Public Art Committee August 5, 2020 1:00 pm Regular ...

Public Art Committee August 5, 2020 1:00 pmRegular Meeting City Commission Chambers

AGENDA

I. Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call

II. Pledge of Conduct We may disagree, but we will be respectful of one another. We will direct all comments to issues. We will not engage in personal attacks.

III. Changes to the Order of the Day

IV. Approval of Minutes a) February 12, 2020 – Regular Meeting b) July 8, 2020 – Special Meeting

V. Citizen Input (Limited to 5 minutes per person - total time of 15 minutes)

VI. Presentations to the Board (Limited to 15 minutes with 5 minutes for rebuttal)

VII. New Business

a) Developer’s Public Art Proposal – 332 Cocoanut, Mark P. Famiglio b) Book Sales Discussion – Steve Cover and David Smith c) Public Art Contribution Discussion – Steve Cover and David Smith

VIII. Unfinished Business

a) Unconditional Surrender Discussion of Potential Display Locations – Steve Cover

and David Smith b) Update on 10th and 14th Street / US 41 roundabouts FDOT review – Steve Cover

and David Smith

IX. Citizen Input (Limited to 5 minutes per person – total time of 15 minutes)

X. Topics by Board Members

XI. Topics by Staff

XII. Adjournment

IV. Approval of Minutes a) February 12, 2020 – Regular Meeting

Page 1 of 132

CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE

FEBRUARY 12, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS Note: The City’s Website address is www.sarasotagov.com. Select “Watch Live and Archived Videos” from the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos of past meetings, and minutes.

Public Art Committee Members Present:

Josh Botzenhart, Chair Leslie Butterfield, Vice Chair Joanne McCobb Wendy Lerner Emmett Gregory Jeff Jamison

Members Absent:

Grace Hu, STAR Student

City Staff Present: Steve Cover, Planning Director David Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning Jaclyn Giovannone, Administrative Specialist Nancy Kelly, Neighborhood Planner


Chair Botzenhart called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm. Roll call taken by Planning Director Cover with members six (6) members present.

II. Pledge of Conduct

III. Changes to the Order of the Day None

IV. Approval of Minutes a) November 13, 2019 Motion: Member Lerner motioned to approve minutes of November 13, 2019, seconded by Member Jamison. b) October 30, 2019 Motion: Member Gregory motioned to approve minutes of October 30, 2019, seconded by Member Butterfield.

\

V. Citizen Input None Page 2 of 132

2

VI. Presentations to the Board

VII. New Business a) Sarasota Modern Hotel Public Art Extension Request – Mark Zeitouni, Sarasota Modern Hotel.

Motion: Member Jamison motioned to accept the extension request to June 12, 2020 for

Sarasota Modern Hotel, seconded by Vice Chair Butterfield. Vote: Motion passed unanimously (6-0)

b) Earth Day Mural funding request – Jeff Vredenburg, Sustainability Program Educator.

Motion: Member Gregory motioned to approve expenses up to $1,000 for the Earth Day

Mural project, seconded by Member Lerner. Vote: Motion passed unanimously (6-0)

c) Zahrada Developer’s Public Art Proposal – Brush by Design artists Matt Lemmons and Diane Kole

d) Renew Public Art Loan Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Dennis Kowal for “Ominous Ikon #69” located at Bayfront Park – David Smith

Motion: Vice Chair Butterfield motioned to not renew the Public Art on Loan contract

for “Ominous Ikon #69” and remove it in a timely manner, up to six months, seconded by Chair Botzenhart.

Vote: Motion passed unanimously (6-0)

e) Renew Public Art Loan Agreement between the City of Sarasota and Dennis Kowal for “Three

Graces” located at Five Points Park – David Smith

Motion: Vice Chair Butterfield motioned to not renew Public Art on Loan for “Three Graces”, seconded by Chair Botzenhart. Vote: Motion passed unanimously (6-0)

f) Acquisition Process for Artwork for the Fruitville Road/US 41 Roundabout – David Smith

Motion: Member Jamison motioned to request an RFQ for $250,000, seconded by

Member McCobb. Vote: Motion passed unanimously (6-0)

g) Art Historical Documentation Program Update – David Smith

h) Art on Loan Program Discussion – Joanne McCobb

i) Murals – Leslie Butterfield

Page 3 of 132

3

VIII. Unfinished Business None

IX. Citizen Input (Limited to 5 minutes per person – total time of 15 minutes) None

X. Topics by Board Members a) Liaison Work of Committee Members b) How we can help local artists?

1. Being able to offer a critique of sorts when these artists are at the meeting. 2. Possibly finding a pathway for artists who are in the area to win commissions – Joanne

McCobb.

XI. Topics by Staff a) Update on the Mark mural. b) Public Art Fund budget.

XII. Adjournment at 4:54 p.m.

Page 4 of 132

IV. Approval of Minutes b) July 8, 2020 – Special Meeting

Page 5 of 132

CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE

JULY 8, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS Note: The City’s Website address is www.sarasotagov.com. Select “Watch Live and Archived Videos” from the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos of past meetings, and minutes.

Public Art Committee Members Present:

Josh Botzenhart, Chair Leslie Butterfield, Vice Chair Joanne McCobb Wendy Lerner Emmett Gregory Jeff Jamison Grace Hu, STAR Student

Members Absent:

City Staff Present: Steve Cover, Planning Director David Smith, Manager of Long-Range Planning Jaclyn Giovannone, Administrative Specialist Nancy Kelly, Neighborhood Planner


Chair Botzenhart called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm. Roll call taken by Planning Director Cover with members seven (7) members present.

II. Pledge of Conduct

III. Changes to the Order of the Day

None

IV. Approval of Minutes

\

V. Citizen Input

Carl Turcey, resident of The Mark, request that the Public Art Committee and City Commission vacate the mural proposal and seek an alternative commitment from Kolter Urban LLC, to satisfy the City’s Public Art policy.

VI. Presentations to the Board

VII. New Business

a) Artworks Storage During Gulfstream Avenue/US 41 Roundabout Construction

Page 6 of 132

2

Motion: Vice Chair Butterfield motioned to recommend to City Commission to lend Complexus to the Sarasota Art Museum to be returned upon completion of the roundabout to a Bayfront location in the roundabout or nearby that is safe, seconded by Member McCobb.

Vote: Motion passed unanimously (7-0)

Motion: Vice Chair Butterfield motioned to recommend to City Commission to return

the addition of Unconditional Surrender to the Sculptor Foundation at their expense, seconded by Member Gregory.

Vote: Motion failed (3-4) Motion: Member McCobb motioned to recommend to City Commission that

Unconditional Surrender be moved into storage to allow more time for Public Art Committee to find a permanent location, seconded by Vice Chair Butterfield.

Vote: Motion approved (4-3)

b) Update on Mural Project was provided by Vice Chair Butterfield.


