Tweet
Dr. Albert C. Barnes was born in a lower class area of Philadelphia and worked his way through medical school as boxer. He patented Argyrol, a silver based compound used to treat VD in World War I, and enjoyed his fortune while collecting Impressionist and Modern art which he hung with care in his Merion, Pennsylvania mansion. In 1951, Barnes was killed in a car crash; his will stipulated that his collection remain intact and in its present location.
During his life, Barnes, a New Deal Democrat, was despised by Old Philadelphia. At first the moneyed elite ridiculed his collection of Matisse, Cezanne, Picasso, Renoir, Rousseau. And then, when this art become hot and valued, they begged to see it. But Barnes thumbed his nose at the “Phila-stines” who had rejected the works’ beauty, refusing to let any pieces be exhibited at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Instead he created an art school and foundation. Barnes only allowed his collection to seen by students, or those who asked and who he felt should see it. He would gladly open his doors to a plumber from the Bronx, while ignoring the pleas of world famous art critics or multi-millionaires.
All this annoyed the bejesus out of Philadelphia’s upper crust, especially Walter Annenberg–art collector, newspaper owner, Nixon pal and Ambassador to the Court of St James–who had an axe to grind against the Democrats. And Barnes became was his local whetstone. Annenberg, whose jabs in the Philadelphia Inquirer didn’t affect the doctor while alive, went after the collection once the owner was dead, with the help of Richard Glanton.
Glanton took over as trustee via his ties to Lincoln University, the historically black institution to which Barnes willed control of his foundation. At one point Glanton and Annenberg discussed selling off a portion of the collection to pay for the upkeep of the Barnes mansion and grounds. At issue, said Glanton, were preservation and climate control. And money. Glanton claimed the Barnes Trust was near broke.
The art world had a fit over the idea of the sale, and Glanston backed down. Kind of. Instead of selling pieces, Glanton violated the terms of the trust and took the art on tour and opened the Barnes house to crowds. Neighbors complained about the bus loads of art fans being brought in and parking lot being fast tracked. The term “carpet bagger” was used by a Merion resident in reference to Glanton and a civil right lawsuit ensued; more of trust’s money was spent. Glanton and Lincoln University were removed as trustees and the Pennsylvania Attorney General took over. A showing of the art opened at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, horrifying Barnes’ supporters.
And in the end, the Annenberg Foundation and the Pew Foundation, the very same old money crowd Barnes despised, gained control of the collection which is slated to open in a new, specially designed building next year along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway.
Blasphemy! Theft! Malfeasance!
goes one set of arguments. And the others:
Art should be accessible to all. Art should be preserved in a secure environment. This will make money and draw tourists. And besides, the trust was so mismanaged, the state had to step in.
NB: The Art of the Steal was financed by Lenny Feinberg, a former Barnes Foundation student. Every creation has a perspective, and smartly, this documentary gives both sides a voice. How you choose to interpret the motives of all those involved is a function of the self’s reaction to art.
139 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Please stay on topic–in this case The Art of the Steal, the history of the Barnes collection, what happened ot it, and what that says about property rights and the rights
If you want to jump in about health care or anything else not about please find a post elsewhere on FDL to do so. Thank you.
Please–and I can’t believe I still have to say this, but–no ad hominen remarks. And please be respectful of our guests and of each other. And yeah, I tpye badly…
Welcome Don Argott and John Anderson!
I’m here.
Don thank you for popping in..you have a premiere tonight! How is the film going?
And John I so enjoyed your insights in the film! Can’t wait to read your book now!
Hi David and John, welcome to the Lake
John when did you start writing the book, and how did you come to write about this story?
Good evening, Lisa,
As I always I’m delighted to be joining my friends and fellow Pups at the Lake.
This is really Don and his partner and producer/writer Sheena Joyce’s time to shine, but I’m thrilled to have ben part of this great effort. They’ve done a magnificent job of telling an incredibly complicated tale.
Welcome David and John! One of the cores of this story, to me, is the fact that in the end, because there was no strong advocate for the Barnes trust document, others felt that they could violate it. What can people do to protect what they want to have happen when legal documents are ignored and violated?
Don..you’re in Chicago?
