NEA never participated in an August 27th conference call. That is not entirely true. It is correct that they were not on the August 27th call. However, the NEA was scheduled to be on the call and was on the invite for the meeting, an invite that was written by the White House Office of Public Engagement – the same office involved in the August 10th call. The call was moderated by Americans for the Arts, which is the same NEA grantee mentioned in the above policy endorsement. My original article on the August 10th conference call was published 2 days before this August 27th meeting. The NEA ultimately canceled their involvement with this call.

I thought the Senators involved in this inquiry should be aware of the details absent in Chairman Landesman’s response. It appears that the White House was intimately involved in this politicized arts effort. I have recently published a detailed account of the events associated with the August 10th conference call, including some new information about a May 12th White House briefing, for those interested in further inquiries into the White House and The Corporation’s arts effort. The article can be read here.

In addition to sending you this response, I’ve also sent this to journalists and media that have been covering this story.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at any time.

Best,
Patrick Courrielche

“What did the White House do wrong?” he asked.

“The White House attempted to use federal agencies for political gain,” I blurted out.

President Obama with former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant

And that is The Big Truth in a nutshell. A moment of clarity hit me, and as with most eureka moments, a path of how to explain this big truth came into sight. The full story needed to be told – including possible collusion, the White House’s novel mode of operation, and the eventual cover-up – to fully understand and illuminate the government’s intention with their arts effort.

Up until now, I have not discussed Sergant’s former job in the White House Office of Public Engagement, where Buffy Wicks currently resides, because the story had to develop to understand the significance. I also haven’t discussed the email that I received from Michael Skolnik, the moderator of the call, immediately after the publication of the original conference call article – an email that attempted to revise history and the role of the NEA and the White House in the meeting. And what has yet to be discussed is the White House’s recent ability to set up an ArtistCorps, brought into existence with less than 20 words in the Serve America Act.

A deeper look into the build up to the August 10th meeting and the aftermath of the release of my article will be explored here. This is The Big Truth.

SETTING OUT TO POLITICIZE THE ART COMMUNITY

As many of you may know by now, my original article, entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?, discussed a conference call organized by the White House and two federal agencies, those being the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) & the Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation). In the original article and subsequent series I presented an irrefutable fact – that the federal government encouraged a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. 

To prove that the government set out to politicize a federal agency, it would take more than one federal employee acting inappropriately during the August 10th conference call. However, once a second federal employee is found acting with the same intentions as the first, by definition collusion is a possibility.

I think it can be shown that Yosi Sergant did not act alone, but namely, Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy prescribed to the very same behavior.

On September 24th, the former Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts, Yosi Sergant, resigned from his position at the NEA. In a statement issued two days earlier, the Chairman of the NEA, Rocco Landesman, outlined a list of facts regarding the conference call, including that “the former NEA Director of Communications helped organize and participated in an August 10^th conference call to introduce members of the arts community to United We Serve” and that he “acted unilaterally and without the approval or authorization of then-Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell.”

Let’s assume for a second that no one at the NEA knew of Sergant’s efforts, which is what it appears Mr. Landesman is saying. We can give the agency that caveat for now. However, the assumption of ignorance must stop there. Why? Because we know from several sources that the White House and The Corporation, a federal agency that promotes volunteerism, also played a role in initiating, organizing, and planning the meeting.

The Corporation and White House Involved in Initiating and Planning Meeting

As reported by Foxnews.com, “Thomas Bates, vice president of civic engagement for Rock the Vote, confirmed he was on the call, saying he was invited by officials at United We Serve.” United We Serve is The Corporation. We know that Bates was one of the meeting presenters, which proves this federal agency was involved in the planning of the conference call. Who from United We Serve invited Thomas Bates? Possibly Nell Abernathy since she was the representative from United We Serve on the call, but that’s a question for Abernathy and/or Bates to answer.

Skolnik

As for the White House’s involvement in the initiation and planning of the conference call, we know that Michael Skolnik (the call moderator) stated during the call that he was “asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA” to bring together the independent artists community from around the country.  He also tweeted about two meetings in July:

“Just met with Yosi Sargent at the NEA. What we can do with the arts in our country is so exciting. Yosi is a champion for our generation!”  — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 8:56 AM Jul 15th

“On conference call right now w/ some amazing folks from the Obama team talking about United We Serve! Even during tough times we must serve.” — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 12:13 PM Jul 30th

These give at least two approximate times and dates that Skolnik met with the White House and the NEA to discuss the conference call. Who did he meet/teleconference with at the White House? Possibly Buffy Wicks given that she was the White House official on the call, but that is a question for Wicks and/or Skolnik to answer. At the very least these multiple statements by Skolnik makes the White House an initiator and co-planner of the August 10th conference call.