None

IX. Citizen Input (Limited to 5 minutes per person – total time of 15 minutes)

None

X. Topics by Board Members

XI. Topics by Staff

a) Public Art Fund Budget

XII. Adjournment at 5:51 p.m.

Page 7 of 132

VII. New Business a) Developer’s Public Art Proposal – 332 Cocoanut, Mark P.

Famiglio

Page 8 of 132

of 132

PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL

Page 12 of 132

of 132

Cocoanut Ave N/S 4th Street E/W

Page 14 of 132

Uniquely centered within the Rosemary District, 332 Cocoanut is a mixed-use boutique

community of 36 one and two bedroom residences ranging from 1082 sqft to 2659 sqft with

five commercial spaces occupying the ground and second floor. This ideal location is perfect

for convenient access to so much of what Sarasota has to offer. 332 Cocoanut offers a

modern living experience with a walkable community lifestyle. With spacious terraces to relax

and gaze over the vibrant neighborhood and surrounds—it’s a front row seat.

The seven floorplans are aptly named after film festivals around the world—Cannes, Toronto,

Sundance, Tribeca, Telluride, Austin and Sarasota. This location has been home to Sarasota

Film Festival for the last two decades. Developed by Mark Famiglio, President of Sarasota

Film Festival, 332 Cocoanut has provenance—Sarasota Film Festival will continue its artistic

and cultural mission headquartered in their 332 Cocoanut creative space.

There’s nothing else like it!http://332cocoanut.com/

https://www.facebook.com/332Cocoanut/https://www.instagram.com/332cocoanutsrq/Page 15 of 132

http://332cocoanut.com/

https://www.facebook.com/332Cocoanut/

https://www.instagram.com/332cocoanutsrq/

Enlightened by Sarasota’s rich arts and culture, this vibrant urban environment

and the crisp modern architecture, Mark Famiglio is tapping into his film fancy

and love for the arts to create an engaging digital art in motion platform. To quote

art pioneer Max Ernst -- “Creativity is that marvelous capacity to grasp mutually

distinct realities and draw a spark from their juxtaposition.” Influenced by

surrealist artists, Vince Fraser—a London based renowned visual artist—has

designed a number of fantastical visuals for Sarasota Film Festival over the

years. Mark and Vince are visionary collaborators of dynamic thought-provoking

themes, and for this public art project the outcome will be like no other.

It is the Famiglio Family vision for this motion art to be an homage to Sarasota

artists, our diverse arts community and our global connectiveness. One of the

featured elements expected would be capsules of the prestigious permanent

collection of Arts Advocates/Fine Arts Society. Since 1970, Arts Advocates/Fine

Arts Society of Sarasota has acquired works of art and displayed them at the

Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. The collection contains 53 pieces by Florida

artists and represents a wide range of media and styles dating from the 1930's to

the present. The collection includes such artists as Syd Solomon, Richard

Anuszkiewicz, John Coppin, Mary Sarg Murphy, Dorothy Gillespie and Eugene

White--to name a few.

With his signature surrealism and animated photography style, Vince will

masterfully create a fusion of images into an engaging, inspired digital motion

art-piece.

“It is a privilege to present this incredible platform as a celebration of Sarasota’s

history of art, sharing the mindful present and offering the boundless future”, as

Mark passionately puts it.

‘HOMAGE’ MOTION ART

Page 16 of 132

‘HOMAGE’ MOTION ART

West Elevation

Page 17 of 132

of 132

Southbound Cocoanut

Northbound Cocoanut

Page 19 of 132

of 132

Vince Fraser Bio

" Vision is the art of seeing what is invisible to others"

Vince Fraser is a freelance digital illustrator / designer based in London who has worked for various clients including British Airways, PC World, BBC and T-mobile. With ten years experience in the field of digital arts he is one of the most sought after image-makers working today. Having originally come from an interior design background, the progression to digital arts was a natural one. Specializing in digital illustration ranging from 2d vector work, photo-montage, image-manipulation and 3d modelling, Vince's work has continued to develop and inspire creating vibrant, innovative and evocative artwork. Implementing a variety of elements from photographs to typography and vector illustration his compositions conceal a broad palette. Having a great eye for detail he is always pushing the boundaries and describes his style as contemporary but with a twist of retro.

Vince's highly versatile work can be found anywhere internationally from mobile phone screensavers, VIP lounges through to luxury apartments and is starting to get the recognition it highly deserves.

His work is regularly featured in design and industry publications such as Advanced Photoshop, IDN, Computer Arts Projects and Digital Arts.

https://www.instagram.com/vincefraser/

http://www.dripbook.com/vincefraser/

http://www.vincefraser.com/

Page 21 of 132


http://www.dripbook.com/vincefraser/


Vince Fraser Digital Illustrationhttp://www.vincefraser.com/

Page 22 of 132


Vince Fraser Digital IllustrationBuilding Projection, SFF 2013, Palm Ave Parking Garage


Page 23 of 132



Page 24 of 132


of 132

DIGITAL MOTION ART AROUND THE WORLD

D’strict, ‘The Wave’, 2020 - Seoul, South Korea

https://www.travelandleisure.com/culture-design/visual-arts/the-wave-public-art-display-seoul

http://www.dstrict.com/arttechfactory/kr/65-Public_Media_Art_1.html

Page 26 of 132

https://www.travelandleisure.com/culture-



http://www.dstrict.com/arttechfactory/kr/65-Public_Media_Art_1.html

DIGITAL MOTION ART AROUND THE WORLD

Onformative, ‘Meandering River’, 2018 – Berlin, Germanyhttps://onformative.com/work/meandering-river

Page 27 of 132

https://onformative.com/work/meandering-river

ARTIST CONTRACT

Contract Amount: $40,000

SCOPE: Create, design, deliver and install a motion art platform inkeeping with the design and guidelines approved by ownerand the City of Sarasota Public Art Committee. The designincludes all structural engineering analysis: the art will beinstalled to meet applicable codes.

TIMEFRAME: Once approval is granted by the Public Art Committee, aformal contract will be entered into between the artist andthe owner.

Page 28 of 132

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

SCHEDULE

Vince Fraser will design, deliver and install a digital

motion art installation in Sarasota Florida as

described below.

(4) Samsung OH55F Outdoor Triple Display –

approximately 4 ft W x 2.5 ft H x 3.35 in D – shall be

installed with specified mounting bolts and power

source in association with the project’s contractor.

Digital programming shall be customized to

showcase the motion art as artistically intended and

in compliance, and with consideration to the location

and viewing preferences.

֍Approx. 8 – 12 weeks for design and digital format creation.

֍Approx. 10 – 12 weeks for equipment and digital programming.

֍Approx. 4 – 8 weeks for installation.

֍Completion and installation projected by Spring 2021*.

֍Public art dedication/reveal event is anticipated.*Projected installation timeframe may be affected by travel restrictions and other matters related to the pandemic.

Future considerations, as are feasible, will be made

for technology advancements and performance for

optimal display integrity of the art work.

Page 29 of 132

VII. New Business b) Book Sales Discussion – Steve Cover and David Smith

Page 30 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Mike ConnollySent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 4:21 PMTo: Steven CoverCc: David Smith; Robert FournierSubject: Re: Public Art Books

Steve, No, that is not what I said. I raised two separate issues below, i.e. copyright and profit. You have blended the issues together, but they must be analyzed separately. As to the second issue, I am willing to argue that the City is not receiving a profit if the money goes into the public art fund. But, that argument would be raised in response to a copyright holder challenging the City for selling the books for a profit. The first issue is the copyright rights held by any entity other than the City. The only way to avoid the risk I described below (the copyright issue) is to get each copyright holder to agree in writing to the City's public art book sale program. Mike

From: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 4:06 PM To: Mike Connolly <[email protected]> Cc: David Smith <[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Public Art Books

So just to make sure I understand, if the City sells the book for more than what it cost to produce it, and the extra revenue goes into our public art fund, then we don’t have any issues and we don’t have to contact each of the copyright holders?