Film’s going terrific. It opened in NYC and Philly and did really well.
David, it’s a very interesting movie, thank you. The way you filmed Julian Bond made him almost godlike, very striking.
Yes, in Chicago for a special screening with Cinema Chicago,
what was the response in Philadelphia?
Thanks
You mean..he’s not?
Response is good overall. Philly is tough because I think many people feel they know the story already, so there’s baggage. But overall, very good.
Okay–I have to admit something , I effed majorly Don, and I apologize, my flu and migraine screwed me up.
It DON Argott . i am really embarrassed especially because you dashed out of screening for us..
What happened that made the trust vulnerable?
What were the reviews in Philly?
no worries, it’s all good
Oh good. I saw the trailer for this film last week when I saw Ghost Writer. Will definitely see it when it comes out.
Please explain why the word “steal” more thoroughly. I take it that it means that Barnes will was abrogated. But does it mean more than that? Were funds or art actually stolen? And what about the Sotheby’s clips in the trailer? Was some of it sold? To what end? Etc. You get the questions. Please delve into the particulars.
I am so excited you’ll be opening in Los Angeles soon.
Toby, What’s so frustrating really is that Barnes was well aware of trust’s having been violated. His personal lawyer, John G. Johnson–twice offered and twice turned down a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court–had himself been a major art collector. When Johnson died, he left his collection and his home as a gallery. Long and short of it is that the trust was broken and Johnson’s collection became one of the cornerstones of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Barnes then turned to the future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts (also a future U. Penn Law School dean) to draft his trust indenture with Johnson’s story very much in his mind. And, ultimately, despite all Roberts’ acumen and legal genius, it too was broken.
It’s really a story, twice told, of power trumping the law and morality.
John, What caught your eye to write the story of the Barnes Collection?
I think the trust was vulnerable because Barnes made some pretty powerful enemies, and let’s face it, if people have enough money and power they can do mostly anything.
It’s more of a metaphorical theft, but you’ll see when you watch the film
The chain of trustees seemed have gotten muddied by the time it got to Galston. And it is the state’s duty to take over in such situations. Though the PA AG should have handled it better..and both Pew and Anneberg Foundations has agendas that must have Barnes rolling in his grave.
we are too. Can’t wait to get it out there on a larger scale.
I get the feeling that if Barnes had been some sort of ‘beloved local father figure’ – the story would have ended differently; but because he was seen as difficult and was portrayed by the Inquirer as somehow ‘hoarding’ and ‘hiding’ his collection, it became very easy for people to ‘forget’ that there was a school and an institution and a trust to take care of them. let’s put it this way – Annenberg wouldn’t have opened HIS home to the public so that they could have access to his art. But Barnes was already a demonized figure, so I think there were people who felt justified somehow. But in the end, it WAS his collection; he could do with it what he wanted..except that the people who hated him, obviously resented the fact that he had it at all.
But what happened to enable those who wanted to break it to be able to break it? Was it Glanton’s tenure as board president?
And where is Glanton now?
Two factors in particular made the Barnes vulnerable: One, its endowment was largely blown away thanks to a great deal of ill-advised litigation during the 1990s. Secondly, once the faux “rescue” was announced by the foundations and then vigorously contested by the trustees of Lincoln University, the oldest historically black college in America, pressure was applied AC/DC from both the Democratic governor Rendell and the attorney general Mike Fisher (Rendell’s former opponent in the gubernatorial general election). Lincoln was squeezed into submission. The reason this was so important to the “rescue” was that Lincoln clearly had “standing” in court. As part of the discovery process, the Lincoln trustees and their lawyers could have delved deeply into the way in which the “rescue” was organized and by whom and under what circumstances and in what time frame. The powers that be had to stop the discovery. And they did. Rendell and his cohort in this effort, the cunning and devious Philadelphia State Senator Vincent J. Fumo (now in federal prison for political corruption charges), threatened to all but shutdown Lincoln.