From these facts we can see that Sergant did not act alone in initiating, planning, and organizing the meeting. Both the White House and The Corporation were involved as well. – they were presenters on the call and knew the detailed structure of the meeting. Their involvement, however, doesn’t prove any wrong doing on its own. But when you combine their involvement in the planning of the meeting with the partisan nature of the audience and their encouragement of issue specific art, the intent of the government’s arts effort begins to come into focus.

The White House Politicizes the NEA and The Corporation

On September 22nd, The White House issued a memorandum to White House staff, as well as agency and department heads, to address the “appearance issues” of the conference call. The memorandum states that, “Some comments made in the call…have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.”

Here is one of many segments that the White House is claiming that I misunderstood as politicizing the NEA. The statement is made by Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement:

“I’m honored to be on the call, and I just, you know, it’s been a long road I know for a lot of us, and we’re really just beginning.  I, first of all, want to thank everyone for being on the call and really just a deep, deep appreciation for all the work that you all put into the campaign for the two plus years that we all worked together.  I was the field director in California so I hear my L.A. peeps out there, so it’s exciting to hear those voices. And, you know, we won and that’s exciting, and now we have to take all that energy and make it really meaningful.”

There is absolutely no misunderstanding. The NEA was politicized, as was The Corporation, by the White House.

As stated in an earlier post, every federal employee on the call understood that they were asking an extremely partisan, pro-Obama art group to address politically controversial issues. The praise ranged from thanking the group for their service on Obama’s 2008 campaign, to reflections on the hard work that each had put into his election. Additionally, the White House and both federal agencies allowed Skolnik, the person with which they planned the meeting, to tell the call participants on several occasions that the goal of the group was to support the President and to push him and his administration. Placing a “third party” moderator in a position to deliver a partisan message does not provide plausible deniability, it only acknowledges disreputable activity.

With these statements, each government official was complicit in bringing together a partisan, pro-Obama group to take some action supporting the President.

There was even a point in the call where Abernathy said that she would distribute partisan information to the call participants through Skolnik. How is delivering partisan information through a third party any different than delivering it directly to the audience?

All of this political activity, while on duty, may have been a violation of the Hatch Act as well as the authorizing statutes of the federal agencies.

As to the “specific asks” that were the ultimate goal of the conference call, it is more than just Sergant that is guilty of inappropriate behavior.

As part of Chairman Landesman’s September 22nd statement, he stated that, “some of the language by the former NEA Director of Communications was, “unfortunately, not appropriate and did not reflect the position of the NEA.”

Rocco Landesman

When asked by the Los Angeles Times to elaborate, an NEA spokeswoman sent the Times the following as the passage that Landesman considered inappropriate:

“I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment. There’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as areas of service. Then my ask would be to apply your artistic, creative community utilities. Bring them to the table.”

If these “asks” denote where Sergant crossed the line, then the other federal employees on the conference call also crossed the line. Both The Corporation and The White House Office of Public Engagement prescribed to those “asks” as well.

During the call, Nell Abernathy, a representative of the The Corporation, stated the following:

“And so that brings me to kind of our third major tactic we have been working on all summer, using the media and the story-telling on the campaign.”

“To a large degree, that’s how I saw the arts community to be so powerful in the campaign, helping us to tell the story, telling their own story whether it was the Hope poster which made…our whole mission instantly recognizable and relatable to people, or it was the will.i.am video that circulated on the Internet; but helping people to feel that they are part of a national movement…”

Abernathy then goes on to say:

“I think Yosi is on and is going to talk about some of the specific ways which we feel the art community is critical to this both what’s already going on and some opportunity for future partnership.”

Abernathy knew that Sergant would talk about the specific ways that the community could work on this project. If she knew to hand off this point to Sergant, they must have discussed the meeting beforehand as well as what he would be talking about. Let’s don’t forget that “ways” is plural, while “volunteerism” is singular. It couldn’t have just been volunteerism.

Abernathy may claim that she thought Sergant was just going to encourage the broad concept of volunteerism. But any denial of Abernathy’s part in encouraging the group to create issue specific art is neutralized by her agency’s invitation of Thomas Bates.