From: Mike Connolly <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 3:48 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Cc: David Smith <[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Public Art Books

Steve, My main concern is copyright. The agreement with the vendor who prepared the public art book states that any copyright associated with the project deliverables belongs to the City. As such, the vendor who provided the public art book does not have the legal ability to challenge the City's sale of the public art book. Of course, the public art book contains pictures of a few dozen works of public art. I do not know who holds the copyright for each of those works. For example, as it relates to Unconditional Surrender, I believe that the artist's foundation holds the copyright. Any artist or entity holding a copyright to a work of art depicted in the

Page 31 of 132

2

book could have a legal basis to challenge the City receiving a financial gain arising out of a picture of the work of art. As a result of the potential that a copyright holder could legally challenge, I suggest that the City determine the copyright holder of each work of art depicted in the book; contact that entity; and ask if they have any objections to the City's desire to sell public art books which contain a picture of the copyrighted work. There is another issue to be considered. If the City places the "profit" (i.e. the excess revenues from sale of the public art book) into the Public Art Fund, is that really a profit? If the excess proceeds resulting from book sales are used to purchase or maintain public art, the City is not profiting from the sale of the book. Rather, those members of the general public who enjoy public art are benefiting. This point establishes a public purpose for the use of the excess revenues and establishes that the City is not profiting from the sale of the public art book. To summarize, if the City sells the public art books for some amount of money in excess of what it cost to produce the public art book, any copyright holder of a work of art depicted in the book could conceivably legally challenge the City's action. Is the City ready, willing and able to take that risk? The risk can be eliminated if the copyright holders agree in writing to the City's public art book sale program. Furthermore, if the "profit" from the sale of the books is used to purchase or maintain public art, the City is not actually selling the public art books for a profit. Rather, the City is using the public art books and the public art depicted in the books to partially fund purchase and maintenance of the public art. Let me know if you have any further questions. Mike

From: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:42 AM To: Mike Connolly <[email protected]> Cc: David Smith <[email protected]> Subject: Public Art Books

Mike, I was wondering if we could sell our new Public Art books for more than what paid (or for a profit) if the proceeds went into our Public Art Fund? Thanks, Steve Steven R. Cover, AICP Planning Director City of Sarasota 1565 First Street Sarasota, FL 34236 Telephone: (941) 263‐6480 Fax: (941) 954‐4179 E‐Mail: [email protected]

Page 32 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Arnold Seitel <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 12:14 PMTo: David SmithCc: Leslie Butterfield; Gary GalatiSubject: Book costs

Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! Hi David, Please excuse the delay, for the cost numbers.. A lot going on Basic Cost, specific to the Book only Printing of books: $17,250 Shipping $ 1,500 Research $ 3,000 Writing/Design $13,000 Photography $6,000 ————————— TOTAL $40,750 Per book $ 40.75 Arnie Seitel GS Resources [email protected] 817.296.7154

Page 33 of 132

VII. New Business c) Public Art Contribution Discussion – Steve Cover and David

Smith

Page 34 of 132

Municipality Percent for Art Municipal Participation Private Developers Minimum/Threshold Cap/Max per

Project Exclusions Ordinance Special Notes

Bradenton

public art funded by TIFF tax funding generated from the Downtown and 14th St CRA’s

Yes No N/A N/A N/A

TIFF tax mechanism resulted from 2009 Realize Bradenton Cultural Master Plan developed by the Knight Foundation in tandem with Bradenton Culture and Business Alliance

Recognizes public art as an important program to help revitalize downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods.

Bonita Springs 1 percent Yes No $100,000 for major renovation $100,000 Public buildings not used by public and in which public employees do not regularly work. No. 05-18 Allocation made to public art fund at time construction or renovation

begins.

Boynton Beach 1 percent Yes Yes $250,000 NoneA. Remodel/repairs due to fire or natural disaster.B. Affordable housing.C. Construction less than $250,000

Ordinance 07-002, amending Ordinance 05-060, codified as Article XII, Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach.

Encompasses any construction, redevelopment or structural alteration of a private or public building within the city limits.

Clearwater 1 percent Yes Yes$500,000 for CIP.Private developers are encouraged.

$200,000For CIP, street resurfacing,, major drainage, wastewater and below-grade utilities are excluded.

Ordinance 7489-05, codified as Division 24, Community Development Code, sections 3-2401-3-2407.

* Notes that > 300 communities throughout the U.S. have implemented public art programs.* Included within ambit of eligible CIP are buildings, greenways, new roads, parking facilities, bridges and other above-ground projects.

Coconut Creek

$0.50 SF for new construction;$0.25 SF for remodeling

Yes Yes12,500 square feet in gross floor area in non-residential zone districts

None

A. For CIP, public works and utilities are excluded.B. For private developers, residential construction is excluded.C. Remodeling/repairs due to fire or natural disaster are excluded.

Ordinance 2008-008, codifiedas sections 13-143 to 13-146, Division 1, Article II, Chapter 13, Coconut Creek Code of Ordinances.

* Parking garages, structures and decks are subject to public art fee if > 12,500 SF.* Ordinance specifies in-lieu-of rate for cash contributions by developers of $0.40 SF for new construction and $0.20 SF for remodels/conversions.

Coral Gables1 percent for private1.5 percent for government building

Yes, but allocations dedicated for restoration, maintenance and acquisition of Historic Public Art.

Yes$1 million for non- municipal projects, adjusted annually based on CPI.

None

A. Single family homes are excluded.B. Blanket exclusion for accredited college/university that maintains on-campus public art collection of 30 or more works.

Ordinance enacted in 2007 codified as Division 20, Article 3 of the Zoning Code of the City of Coral Gables.

* Notes that > 300 communities throughout the U.S. have implemented public art programs.* Historic Public Art allocations codify 1985 policy recognizing Coral Gables' responsibility for its numerous fountains, plazas, entrances, murals, sculptures, decorative features and other historic landmarks.

Coral Springs

$0.50 SF for new construction;$0.25 SF for remodeling

Yes Yes 12,500 square feet in gross floor area. None

A. Development, redevelopment, remodeling and conversion in residential districts is excluded.B. Development, redevelopment, remodeling and conversion in mixed- use or multi-family districts is excluded if on a plot of less than 1 acre.

Ordinance 2003-114 as amended by Ord. 2008-100, codified in Chapter 6 of Land Development Code of City of Coral Springs.

* Notes that > 300 communities throughout the U.S. have implemented public art programs.* Ordinance specifies in-lieu-of rate for cash contributions of $0.40 SF for new construction and $0.20 for remodels/conversions.* Contributions are referenced in 2003 dollars, which are adjusted annually based on CPI.

Delray Beach 1.5 percent Yes No $200,000 None None Section 8.5.1 of City of Delray Beach Land Development Regulations.