The collection is worth $25 BILLION, even in today’s market…And in order to possess the state overturned a will and trust. Unbelievable…
That’s pretty accurate and I think the film highlights that Barnes made some pretty powerful enemies and now that he’s been gone for this long it’s easier to justify what’s being done because they painted him as such a bastard
I am puzzled more generally why people care so much what happens after they die. They aren’t around to see it, so what difference does it make. This is really just a comment, not to be responded to. I understand very few people think about this matter the way I do. (BTW, I own an historic house, almost 200 years old, & I know it will be dehistorized after I die and my son sells it to the highest bidder. And it makes me sad to anticipate, but I won’t be there, so what.)
oOo Fumo!
I was in Philadelphia writing a major feature for The American Lawyer, where I was then deputy editor, and a lawyer friend started telling me the tale. Then a month later–completely serendipitously, I might add–then former Barnes president and high-flying Philadelphia lawyer Richard Glanton called me and pitched the story! He left a long voice mail that would have made any reporter salivate to know more.
Youth wanted to know, and I, though no youth, definitely did.
Who will benefit from the (direct) revenues the new museum will generate? WIll that go straight back into the trust?
Glanton opened the Barnes door so to speak and re-imagined what this place could be. He got everyone in the world salivating over this hidden collection that it was really only a matter of time until this happened.
affable tho he may be, he sure is corrupt — I can’t believe PA now has gambling
Annenberg was such a hypocrite, saying that HIS art collection was like his family, he wouldn’t sell his family..yet he advised Glanton to sell one or two of the Barnes collection to build an endowment.
And with regards to after one dies: If one has created a collection–or even a piece of art itself, how it is handled is the deceased legacy. Like weren’t we outraged when the Taliban blew up those huge Buddhas? What about if some decided the Sistine Chapel would look better in beige and peach?
I also think there is a ‘nice…but not nice enough’ factor here – Among that generation of people (my dad’s generation, really), there certainly was this attitude of what people could reasonably ‘aspire’ to. The old money crowd were certainly willing to allow Barnes to make his money and if he’s swelled around in a big car, they could have easily relished despising him for it. The fact that he was more educated in art than they were, had made this terribly clever and nuanced investment when he did and then ‘retired’ to the life of an educator. “How could he!” “Who is he to xxx”. Parvenue!
Convicted on 137 counts of corruption charges by a federal jury on March 16, 2009. Think of it: 137 counts. Strangely–or perhaps not–the underlying charge, that PECO, the big local electric company, had secretly gifted him or rather a “charity” controlled by Fumo with more than $25 million was not one of the actual charges.
But that transaction is at the heart of how the Barnes came to be in play. (This is the part of this very complicated story that Don and Sheena didn’t go down–for lots of good reasons–you can only tell so much in one film!–but which I fully intend to reveal.)
Glanton seems to be um, fame driven.
At one point in the early 1990s, the then Barnes board–or rather president Glanton–seriously contemplated “renting” the single most valuable painting in the collection, the Matisse “Joy of Life,” to the Getty for $100 million, at the rate of $1 mill a year for 100 years.
From a film making perspective, Glanton is an amazing character. He’s an interesting guy.
Yeah, but you know Widener–as in the Widener Library–had himself been a butcher, same as Old Man Barnes, Dr. Barnes’ one-armed father. So you might ask: How old is “Old Money” anyhow?
Let’s just say that Richard Glanton is sui-generis.
Colorful, quotable, smart, driven, and a good deal more besides.
I think the bigger question now is – at this point, would selling or renting one painting in the Foundation be as bas as moving it? Assuming these were the only 2 choices…
Do you now what the admission will be to the new location on the Parkway? Currently to get into the house and ground in Merion, it’s $15 plus $15 for parking.
Honestly, I’m glad the art will be more widely available.
Of course, the exhibits must capture Barnes’ presentation -of course the volume of viewers changes everything- but the movie was the first time I had a visual sense of what made the collection special.
And I presume this move will keep the collection together, I understand Glanton wanted to sell a few pieces for the money.
But the story of how the collection was “stolen” is just jaw dropping. That mystery appropriation of 107 million dollars a couple years BEFORE the subject of moving the collection supposedly came up…. !! I don’t see how that can be legal, but we’ve seen that same thing happen at the federal level as well. Despicable.
No not sure – there are plenty of questions unanswered about the new Barnes on the parkway, like how much is the new construction officially going to cost?