You may recall that Bates stated to Foxnews.com that he was invited by officials at Abernathy’s agency to attend the conference call. Bates was more than just a participant – he was part of the presentation. And as a presenter Bates stated during the call, “We just wanted to give you one quick tangible example of things that can be done.” Bates then went on to explain how Rock the Vote was considering having an artist create an art installation from urban waste to engage young people “on the issue of a new environmental movement.”

The example given by Bates is a clear indication of what the government wanted of these artists and art professionals – and that was not some vague notion of volunteerism as the White House claims, but rather to create art on politically controversial issues. Bates was invited by Abernathy’s federal agency to help deliver that message.

If Mr. Sergant is guilty of asking the art community to create art on controversial issues, so is Ms. Abernathy. And with the addition of one more federal employee to the list of officials requesting the creation of political art, the possibility of collusion becomes much firmer.

Now before going on, an important fact should be pointed out here that has not been made to date. The Corporation also provides grants.

On May 7, 2009, the President released his detailed fiscal year 2010 budget request. In the request, a budget of $1.149 billion was requested for The Corporation and its programs, which marks a 29 percent increase over President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 level. Per The Corporation’s website (emphasis added), “This budget strengthens existing programs and invests in new initiatives authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.” This Act includes a provision that allows funding by The Corporation to the arts, and more specifically to organizations that carryout activities such as “providing skilled musicians and artists to promote greater community unity through the use of music and arts education and engagement through work in low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings, and other work in the public domain…”

This one line of text in the act attempts to define art as service and creates an “ArtistCorp” and “MusicianCorps”, akin to the PeaceCorp. With new art grant responsibilities given to The Corporation, the encouragement of a pro-Obama group to create art on politically controversial issues is another conflict of interest.

Were Sergant and Abernathy really working alone on this effort? Did Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, actually have no idea that the goal of the conference call was to encourage artists to create art on politically controversial issues?

The Political Intentions of The White House Office of Public Engagement

Through Wicks’ own words during the conference call, she acknowledges the group was a pro-Obama collective and thanks them for their efforts. She also states (emphasis added), “we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here. But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate.”

Buffy Wicks

She later discusses the key issues that she wanted the group to address, with health care, energy and the environment at the top of the list. When referencing health care she stated, “health care. Obviously, that’s a big issue.”

Now it could be argued that she was referencing volunteerism in these issues. But she then goes on to say, “we need your guys’s help to promote this. We know that you all have channels and ability to get message out far greater than we do here…”

Promotion and “ability to get message out” are not a request for general volunteerism, and directly contradicts the White House’s statement on the purpose of the meeting.

Buffy Wicks is far too intelligent to think that asking a pro-Obama group to address vehemently debated issues, at a time when the health care debate had gone nuclear, would lead to anything but policy advocating. The recent discovery of a meeting between another pro-Obama arts group, the White House, Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement shows that the concept of using the arts to address issues was entrenched throughout the administration months before the August 10th conference call.

That fact dates back to when Sergant actually worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement with Buffy Wicks.

USING ART TO PUSH POLICY – THE CONCEPT STARTED AT THE WHITE HOUSE

“Just got a call from the white house. I start work monday. Uhhhhhh.” — Yosi Sergant Tweet at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2009

“We unveiled the HOPE posters for the first time on Super Bowl Sunday. The same day, one year later, I head to DC. Trip out.” –Yosi Sergant Tweet at 9:09 PM on January 30, 2009

Yosi Sergant

On Monday February 2, 2009, Yosi Sergant began his stint working for the government as an associate in the White House Office of Public Engagement (at that time called Office of Public Liaison). Known throughout the administration as the man behind the Obama campaign’s unofficial art movement, he was influential in helping initiate and promote the now famous Shepard Fairey Hope poster as well as the Moveon.org Manifest Hope Gallery, which was a collection of art celebrating Obama’s candidacy.

The White House Office of Public Engagement’s approach of using art to push policy makes an appearance as earlier as May 2009.

From a briefing report, first reported by The Washington Times, we see that the creation of issue related art was weaved throughout the very fabric of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

The briefing, held on May12th, included 60 artists, creative organizers, and the White House. Michael Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement, was documented as saying to this arts group that people were “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.”