* Program adopted in 2005.* City raided public art fund in March, 2012 because of $3 million budget deficit.

Dunedin 0.5

Yes. Capital Improvement budget projects with vertical construction.

Private owners and developers are encouraged, but not required.

None $500,000

A. Street, alley, sidewalk or sewer projects.B. Stormwater management projects.C. The purchase and installation of equipment that is not attached to, or is not an integral part of, the facility and could be easily removed.

Ordinance 18-14, Chapter 110 of the Land Development Code

*Notes that > 300 communities throughout the U.S. have implemented public art programs.

Fort Myers 1 percent Yes Encouraged, but not required $250,000 $250,000 Churches Ordinance 118.7.6

* Provides for reduction of contribution to 1 percent for private developers who make cash contributions to pubic art fund in lieu of placing art on site.* Requires disbursements for public art to be distributed equally among all wards within the city.

Page 35 of 132



Gainesville 1 percent Yes No A. None for new construction.B. $100,000 for renovations. $100,000

A. Public buildings not used by public and in which public employees do not regularly work are excluded.B. Land acquisition costs, equipment and furniture costs are excluded.

Ordinance 3509 codified as Chapter 5.5 of City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances.

* Site work and supervision are included.* Utility and public works operation centers, processing plants, staging centers and warehouses are included but tanks, pipes, controls and boilers are excluded from public art fee.

Homestead

1.5 percent for municipal CIPs0.5 percent for private developers

Yes Yes $1,000,000 $100,000

A. interior/exterior modifications, additions or new construction of single family homes with a project cost under $1,000,000;B. developments for commercial sale of less than 3 residential units;C. schools;D. churches;E. places of worship; andF. repairs/rehabs necessitated by fire or natural disaster.

Ordinance2012-03-02, as amended by Ordinance 2010-04-11, Ordinance 2012- 02 and 2011-22, codified in Article V (Public Art Program), Chapter 32 (Design Standards), Homestead City Code.

* Municipal CIPs subject to 1.5 percent public art fee imposed by Miami-Dade Art in Public Places Ordinance.* Homestead established its own AIPP ordinance in 2010 that extends public art requirement to private development.* Reduced art fee from 1 to half a percent for private developers in 2011 in recognition of the prolonged economic recession and local real estate market conditions.* Increased threshold for imposition of public art fee for private developers for same reason.* Decreased max/cap of public art contribution from $500,000 to $100,000 for private developers for same reason.* Faced with same conditions, City of St. Petersburg went in other direction by decreasing threshold and caps and increasing public art percentage (see below).

Jacksonville 0.75 percent Yes No $100,000 None None Ordinance 2004-602-E * Jacksonville public art program originally adopted in April of 1997.* Program has generated more than $3 million for public artworks.

Key West 1 percent Yes YesA. $500,000 for new construction.B. $100,000 for renovations.

A. New construction and renovations excluded if not qualified as "major development plans" pursuant to Chapter 108 of City of Key West Code of Ordinances.B. Architectural fees and engineering costs.C. Asbestos abatement and other environmental preparation.D. Site work.

Ordinance 11-01, codified as Chapter 2 of the City of Key West Code of Ordinances

* Program depended on donations from inception in 2000 until January, 2011.* Program made mandatory to "stimulate the vitality and economy of Key West" and contribute toward "making Key West the Island of the Arts."* Key West anticipating $100 million in new projects in 2013.

Lauderhill 1 percent Yes Yes None None

Excluded are:A. Public works, utilities and non-facility infrastructure.B. Remodel/repairs due to fire or natural disaster.C. Affordable housing.D. Residential renovations, rehabs and repairs.E. Single-family residential dwellings already in existence on 9/13/04.

Ordinance 040-08-162, codified as Article II, Chapter 6 of City of Lauderhill Code of Ordinances.

* Adopted 09/13/04.

Miami Beach 2 percent Yes No None None None Ordinance 95-95-2985

Page 36 of 132



Miami Gardens 1.5 percent Yes No None None

A. Water and sewer related facilities, such as pump stations, water mains, water lines, sewer lines, treatment facilities, etc. B. Storm drainage infrastructure. C. Road construction or bridges. D. Streetscape beautification projectsE. Repairs/rehabs necessitated by fire or natural disaster.F. The construction, remodeling, repair or improvement to a public electric or gas utility system. G. City construction projects undertaken to remodel, repair, or maintain of an existing public building or facility.

Resolution No. 2010-09-1191adopted 1-13-2010.

* Miami Gardens does not maintain its own public art program.* Instead, it contributes 1.5 percent of the cost of CIPs for public art as required by Miami-Dade County Art in Public Places Ordinance 2-11.15 (MDC-APP), which requires municipalities within Miami-Dade County to allocate funs for public art out of new CIPs.* Rather than adopt and maintain its own program, Miami Gardens pays Miami- Dade County a fee of roughly 5% of the required allocation to implement and administer the program for covered municipal construction.

Naples $1 per square foot Yes Yes None None

Excluded are:A. residential square footage;B. residential component of mixed use projects;C. parking structures and accessory uses serving on- site residential use; andD. utility projects that are inaccessible, such as storage tanks and transformers.

Ordinance 06-11447, amended by 07-11887 and 09-12573, codified as section 46-42 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples.

* Notes that > 300 communities throughout the U.S. have implemented public art programs.* Program originally implemented 11/15/06.* Payment of the public art fee is required at the time of permit issuance.

North Miami 1.5 percent Yes No None None None Ordinance 1291 adoptedJanuary 12, 2010.

*The North Miami public art ordinance mirrors Miami-Dade County Art In Public Places Ordinance 2-11.15 (MDC-APP).

Orlando 1 percent Yes

No, except that a developer may only qualify for an increase in zoning density or intensity in the AC-3A/t district by contributing 1 percent of its total construction costs to the public art fund.

None

$500,000(public art fee applies to the first$50 million of any CIP)

Ordinance of 12-12-1983, Doc. # 18230, codified as sections 2.168-2.175, Article XXIII, City of Orlando Code of Ordinances governs CIPs; Ordinance of 7-23-2001,sections 3-15, Doc.#33944, codified as Chapter 6B, Bonuses in Office, Mixed Use Corridor and Activity Center Districts.

* Notes that works of art, architectural enhancement and special landscape treatments must be an integral part of the City of Orlando if the city is to exemplify the quality of life embodied in the title "The City Beautiful."* City maintains a portable works collection in City Hall that provides intellectual and aesthetic enrichment to the community; encourages and promotes art and its appreciation throughout Central Florida; and focuses on but is not limited to works by Florida artists.* City Hall art collection also accommodates touring collections, student works and works loaned by museums, public and private collections.

Palm Beach Gardens 1 percent No Yes 1,000,000 None

A. Public art fee applies only to vertical construction costs.B. Site infrastructure is excluded.C. Parking garages are excluded.D. Residential development is excluded.E. The residential component of mixed use development is excluded.

Ordinance 11, 2002,Ordinance 17, 2004,Ordinance 1, 2007 andOrdinance 37, 2009, codifiedas Chapter 78, Division 6, Subdivision 1 (Art in Public Places) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.

Pompano Beach 2 percent Yes No None None Affordable housing projects. Chapter 160, Title XV of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Pompano Beach.