One would think for less than the cost of building the new building and moving the collection, they could have made the house safe for the art work.
What will happen ot the house and ground once the art is gone?
oo please do!
The issue, from Barnes’ point of view, was that the building was designed and built for the collection. And the collection was arranged in a specific way, inside that building, in specific places and in relation to other art works surrounding them to create a specific viewpoint. Barnes was his own curator. To take the collection out of that building, even if you set each painting and object in precisely the same positions vis a vis other paintings and art work in a different place, is to destroy that point of view. Barnes also was looking at enjoying art in a very 19th century way – that one would sit and contemplate the work/works, would sketch and study the works. Not race through a gallery with a list in one’s hand, checking off works down the list like some sort of ‘to do’ list.
Elliott, I didn’t really have a dog in this fight until I started following the day-by-day of the “rescue.” At every turn, these people (primarily Rebecca Rimel, the CEO of Pew) chose to work under the cover of darkness. There was never the least transparency in their effort. It’s almost as if they preferred doing it down and dirty. That’s what so deeply offended me.
oh yes, was curious about that.
Very well said, Toby. Very well said. Thanks.
Could have named the film Pigmentality. *s*
But it is available now. I just don’t agree with this accessibility issue. There is something to be said about the Barnes experience. Why can’t we have the big museum experience on the parkway, which is great for blockbuster shows with world class art and then have a quiet, contemplative experience at the Barnes? Isn’t there room for both?
In any case, this is only the fig-leaf cover for what Pew et al are really up to, which is a corporate-style takeover of $25 billion worth of art.
It’s about power. And who has power. And that’s about it really, when you get down to it. From their point of view .
Let me just add that this has been a real eye-opener about non-profits and foundations and what they sometimes are really all about.
Is it true the move’s a fait accompli?
In the Broad Street Review of the movie
Robert Zaller says:
He also goes on to say, “But it gets the basic story right, and pulls no punches telling it. Like Edward R. Murrow’s Harvest of Shame— and not many films since— it belongs on a short list of documentaries that have spoken truth to power, and truth about it.”
The Getty, both of them, manages to accommodate visitors, whether for a big show or just what they have hanging out.
The pilfering of that much money from the trust, and that ridiculous lawsuit (though um, I think they guy knew “carpetbagger”s historical derivatin when he used it in reference to Galston)–obscene.
The kind of not-for-profits that you are talking about are run by the same people who run big corps. Why should it be any different?
It really comes down to the people at this point. If there is sufficient outrage and people mobilize then I guess anything is possible – will that happen, I don’t know.
yes, you are right. But the public access only came about relatively recently and then to avoid litigations.
I would have said yes until this wonderful film came out and stirred up a hornet’s nest.
I’d always said that the story of the Barnes was Penn Station all over again: The tearing down of an architectural and historical landmark in order to build just another big sports complex. (Hey, I love sports too, but no one in his/her right mind thinks Madison Square Garden is an “architectural masterpiece.”)
But now I think there’s at least a chance that this will be a replay of Jane Jacobs versus Bob Moses over Greenwich Village. It’s just that kind of David versus Goliath story. No way Jane Jacobs and her band of followers should have prevailed against the Master Builder, but they did.
Quite right. They’re well paid for doing it too.
Pew is connected to the Heritgage Foundation.
Don – I’m old (ahem) enough that I remember what going to the Metropolitan Museum was like before someone discovered the whole marketing of the ‘really big shoe’. You could actually sit down on a bench and look at a painting or statue and take some time. I recently went to a show of Japanese samurai effects and the lobby of the place gave me claustrophobia. When I got up to the show itself, there were so many people crowding the room that I literally was part of some sort of human-based river. I could not have stopped to look at something if I tried. At one point, they had a video of how samurai blades are made, which offered an opportunity to actually stand and look at something over and over and get a feel. But the museums are trapped now in this ‘move as many people through as quickly as possible’ mentality. I doubt that any museum offers a slow contemplative experience, unless they charge the earth per person for the luxury.