Per the briefing report Strautmanis recognized Sergant, who was instrumental in bringing the meeting together, and his efforts in making the Obama campaign “soar” with artwork.  He acknowledged that Sergant’s presence “represents the commitment to bring in people not traditionally part of the political process to share their talents and skills. With Yosi…in place, he explained, people very close to the President are involved in the effort.” Sergant was placed at the NEA on May 11th, the day before this meeting.

So the White House places Sergant, a political activist that has a history of using art as a means to distribute messages, at the NEA as the Communications Director. What were their intentions if not to politicize the NEA?

Buffy Wicks also attended this May 12th White House briefing. Per the briefing report (emphasis added), “She asked briefing participants to think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” The brief continues, “She explained that the President and the First Lady will be engaging all of the resources of the White House to think through how the arts can be a space where Americans can engage in service…”

This is where “defining the creation of art as service” makes its first known appearance outside the cryptic line in the Serve America Act. It’s a timely concept given that the White House will be launching a national service initiative within a month. And the idea is delivered by Buffy Wicks.

The desire to “expand what it means to serve” and that “art by definition is service” was discussed during the August 10th conference call. It is made very clear through their own words that Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement view the creation of art as a form of service. Wicks cannot claim that she suppressed that idea for the August 10th conference call when so many others on the call were advocating that very concept.

It takes a huge leap of faith to think Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement were not complicit in the same infringement as Sergant and Abernathy – that being to encourage a pro-Obama art group to create art on politically controversial issues.

THE WHITE HOUSE’S POLITICAL ART PLAN IN ACTION

To date we know of three government art efforts – the May 12th White House meeting, the August 10th conference call, and the August 27^th conference call. Taken together we see the White House’s attempt to effect the discussion of policy through the arts.

The meetings show a pattern of bringing together pro-Obama arts groups, providing the group political issues to tackle, then letting the groups organically come up with ideas – with the only possible results leading to partisan messaging.

The May 12th meeting is where the beginning of this mode of operation first appears.

The meeting consisted of three parts: 1) a meeting between the 60 artists and creative organizers to prepare for the briefing, 2) the two-hour White House briefing, and 3) a post-briefing meeting to interpret and respond to what the group had learned as well as to engage in small-group strategy sessions.

The briefing report contains similar qualities as the August 10th conference call. The White House hosts acknowledged the partisan nature of the group by thanking the participants “for their roles in amplifying the administration’s messages in their communities.” The participants in the meeting were in contact with Sergant, who was in the Office of Public Engagement during the planning, and he’s noted in the report as being “instrumental in arranging the briefing.”

As with the August 10th conference call, the NEA was in the room with grantees and potential grantees. The meeting was called on the preface of bringing together “community cultural development practitioners and thinkers to talk about how the remarkable mobilizing power of community arts can be used by the Obama administration as a tool and a pathway for national recovery.”

The goal of the May 12th meeting cannot get more concise than that statement – to discuss how the Obama Administration can use the power of arts as a tool.

At the meeting, this pro-Obama arts group was asked by Buffy Wicks to “think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” And the Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement talked of how some people are “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.” Both of these statements show the clear intention of the White House office of Public Engagement to use the arts to tackle issues.

It wasn’t until the third segment of the meeting that you could see how a meeting of this nature could generate politicized art.

In this final segment the group formed small strategy session teams. One such group tackled the issue of healthcare reform.  The group, headed by Michelle Miller of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), discussed the multiple roles that artists can play to support healthcare reform. Some of these roles were to “join with policy makers to help create a narrative about the current health care system. There is an ongoing need for stories from inside the health care system…” The session notes continue, “These stories serve to highlight the need for health care reform…”

And to show an even clearer example of how these meetings can produce partisan messaging, the strategy group highlighted that the artists role should be to “create a counter narrative to the Luntz memo/Republican talking points designed to destroy health care reform.”

The following video shows this plan in action. It is a panel, sponsored by the SEIU, the same union that was the lead in the strategy session, and includes stories from inside the health care system that help to create a narrative for the need for reform – just as discussed during the strategy session. I found this video posted by a participant in the May 12th briefing. The narrative that is developed in the first one minute and thirty-eight seconds is pretty shocking to say the least:

–

Or this health care song uploaded by a participant on the conference call (caution: explicit lyrics):

–

The results of these strategy sessions show how assuredly the White House can count on a pro-administration arts group to produce policy friendly messaging. As Mario Garcia Durham, Director of Presenting at the National Endowment for the Arts, was quoted as saying in the May 12th briefing, “Government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA.”