* CIPs include any building, structure, park, utility, street sidewalk or parking facility within the city limits.* Notes that the economic benefits of public art have been identified by the National Endowment for the Arts, which reports that every dollar spent by local government on the arts generates more than $11 from the private section in ticket sales and philanthropic donations.* Also notes that Americans for the Arts research reveals that cultural tourists tend to stay longer at their destinations, stay at higher quality hotels and spend more time and money in restaurants and on retail.

Page 37 of 132



Port St. Lucie 1 percent Yes Yes None

$100,000(only applies to first $5 million) for any single capital project.

A. Excludes land costs.B. Excludes transportation and utility projects from eligible CIPs.C. Residential development with less than 10 units.

Ordinance 18-67

* Notes that a town with public art is a town that believes in itself, thinks creatively and feels deeply.* Includes residential and commercial development projects.* Includes within eligible CIPs construction/remodeling of city buildings, decorative and commemorative structures, parks, parking facilities and beautification projects.

St. Petersburg

2 percent of the first $2.5 million of construction cost of CIPs.1 percent of construction cost of CIPS between$2.5 and $10 million.3/4 percent of construction cost in excess of $10 million.

Yes No $100,000 $500,000 Section 5-56 of St. Petersburg Code of Ordinances.

* Percent for Art program started in 1990.* Created collection of 73 public artworks through 06/30/12.* Noting the cost of some of the city's more recent public art projects ranged from a low of $50,000 to $160,000, St. Petersburg doubled percent for art on projects under $2.5 million from 1 to 2 percent; doubled the percent from 0.5 to 1 percent on projects between $2.5 and$7.5; removed the $7.5 million cap; added a 1 percent fee on projects from $7.5 to$10 million; added a 3/4 of one percent fee on projects exceeding $10 million; and reduced the threshold for applicability from $300,000 to $100,000.* Also instrumental to these changes were costs of public art projects in neighboring cities, e.g. Face the Jury at $90,000 on Pinellas County Courthouse, Lights on Tampa at $150,000 on University of Tampa Plant Hall, and Cloud Gate (the bean) for $23 million in Chicago's Millennium Park.

Sunrise 1 percent Yes No $1 million None

Base excludes:A. architectural and engineering fees;B. asbestos abatement and environmental preparation; andC. site work.Renovations are only included to the extent they constitute a major redesign of all or a portion of a public place

Resolution No. 02-215

Tamarac 1 percent Yes Yes None None

A. Public works and utilities non-facility infrastructure projectsB. Repairs/rehabs necessitated by fire or natural disasterC. Affordable Housing

Ordinance 0-2004-15, codified as Article XI, Chapter 5 of the Tamarac City Code.

* Includes development, redevelopment, renovation and repair of public, residential and private development.

Tampa 0.75 percent for new construction only Yes Yes in CBD None $200,000

Ordinance 2007-10-, amended Ordinance 2004-15, amended Ordinance 2000-227, codified as Chapter 4, and Chapter 27, Article XVIII, section 27-436 and 27-441 of the Tampa Code of Ordinances.

* Includes public buildings, decorative or commemorative structures, parking facilities and parks within the city's geographical boundaries as they now or hereafter exist.* Notes that public art in private real estate development creates a competitive edge by attracting people who are curious about the artwork and therefore likely to pause to enjoy the artwork and return to experience it again while shopping, conducting business or visiting Tampa.

Tarpon Springs 1 percent No Yes 1000000 None

A. Development of single family lots is exempted.B. Affordable housing is exempted.C. Projects whose construction value is under $1 million is exempted.

Ordinance 2008-30, codified as Article XVII of the Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code of Tarpon Springs

Village of Key Biscayne 1.5 percent Yes No None None A. land acquisition

Section 2-141 through 2-146 of Article VII (Works of Art in Public Places), Chapter 2 (Administration) of Part II of the Key Biscayne, Florida Code of Ordinances.

*Coincides with Miami-Dade County Artin Public Places Ordinance 2-11.15 (MDC- APP).

Page 38 of 132



Village of Palmetto Bay

1.5 percent for municipal CIPs1 percent in case of cash contributions by private developers to public art fund.1.25 percent of proposed project development for private developers who choose to place public art on site.

Yes Yes $250,000 generally $400,000

A. affordable housing, religious facility or social service provider;B. damage from fire, flood, wind, or other calamity;C. single-family residential development cD. governmental development projects that do not include buildings.

Ordinance No. 07-05 (3-5-2007) and 07-20 (6-18-2007),codified as Division 30-160 (Art in Public Places) of Article II (Land Development Code) of Chapter 30 (Zoning) of Village of Palmetto Bay Code of Ordinances

* Specifically includes interior and exterior modifications, parking garages, mixed use property, and individual tenant improvements.* Preamble recognizes correlation between public art and increased property values.* Preamble expresses intent to create cultural legacy for future generations and chronicle history of the community.* Palmetto Bay was the first municipality in Miami-Dade County to have adopted its own art-in-publicplaces ordinance in conjunction with the county’s public art ordinance.

West Palm Beach 1 percent Yes Yes

None for municipal

$750,000 for private development

2 million for private development

Excludes:A. Single-family residences not developed as a planned development;B. Ordinary property maintenance;C. Repairs and restoration resulting from fire, flood, windstorm or other natural disasterD. Affordable residential housing units where at least 51 percent of the units are reserved for affordable housing;E. Institutional usesF. non-profit entity G. Industrial and commercial development that is not open or accessible to the general public

Ordinance 1913-85 and 2365-90, codified as 78-121 to 78- 123 of the West Palm Beach City Code.

* Murals may be located anywhere in the city provided it is first approved by permit issued by the city building official in accordance with the procedures and criteria listed in this section.* The art in public places committee then decides if the permit should be issued based upon a finding that:A. the mural will enhance the aesthetic beauty of the area of its proposed location;B. the artist is capable of completing the work in accordance with the plans and specification;C. durability and maintenance; andD. value of adjoining or abutting properties will not be adversely impacted.

Page 39 of 132


a) Unconditional Surrender Discussion of Potential Display Locations – Steve Cover and David Smith

Page 40 of 132

Publicly Owned Land for Potential Unconditional Surrender Display

Bayfront Park North Water Tower Park Bobby Jones Golf Course Legacy Trail (Sarasota County) Ed Smith Stadium (Sarasota County) Whitaker Gateway Park Pioneer Park Lukewood Park Ringling Museum (TIITF/FSU Ringling Center Cultural Arts) The Bay Sarasota Police Department (open space on west side of building) Payne Park Ken Thompson Park / City Island St. Armands Circle (windspeed of 160 mph) Lido Beach (windspeed of 160 mph) Sarasota National Cemetery (US government c/o Dept of Veteran Affairs) Sarasota County Fairgrounds (Sarasota County Agricultural Fair Association)

Windspeed map: https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=6fe3ba01d7314d009796889bbc188757&extent=-82.6658,27.2423,-82.3922,27.4201 Foundation is currently rated for 130 mph windspeed and is being evaluated for 150 mph windspeed by a structural engineer.