To me it all comes down to leadership at the trustee level. If the board was filled with people that were committed to keeping the Barnes in Merion then there would be no question that they could make it work. The mission became the move and everyone put blinders on to carry out that mission.
yes, my eyes bugged out.
In your book, do you go into the life and work of Barnes’ wife Laura? Their country home, Kel-Feal, with the pre-Revolutionary house and 137 acres sounds beautiful. Any chance you got to visit the estate?
!!
I’m happy that the film has re-opened this dialogue. Honestly, that’s why the Barnes et all refused to participate. They didn’t want to acknowledge there was an opposition to what they were up to. But now thy have to answer some tough questions and I’m glad that people are asking…
And of course the trustees get a fee for doing their job. Nuff said.
Yes, though not as much as I should have.
But, you know, it’s a bit like Don and Sheena being blamed for not putting this or that into their film. I had a story I wanted to tell, and I had to try to keep the story line as clear and as straight as I could.
I want to thank everyone for the discussion. Please help spread the word on the film. I have to get ready for the screening tonight. Thanks again…
Don
Just for the record, if I were to have a sudden loss of eyesight or hearing, I call the doc whether or not I were taking Cialis.
My eye opener for how big art museums function came about a decade ago, when I heard Victoria Newhouse at a book signing, describe the process of adding “wings (that don’t fly” was the title of her talk) so that directors can preside over the expansion of the collection, the new wings can be named after an egomaniac who may or may not have a collection to be housed, and the new wing looks like a carbunkle on the architecture of the original building. (Like placing a photocopy of the Mona Lisa next to an orginal of some famous painting was how she analogized the resulting architectural bastard to the way art, if it would have been displayed similarly.) And of course, the vast majority of the permanent collection is never seen by anyone.
The NY Met is one of the worst examples of this behavior. I’ve always hated it for that reason, besides the fact that it keeps usurping Central Park. The building is an abomination. And I heartily resent their asking for an entrance fee when they could sell a work or two that no humans have seen for decades & provide for all the expenses they should need to cover.
The Menil in Dallas is Newhouse’s ideal. Collection is closed. 10% on display every year, rotated in toto every decade.
Oh I meant no criticism, just curious. Am going to have to pick up a copy now.
Thnaks Don! Awesome movie!
thank you so much Don, for stopping by, and for making this movie.
Many thanks to Don and John!!
Why did the judge throw out the 2008 lawsuit brought by those trying ot keep the collection intact?
It was fascinating to learn at the end of the movie that Annenberg donated his art (with the stipulation that it be kept together) — and that he sent it to NYC.
I look forward to seeing the film. I have followed this story from afar, it’s been clear that the twists and turns are more wild and nefarious than what has been discussed in various art magazines I’ve read, though it was clear that there were some unrevealed dark passages in the story. I don’t recall that Annenberg’s history and role ever made it into anything I read.
Honestly, I have seen this story over and over again in one form or another in NM. Whether it was artists (O’Keeffe, Raymond Jonson) or architects or anthropologists, their wishes after death have rarely been upheld when push came to shove. Some institutions are worse than others.
Don makes a very important point here, which is that the “rescuers” have long depended on the local media, primarily the Inquirer, to suppress and/or manipulate the news concerning the Barnes. In practical terms, that means that Philadelphians reading the Inquirer assume that the opposition is almost entirely local and limited to “Barnes crazies.”
In fact, the opposition includes the art critics or art editors of the Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker magazine, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Observer, Time magazine–and the retired art critic of the Philadelphia Inquirer itself along with the architecture critic of the New York Times.
And, of course, the former National Chair of the NAACP, Julian Bond.
Does anyone recall another case – not quite like this – where a lady left a bequest to Lincoln Center, I think, and after she died, the family discovered that LC had not spent the money in the way that the bequest had been written and they sued. Anyone recall that?
I once had the misfortune of renting an audio tour that had Phillipe de Montebello’s voice on it. His supercilious tone made me gag.
I also have a friend in the art musuem world in St. Louis. The inside game is viscious and disgusting.
And no offense taken, Elliott!
yeah, what about Judge Ott?