I hope this group got the new White House “guidelines” memorandum. It looks like they also have some “appearance” issues.

THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT’S MODE OF OPERATION

As you can see, The White House Office of Public Engagement’s mode of operation is novel. Bring together pro-Obama arts groups, give the group controversial political issues to tackle, and then let the groups “organically” come up with ideas. Given the make up of the groups, the only possible results will lead to pro-administration messaging that is extremely partisan.

In both the May 12th and August 10th meetings, you see this plan in action. Two days after the August 10th call, Americans for the Arts, an NEA grantee and participant on the call, issued a press release with a coalition of 20 national arts organizations urging Congress to pass legislation that “guaranteed universal health insurance coverage.” Three days after the call Shepard Fairey, who had a representative on the call, released a new poster entitled Power Up, promoting the adoption of windmill power. Eleven days after the call Rock the Vote, a presenter on the call, announced a health care design competition. The contest announcement read, “We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system…We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care now.” These may all be a coincidence, but the timing is suspect.

This is how the administration is attempting to create an environment friendly to their policies – by having pro-Obama arts groups create partisan messages.

COVER UPS & HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

Cover-ups speak volumes to the intentions of those trying to cover up. Government officials never cover up flattering stories, only unflattering ones.  Case in point is the laundry list of cover-ups and historical revisionism that happened after the first article broke August 25th on Big Hollywood.

In the original article I stated that the NEA initiated the conference call. Within minutes of the article going live, I received an email from Michael Skolnik, the call moderator, refuting that detail. Skolnik wrote:

“I was surprised to read your blog post today, and I hope that you consider updating it with the proper facts.  The call was not initiated by the NEA, nor is the group a function of the NEA.  It was initiated by me, and I initiated it because I thought artists around the country could come together and be involved in the United We Serve campaign — service…I hope you re-think what you wrote, and include the proper facts, so there is no mis-information given to the world.”

This statement directly contradicted his statement in the conference call, a fact that was made clear in the release of the transcripts. By having a “third party” be the initiator of the call, the government has plausible deniability to any of the results or intentions of the meeting. But once it is shown that all federal employees played a part in planning the meeting, plausible deniability evaporates.

The NEA Cover Up

On August 27th, the Washington Times reported that Sergant claimed the NEA was only a participant on the call and didn’t have the invite. That was shown as a dishonest response because the invitation that I received came from Sergant himself.

On September 10th, the NEA issued an unattributed statement claiming to have “participated” in the August 10th conference call. On September 22nd, after we released the full transcript, the NEA issued a statement claiming that “the former Communications Director helped organize and participated in” the conference call. This changed the NEA’s role again and placed all of the blame on the former Communications Director.

The Corporation Cover Up

During the August 27th Washington Times interview, Sergant stated that The Corporation “set up the conference call.” Foxnews.com, however, reported the next day that The Corporation claimed that the call was organized by an “individual interested” in the group – presumably pointing the finger at Michael Skolnik. However, one of the presenters, Thomas Bates, told Foxnews.com that he was invited to join the call by officials at The Corporation, showing that The Corporation was involved in organizing the call.

The White House’s Attempt at Historical Revisionism

On September 1st the White House issued a statement to the Boston Globe stating that the “call was a briefing on public service.” The Globe reported that the White House thought, “Courrielche misconstrued the purpose of the phone call.”  Three weeks later, after the transcripts were released, the White House changed its position conceding that there may be some “appearance issues” that troubled some participants.

Within days they issued guidelines to their staff to address a problem that they earlier stated didn’t exist.

The guidelines itself are an exercise in historical revisionism. The White House Memorandum states, “Some comments made in the call, however have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.” This copy should have been crosschecked with the transcript and the NEA statement. The NEA itself categorized the comments as “unfortunately, not appropriate.” Any reasonable person would see that there is no misunderstanding. The call comments did inappropriately politicize the NEA as well as The Corporation. And isn’t it peculiar that comments during the conference call led to the White House issuing guidelines to ensure proper conduct, while declaring in those same guidelines that the conduct wasn’t improper. My head is spinning.

These cover-ups, frantic finger pointing, and exercises in revising history have been an attempt to hide the implications associated with the government’s role in setting up such a partisan effort. Each statement has been an attempt to make this story a non-story – an attempt that at times has been successful. For example, I recently did an interview with CBS for Katie Couric’s Evening News, but the interview has yet to air. You would think that with both the National Endowment for the Arts and the White House admitting to inappropriate behavior and “appearance” issues that someone from the mainstream news networks would smell something fishy and broadcast a story. But to date, the mainstream TV nets have been silent.