Page 41 of 132

BAYFRONT DR

RINGLING BLVD

Possible Locations in Bayfront Park for Relocation of Unconditional Surrender(Identified by Red Circles)

·0 250125Feet

Page 42 of 132

Public Comments Received

Page 43 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Potentate <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:04 PMTo: David SmithSubject: Never Surrender Statue

Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click!

Hi, I am Gary Fields the Potentate (CEO) of Sahib Shriners We are located at 600 N. Beneva Road, Sarasota, Florida 34232. Sahib Shriners are a not for profit 501C.10 corporation. We are part of the Shriners International whose mission is to provide transportation and health care to children at hospitals or clinics located in twenty‐two cities across North America. Since learning of the Never Surrender statue being moved for road construction at its current location, we are interested in having it placed either temporary or permanently on our property. Once you look at our location, you will see it is a natural fit. Besides our offices we have the Sarasota Event Center and Heroes Grill in our building. Our membership is made up of veterans from the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. We have members who have served in every conflict since World War II. We are dedicated in honoring these heroes. Sahib has plenty of free parking, a great location for displaying this artwork, security cameras, great lighting, in a large residential area and easy access to any location in Sarasota. We are near the Bobby Jones Golf course and easy we have easy entrances and exits to our location. We also have close working relationships with the police and fire departments in our area. We would like to make a presentation to the committee and would like to be considered for this sculpture. You can also contact me at 502‐639‐3911. Thanks for your attention in this matter. Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Page 44 of 132

1

David Smith

From: JIM lampl <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:23 PMTo: David SmithCc: Steven CoverSubject: “Unconditional Surrender”


Please distributaries to Committe Members So many reasons for removing: 1. Why put ANYTHING on the Bayfront that obstructs/distracts from its most important asset ‐ its beauty? 2. Safety ‐ any driver distraction at this new Roundabout is dangerous! 3. As with the original Committee vote of 5‐0, as now, it doesn’t qualify for our Public Art Standards. 4. No matter the celebratory occasion at the time, we all know that is WAS and IS Non‐consensual, and we can’t/should not condone it. If we’re stuck with this piece of kitch, then move it to Ken Thompson Park. Doubtful that it would fetch any real money at auction. Jim lampl Downtown

Page 45 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 10:38 AMTo: David SmithCc: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobb; Steven Cover; Shayla Griggs; Thomas Barwin; Marlon Brown; John Lege; City Commissioners

Subject: Fwd: public input for July 8 2020 meeting of public art committee - Kafi BenzAttachments: photograph of original publication in bound volume.jpg; sequence-8-web.jpg; frame 24 - woman

socks sailor in face.jpg; frame 25 - woman pulls dress down - published image.jpg; frame 26 - woman lets go of dress arm raises again.jpg; frame 27 - woman socks sailor again in the face.jpg; 20200616 letter to public art committee2.pdf; ignorance is no excuse_w_image.pdf


Dear David, I watched the public art committee meeting of July 8, 2020 and am very unhappy that my input was not presented at the meeting. It was my understanding during the conversation you and I had on the telephone ‐‐ that the images and documents I provided would be public input at the meeting so that it would be part of the public record. I asked whether printed copies of the documents and photographs could be presented and was assured that they would. Now I suspect that they will be relegated to the backup materials rather than as public input at the meeting. Please see the highlighted and bold emphasis I have given to my follow‐up e‐mail to you (below) noting my understanding following our conversation, of how my public input would be handled at the meeting ‐‐ as if I were present. As I noted to you, I do not have a computer with the capability to participate in the audio and visual features of zoom (or the like) meetings and do not have a cell phone with the capacity to take video that could be submitted during meetings. My participation is limited to viewing the meeting and being able to use the chat function, if offered. The masks that provide protection to the wearer, such as N95, are not available to the public because they are in short supply and should be reserved for our medical and health professionals. No other masks provide wearer‐protection for people with known vulnerabilities. Those with known vulnerabilities to the virus, therefore, are advised to remain in isolation. That is my situation. I admire the steps the city has taken to protect citizens and urge them to advance even farther. This pandemic is merely in its initial stages so the city needs to find ways to provide safe circumstances for people to participate in meetings being held for public input. Masks should be made available to persons wanting to participate and safe environments for them to participate need to be provided. I also recommend the acquisition of a supply of N95 masks in order for the city to provide one to vulnerable people who wish to participate. A combination of the e‐mail submission of documents and perhaps, accompanying audio via telephone connections should be considered to accommodate those who are well‐advised not take the risk of participation in the type of adaptations you are able to provide. Perhaps the city audio‐visual staff could be available by appointment to make videos of those who are advised to exercise extreme caution and arrange to do that in safer environments, such as outdoors. The visual information they want to submit could be displayed during the meeting in their place by staff. This is a time for some creative thinking about safe techniques.

Page 46 of 132

2

Having watched the meeting, I felt even more convinced that it was something that should be avoided by those with known vulnerabilities to the coronavirus. Holding those wanting to provide input in a small and closed room (#112) for any length of time puts every one of them in danger of contagion. The ventilation is inadequate and exposure to aerosols is finally being recognized as especially dangerous. Because the eyes are another avenue for aerosols into the body for this virus, face shields (or goggles) plus masks are used by professionals having to be in closed environments for more than ten minutes with those infected or where they have been. An infected person may not have symptoms, or may not yet have symptoms. None of us really knows what our current status is. The recommended precautions for physical distancing and sanitation in the chambers was ignored frequently at the meeting. Generally available masks provide only minimal protection to the wearer, being more of a protection of others. Of great concern during the meeting, masks were not necessarily worn correctly, with gaps to the sides and occasionally being dropped (i.e, for staff to whisper into the ears of other staff), and frequently being touched or handled incorrectly during adjustments and shifting their position on the faces. The outside of masks is known to be coated with any aerosol of the virus encountered by the wearer. The contamination then would be transferred to the hands, to objects touched, including the documents circulated by the members of the committee among themselves, their personal and city equipment, and the surfaces of the chairs and tables. Physical distancing often was not practiced by the staff. As contagion rates continue to rise, city staff, board members, and committee members need to be trained in the safe use of the precautions available and safe procedures recommended. These are unfamiliar to most and difficult to follow consistently in most conventional settings. A motion to return the statue to the Johnson foundation was the first to be made. It failed by one vote. Perhaps my input might have been the basis for that vote to have prevailed. That is why I am so concerned about it not having been presented at the meeting. The vote that finally stood for the recommendation by the committee to the commission wound up being to put the statue into storage. The logic being that decisions about what to do with it could be explored for some final determination. A good deal of money could be saved for the committee if the statue were collected by the foundation as provided in the agreements the city has. Given the result of the meeting, I believe that my information now will need to be presented to the full commission. I would like to participate in efforts to ensure that there is a safe environment for me to do that. How do we go about this? Kafi On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:00 AM Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]> wrote: Dear David, As I discussed with you during our telephone conversation, I have multiple factors of vulnerability that make me better advised to avoid public gatherings during this pandemic, So I will have to rely upon the attached as my public input. Thank you for assuring me that the documents and images I have provided will be taken into consideration as if I were able to present them at the July 8, 2020 public meeting of the public art committee during the discussion under VII. New Business, a) Artworks Storage During Gulfstream Avenue / US 41 Roundabout Construction. Although I address the social issues with the statue entitled Unconditional Surrender, the committee should be concerned primarily with the artistic factors I have noted regarding its failure to meet standards for public art in Sarasota. Those alone should be the basis for recommending the exercise of the option to return the statue to its source during the timely opportunity to do so, rather than to deliberate its disposition during the intersection construction. The social issues I have noted regarding the statue also are important to our community and may be considered as significant secondary factors for your recommendation for the deliberation by the city commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the meeting.