Also, the political feuding: Annenebrg’s father went to prison for tax evasion and Walter blamed the Democrats for that. And Barnes made fun of Annenberg’s father. They represented what they each disliked, but Annenberg had a weapon, the media…
Yes! I can now see (thanks to you) how biased their coverage was
It’s one of the abomination wings at the NY Met that I typed about in 77.
John, what for you woud be the ideal solution for the Barnes colleciton?
wasn’t his father involved with the mob?
oy!
He should of donated the collection to the National Gallery of Art in D.C…
Yeah, and John and Don cover that–tax evasion, what caught Al Capone and most mobsters…
The excuse was this business about “standing.” Judge Ott found that neither the Friends of the Barnes nor the Township had legal standing to contest the changes in the trust indenture.
This is again why the Lincoln University board opposition was so critical. Once they had thrown in the towel, it was game-set. And that’s why the all-out full-court press was put on. Along with the stick (threats to destroy the university) and the carrot (noises about adding $40-$50 mill to the Lincoln budget).
Pretty good deal, right?
We say we’ll give you $40-$50 mill, and we get control over, what? Oh, yes, $25 billion. Oh, hahahahahaha.
and Julian Bond hints that the big foundations could strike back at the NAACP
Don’t know a thing about the case you mention, but as I was the victim of a 5 year long will contest, let me assure you, the decedent does not need to have a large estate for craziness to set in. Any excuse is good enough. Some deaths bring out the worst in people.
Put a mere $50 million into the Barnes endowment and forget about the other $100 million. Hand it back, with thanks, to the various givers, if they want it back.
The Barnes would be in clover with a $50 million endowment.
This is, of course, the obvious truth: That they didn’t need even half that $150 million to fix the Barnes. But they needed $100 million of it to MOVE the Barnes.
Once you understand that, it’s all pretty clear what was really afoot.
When did the long article on the Barns appear in the New Yorker magazine? Who wrote it and did it spark your interest?
Did you find Ott to be a fair judge?
Yes, but by putting it out there so openly, he shrewdly protected the NAACP.
I worry about Don and Sheena.
Which article in The New Yorker?
There was one way way back in the Twenties, which I quote from in my book.
More recently (around 2002), there was a remarkably forgettable piece by Jeff Toobin. I have no idea why he even wrote the piece. Some idiot once said to me, “But Jeff has told the story.” Well, no, Jeff didn’t tell the story. He told a half-assed version of the story. A very lazy piece of reporting it was too.
oh, hadn’t thought of that. May the story itself protect him.
Jeff Toobin wrote a half-assed article. Knock me over with a feather. One of the many overrated laughingly-referred-to-as reporters.
Are you worried about yourself? And Mr Feinberg–he took a big risk as well. But exposing thing to the light and getting people talking is the only safety.
What are the “Friends of the Barnes” doing now? Disbanned? Protesting?
Well, Elliott, it was just when the wheels were starting to come off the rescue that Pew et al used Rendell and Fisher as their catspaws to fend off the Lincoln trustees and force them to drop out of the suit.
I fear that that’s the template they have in mind now.
To paraphrase Ceeb Cooley, the crusty old Southern senator in Advise and Consent (played to the hilt in film by Charles Laughton): “These are powerful devious people.”
The Friends are doing what they’ve always done: Fighting on. Like Jane Jacobs’ army.
Well, I had no idea that is the kind of people that run these foundations, you and Don opened many many eyes
My mom viewed the exhibit in the 70′s. She was a feminist and a progressive from way back. Of course my dad
proposed to her on the steps of the newly built Art Museum in 1939.
sweet
Barnes had the right idea: Buy what you like and hang it as you wish.
On a side note about art I found this site: MOBA which shows that art is in the eye of the beholder. And some things= cannot unsee!
That’s a really important thing to remember and to look for. The crossover on boards from corp to non-profit. And the salaries for non-profit CEOs can be very competitive, check out Charity Navigator….
The Barnes way was no doubt a great way to see the collection, but not the only way.
Analogy to ballet. Every time it’s performed, it’s different (much more so than orchestral works). And as the classical ballets were developed before film, or even notation, what they looked like is lost forever. But that does not make contemporary performances of classic ballets less enjoyable.