***

As I have stated from the beginning, the federal government did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable. It has been shown throughout this article that Sergant did not act alone in requesting the arts group to create art on politically controversial issues. Both Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy also prescribed to that encouragement.

It has also been shown that the concept of using the arts to tackle political issues dates back to the May 12th meeting between another pro-Obama arts collective, creative organizers, and the White House. Through my previous articles, and excellent reporting by the Washington Times, it has also been shown that NEA grantees have been involved in all of these politicized efforts.

The White House has attempted, through the efforts of the Office of Public Engagement, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, to use federal agencies for political gain. All of the evidence from the May 12th and August 10th meetings point to that conclusion.

Even more revealing was the fact that a similar conference call was to happen on August 27th, two days after my article went live. The call was to include the NEA and the White House Office of Public Engagement. However the NEA backed out of participating in that call.

***

At times I’ve found myself caught in the grips of The Big Truth.

Many have heard the expression The Big Lie. It’s a phrase that describes a propaganda technique that employs a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” as described by the villain that coined the phrase. The resultant effect being that the masses believe the colossal lie.

Well The Big Truth is an opposite of sorts. It’s a truth that is so clearly documented, and with such immense implications, that it is almost too big a truth to be taken seriously.

I experienced this phenomenon when I first spoke about my article just a few weeks ago.

When I described to a journalist some of the unreleased information gathered in the August 10th conference call, I was told that the story sounded too big to be true.

Well the circumstances that led up to the call, the content of the call itself, and the resulting attempt to cover up the government’s role are the pieces of The Big Truth puzzle that reveal the government’s intentions with the arts. And those intentions are to create an environment friendly for the administration’s policies.

Art is no longer just a painted canvas hanging on a wall or a film that takes an enormous amount of effort to be distributed. Art is now media – and can go viral with the click of a mouse. Government should not encourage artists to address specific issues, especially not those that are politically controversial. We need a separation of art and state – otherwise we head farther down the road to serfdom.

Through the publication of this article I am requesting that members of Congress add to their NEA inquiry, any violations of the authorizing statutes that pertain to the Corporation for National and Community Service, as well as extend their inquiry into the possible politicization of these agencies by the White House Office of Public Engagement. Additionally, Congress should look into the actions of NEA grantees involved in each of these arts efforts.

Today’s Washington Times:

The facts are simple and public. During the transition, President Obama’s top arts adviser made it clear that his ambition was for the arts to become an integral part of the West Wing. After the inauguration, meetings of artists and political activists at the White House explicitly discussed how to keep the arts community in campaign mode to back Mr. Obama’s legislative agenda. An NEA grants official, Mario Garcia Durham, was at one such meeting for which the attendee list is public.

President Obama with Yosi Sergant

As those meetings occurred, Yosi Sergant, a key cog in the Obama campaign’s outreach to artists, was transferred from a position at the White House to a position as the communications director of the NEA. When the grant spigots opened at the NEA, more than $2 million went directly into the coffers of arts organizations (and their members) attending these meetings and publicly backing elements of the administration agenda.

Does that prove laws have been broken? Of course not. The worst appearances can be completely innocent. However, the administration’s assertions that Mr. Sergant acted alone (“unilaterally and without … approval or authorization” in Mr. Landesman’s words) and that the administration’s efforts were “completely unrelated” to grant-making are at odds with the facts. The public deserves more than bland reassurances.

A full investigation by both Congress and the NEA inspector general is the only way to bring this story to a close. Answers to these questions would be only a start:

- What was an NEA grants official doing at a White House political meeting? What other grants officials have been meeting with White House political officials?

- So far we know about a handful of conference calls last month and White House meetings last spring. Is this the full extent of the coordination between the White House political staff and the NEA?

- Has the grant-making process been compromised by politics? How were the brand-new stimulus grants insulated from politics? Were any of the safeguards circumvented?

- On the same day that Americans for the Arts, a lobbying organization that also runs a partisan Democratic political action committee, endorsed the key elements of the Obama health care plan, the president of the group met with Mr. Landesman, the new NEA chief. What happened at that meeting?

- Why was activist Yosi Sergant transferred from the White House to the NEA? Who made the decision?

Read the full piece here.