Page 47 of 132

3

Cordially, Kafi Benz president, Friends of "Seagate" sculpture studio director, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:17 PM Subject: Fwd: public art committee ‐ letter and images re unconditional surrender To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Sorry should have included you for the public records.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:49 PM Subject: public art committee ‐ letter and images re unconditional surrender To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>

Dear art committee members and staff, Please review the attached letter, document, and images hereby submitted for the public record regarding the statue known as Unconditional Surrender and your deliberation for a recommendation to the city commissioners in their deliberation about its removal from the Sarasota bay front. Kafi Benz

Page 48 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:00 AMTo: David SmithCc: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobb; Shayla Griggs; Steven CoverSubject: public input for July 8 2020 meeting of public art committee - Kafi BenzAttachments: photograph of original publication in bound volume.jpg; sequence-8-web.jpg; frame 24 - woman



Dear David, As I discussed with you during our telephone conversation, I have multiple factors of vulnerability that make me better advised to avoid public gatherings during this pandemic, So I will have to rely upon the attached as my public input. Thank you for assuring me that the documents and images I have provided will be taken into consideration as if I were able to present them at the July 8, 2020 public meeting of the public art committee during the discussion under VII. New Business, a) Artworks Storage During Gulfstream Avenue / US 41 Roundabout Construction. Although I address the social issues with the statue entitled Unconditional Surrender, the committee should be concerned primarily with the artistic factors I have noted regarding its failure to meet standards for public art in Sarasota. Those alone should be the basis for recommending the exercise of the option to return the statue to its source during the timely opportunity to do so, rather than to deliberate its disposition during the intersection construction. The social issues I have noted regarding the statue also are important to our community and may be considered as significant secondary factors for your recommendation for the deliberation by the city commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the meeting. Cordially, Kafi Benz president, Friends of "Seagate" sculpture studio director, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:17 PM Subject: Fwd: public art committee ‐ letter and images re unconditional surrender To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>


Page 49 of 132

2



Page 50 of 132

June 16, 2020 Dear Public Art Committee Members, Regarding the statue on the bay front, known as Unconditional Surrender, which is about to be removed for intersection construction, I request that you recommend to the city commission that it not be returned to our bay front when the construction is completed.

A decade ago, your public art committee unanimously recommended against accepting the statue and the reasons for that recommendation have not changed. In fact, a contemporary turn of events lends even more weight to making the same recommendation.

A decade ago, I submitted a good deal of documentation about the statue that should be available to you through the city records and archives. Many others provided documentation and statements as well, that should be reviewed for your determination. If you are unable to access those records, I can provide additional materials, please let me know.

The factors that you should consider include both artistic issues and social issues.

Regarding the artistic issues, the following are the primary reasons the statue should not be displayed as public art by Sarasota,

> it is a copyright infringement of the work of a photographer of national stature

> the statue is not “art” – it is a manufactured object that never was touched by an artist, being machine-made in China by technicians

> it is not an original work, as stipulated in the guidelines for public art in this city, multiple copies of this manufactured object were distributed to several locations, and Sarasota was not even the first to receive one

> it is quintessential kitsch, the antithesis of fine art

Additionally, a social issue is a reason the statue should not be displayed on the Sarasota bay front. It’s subject matter is the romanticizing of a violent domination that resonates clearly, adversely affecting those who have suffered such domination and potentially encouraging confusion about behavior that should be discouraged in a healthy society.

Please see the attached document, entitled Ignorance is no excuse, for more details, include this letter and the attached document and images in the official records for your review of this matter, and to be included among the materials provided to the commissioners, as well, for their deliberations on your recommendation. Please contact me with any questions or for more information. Sincerely, Kafi Benz president, Friends of “Seagate” Inc. sculpture studio director, Jim Gary’s Twentieth Century Dinosaurs

Page 51 of 132

Ignorance is no excuse Throughout the United States people finally are taking down statues raised to glorify those defending slavery and the egos of those who have sought to remain dominant over others they would enslave. Objections raised by generations of those who understood the continual affront embodied in those statues -- had been dismissed or intimidated into seething silence. So what is Sarasota doing? Sarasota is allowing those who have heard for years about a similar reality projected by our kitsch-on-the-bay, to dismiss the numerous objections to it – because they think it is cute.

socking him in the face, pulling her dress back down before arm is raised to punch him in the face again Four exposures were taken of the original assault. The first of them even shows the woman socking the sailor in the face. Another shows her attempt to keep her dress from being dragged up her body by the man holding her in a headlock with one arm and pushing up her skirt as he exerts his tight grip with the other. He has forced her backward, off balance, on one foot. Her right arm is fending him off even though it is wedged between their bodies. Her one free arm is the only futile defense she has. It is an assault that could be grounds for courts marshal or arrest in any age, even the 1940s. Of all the photographs of celebrations around the country on V-J Day that were published in the edition of Life magazine that included that of Eisenstaedt, his is the only one without clear mutual engagement in the “kissing”. The reality of the photograph waited for decades before understanding caught up with it. But that information was available ten years ago. Voices raised about its reality have encountered intimidation – a tactic used against those who objected to the statues now being removed throughout the nation. Their repulsion is ridiculed and mocked, another familiar tactic. It has taken national protests for action against that kind of bullying. How long will it take for this glorified unwelcome domination to be removed from the bay front of Sarasota? The assault is but one reason the kitsch-on-the-bay should never have been placed on public land. Sarasota considers herself a civic-minded community and one that is proud of the artistic talents displayed – a cultural center of the state. Yet, our kitsch is a copyright infringement of a revered

Page 52 of 132

photographer. Johnson had an attorney direct him how to tweak the image enough that he could fight back strongly in any lawsuit defending the copyright. Hence the bizarre roses inserted incongruously into the design instead of showing her pinned arm struggling to fend him off. There are no roses in the photograph copied – they are a legal device -- suggested by an expensive attorney. The statue is not art – it was created by a machine built for an extremely wealthy dilettante who wanted to be called an artist. His fabulous wealth enabled him to hire technicians and build facilities to engineer the fabrication of the products of his perverse contempt for authentic artists, using photographs. No authentic artists consider these fabrications “art” – they are manufactured, “kitsch”, and blatant copies of works of artists Johnson envied. Not a single one of his statues is of something original. His inferiority complex drove him to attempt to diminish the works he copied. He added to each, distortions or obscene aspects, about which he proudly proclaimed his perverse enjoyment in published interviews. For our kitsch, he flared out the skirt and provided a peek up it – deliberately enabling a titillating feature for those inclined. Such deep undercuts are not found in fine art sculpture. The statue had to be reinforced specially, to enable it. Our manufactured kitsch fails to meet the city policy of displaying original works for public art. There are numerous iterations of the statue. It certainly is not unique to Sarasota. Ignorance of the factors that make this statue an embarrassment to Sarasota, is no excuse. All of this information (and more) was provided from many sources a decade ago to newspapers, government officials, and the public. The public art committee unanimously rejected it. One vote broke a tie at the commission table when a commissioner voted for it because of a relative being in the navy. Recently, the former commissioner wrote eloquently about those we had enslaved and their descendants who have had to encounter statues dedicated to those who wanted to dominate them. I hope consideration of such affronts is extended to those having to pass by the kitsch-on-the-bay, who cringe internally by having it displayed on public land and knowing their objections to the glorification of that unwelcome domination have likewise, been dismissed. Of all the factors against keeping that statue, it is the most profound. It is time for Sarasota to refrain from displaying representations of unwelcome domination, to adopt a commitment against violence, to respect things such as copyright protections, to live up to artistic standards touted vainly while that manufactured kitsch stands on our bay.