John (and in absentia Don) thank yo sooooo much for this eye opening movie and your book. The success of the film is proving a point made in The Art of Steal: Culture Sells. People are eager to see art. It’s a pity the Barnes Colleciton won’t be seen as it was meant to be…
There are enough doctors and lawyers in that lot that Rebecca can’t easily shut them up. So the game then is to make light of them, pretend that they’re local Barnes art fanatics. This is why having the Inquirer on their side was so important during 2002-2003, especially. The Inquirer editorial page was their cheerleader-in-chief. But then the Inquirer has been complicit in the whole sorry story, virtually from beginning to end.
I might add that the one truly great thing the Inky has done in the past 10 years is the revelation that Fumo, or rather his “charities,” were secretly raking in these multi-million dollar deals with PECO and the like. What the Inky failed to do–and what the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia failed to do–was connect the dots that would have led to the Barnes.
Yes, right, that’s it: The little old Barnes was part of a multi-million dollar payoff to Vince Fumo. That’s what I’m saying. Not that Fumo would get the Barnes. Vince had plenty on his plate. But that someone–not Pew, not at this stage, would have it.
The question, which I will not answer tonight, is why? And the most important question: which no has answered, and, apparently, no one else (certainly not the Inquirer) has even bothered to ask is: Who at PECO made the $25 mill or whatever it was exactly available to Vince and his “charities.” Someone at PECO made this happen. Someone big. Or rather, perhaps, several big people.
Who? Why? When?
Good night pups and thank you all for a great discussion!
Uh oh.. we can continue this discussion if you like…It is very much worht talking about and/or mullng over
It’s really very intensely disturbing…
It’s Good Night, Gracie time! So I thank you, and, I’m sure Don and Sheena would join me in thanking you, especially LIsa for hosting this wonderful discussion.
I told Don in advance that this is why I so love FDL: Lots of smart, informed, articulate people–with opinions!–to discuss with that it becomes a pleasure. The time flies.
It truly does.
Thank you all. j
Is that your next book project?
if not what is?
and…I wonder whether or not the PA Utilities Commission is aware, because that money has got to come from someplace. Stockholder money or Ratepayer money?Hmmm?
I can keep on chatting for a bit.
It is extremely disturbing. Not least the fact that no one seems to want to go down certain paths.
Thank you (both) so much for a fascinating discussion. Please keep on…
Oh, hahahahaha.
No, I am finishing my long, long overdue book for Knopf, a critical biography of Raymond Chandler.
Thank you!!!!
And electric rates are set to soar here in PA
oo intriguing. will have to pick that up when you publish.
Sure they’re aware. How could they not be?
The deal was that in 1998–the “magic spring and summer” over at the Barnes, when various (Pre-Pew) forces were fighting for control–the PUC was heavily involved in a debate over “deregulation.” And the PUC was largely controlled by . . . Senator Fumo. And the person who most wanted to deregulate utilities was . . . the future “Code Red” Ridge. Tom Ridge, having been elected on a promise to deregulate.
Yeah, sure, it was all bullshit. Rates are already more than 10% over what they were before deregulation.
Well, John, that’s one of the dirty ‘not’ secrets about electric deregulation – it was sold on the basis of ‘saving money’ and ‘choice’. And the choices are poor and the savings are not there. Whoops.
so FUMO’s to blame for that — I knew we were screwed when I stared seeing ENRON commercials (and this was before their meltdown) but all of a sudden this Texas company is advertising for customers here. It was obvious the call for “deregulation” did not come from the citizens, we had to be prodded to participate.
well thank goodness you have the guts.
I can’t wait to read your book about the Barnes’ Foundation, the movie was only a teaser. Like I said, my knowledge was “informed” by the Inquirer. And I didn’t realize then what I know now.
Nothing is really ever what it seems, I guess.
Thank you so much for all of your (collective) work to bring this story to light.
Now, I do truly believe it is time to ring down the curtain on this invigorating discussion. Thanks again, Pups!
thanks!
actually, the de menil is in houston.
and the collection is the consequence of oil money: schlumberger.
the de menil’s also were the creators of DIA.
and dominque schlumberger’s husband, john de menil, may have been a conspirator in the jfk assassination. certainly he was a major player in training alpha 66.