Page 53 of 132

of 132

1

David Smith

From: Kelly Franklin <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 2:26 PMTo: Thomas Barwin; Jen Ahearn-Koch; Shelli FreelandEddie; Willie Shaw; Hagen Brody; Liz AlpertCc: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Joanne McCobb; [email protected]; Wendy Lerner; Jeff

Jamison; Emmett Gregory; David Smith; Shayla Griggs; Steven CoverSubject: Unconditional Surrender - Public Art Committee meetingAttachments: Rec. of Removal Uncond. Surr..pdf; loan-donation-agreement-11b-11c.gif


Dear City leaders, Yesterday's Public Art Committee meeting restored my faith in our ability as a democracy to have mature discussions about complex issues. I am very grateful to the members of the Art Committee for diving into a really thorny social issue at this turbulent political moment. How staff handled the meeting was less faith‐restoring. I submitted materials several times to the Public Art Committee and its staff liaisons, and I was under the impression that the public comment I provided in writing would be read as a public comment. It was not. I am also aware of several emails to the Public Art Committee that were not included in either the initial meeting packet or the supplement with July 6‐8 emails that was appended to the meeting notice. Specifically, I know that mental health professionals and women's health professionals submitted important expert commentary about sexual violence and PTSD triggers which was not in the public materials. In addition, I believe former City Commissioners may have weighed in. These are critical data points which were hidden from the public record. I have lymphoma, and as long as COVID‐19 remains a threat, I cannot expose myself to a room full of folks to speak in person at City Hall. I had hoped to submit a video comment, but was unable to obtain the footage from an interview I did for Susan Atwell's show in time. I will endeavor to submit that when this item is discussed at the City Commission. I am also attaching, for your reference, the very moving and apt statement from Public Art Committee member Joanne McCobb, explaining why this statue cannot continue to be displayed as an interactive tourist attraction on the bayfront or anywhere else in the city the way that it has been (as an unquestioned exemplar of joy and peace), and false and dangerous model of what heroism and love look like. Before Mr. Smith derailed the discussion with an (un?)intentional filibuster, the Art Committee was actively discussing Ms. McCobb's recommendation that the City ask the Johnson foundation to reclaim the statue. The filibuster not only changed the discussion and drained a half hour from the meeting, but also buried the lede ‐ that military leaders acknowledge that the photo depicts a sexual assault, which may well explain why the Sarasota National Cemetary has never been willing to display it ‐ despite the contention that this valorizes our troops, it unfortunately does the opposite. The Art Committee passed a motion recommending the statue be sent to storage as we take more time to figure out what to do with our now known 25‐foot tall 3‐D depiction of a forced and unwelcome kiss. So, wither from here?

Page 57 of 132

2

The most cost‐effective solution would be to tell the Johnson foundation to reclaim it now on their dime (which the donation agreement explicitly anticipated ‐ see section 11c attached). This would save the City critical funds at an economically difficult time, and preserve our tiny public art budget for public art.

We could just leave it in storage (as clause 11b of the donation agreement provides for).

We could re‐invent it and exhibit it at The Ringling or Ken Thompson park as a true conversational and educational piece of art. Although the donation agreement precludes our altering the statue itself, we could honor those terms, while still showing how this behavior's acceptability has changed over time by projecting the words "#MeToo" on the female figure's leg, or, more cost‐effectively, surrounding the area with yellow crime scene tape and displaying a version of the SPD photo from when it was graffitied. There are many creative minds and talented artists in Sarasota, and I think, if we ever want to spend the 75K‐100K to move it out of storage, build a new stand, and add interactive elements to re‐conceptualize the piece and make it reflect the experiences of both of the individuals it depicts, we could end up with a very interesting piece of art somewhere. But a plaque alone won't cut it (they tried that with an edition of Unconditional Surrender in France, and no one reads it, and folks who have no idea what it depicts keep making out under it. That must end. It is abhorrent and dangerous.)

We have some decisions ahead as a City on this, and I hope there will be ways made available for immune‐compromised citizens to participate when the Art Committee's recommendation is brought to the City Commission. I also hope that staff will allow the Art Committee to do the art committee's work and render their policy recommendations without interference. Thank you, Kelly Franklin Laurel Park

Page 58 of 132

of 132

A Recommendation for the Return of the Sculpture, ‘Unconditional Surrender’ by Public Art Committee member, Joanne McCobb. Ref. 3:09:37 City Commission Meeting June 1, 2020

For an art advisory committee, I feel there exists all the right reasons for returning this sculpture. Reasons already mentioned by many. Most importantly the original public art committee when they rejected the sculpture based on the cities criteria for acceptable public art. City commissioners chose to proceed with a 10 year loan agreement which was in part to gauge the publics reaction to the work. Ref. 3:09:00 City Commission Meeting minutes, June 1, 2020. Those 10 years have been formative in this case. We have seen the collective consciousness shift. Taboo and unconscious rules have changed. What a minority of us knew to be true 10 years ago is now a truth that is more widely accepted and there is a need to illuminate and amend. To recognize mistakes takes strength. For a municipality perhaps it takes something more than that.

We need to accept that not all works of art are masterpieces. Most do not stand the test of time. Just because a work is made, commissioned, bought or installed doesn’t mean that it automatically enters the realm of cultural heritage that needs protection. We can, now more than before, look at this work and say it does not represent the best of us. Nor does it, in any way, adequately commemorate all the diverse men and women who sacrificed for this country in WWII or any other war. I have no desire to take anything away from our veterans. It is clear that Unconditional Surrender means a lot to our WWII vets as well as other vets and their families. But perhaps it is supported out of a lack of choice. This work filled a vacuum in the city, a work of art for veterans. What needs to be considered is that it doesn’t have to be this work.

I believe we can do better than this sculpture to commemorate our veterans sacrifice. This sculpture is a deception. There is no honor in it. The original photograph has its place in art history and it can be taught in context. The sculpture has become an example of how easily a split second of time can be misunderstood, misconstrued, and misused. The image can be taken at face value or an effort can be made to look beyond the surface and understand how it contributes to rape culture. Survivors of sexual assault bear some similarities to survivors of war. They have experienced trauma and they still carry their wounds. We need to take that seriously. I truly believe that Unconditional Surrender is not a work of art that honestly represents the best of this country. It does not honor our soldiers and it can even be thought of as the antithesis of our veterans sacrifice.

I suggest that we find a sculpture which truly commemorates that sacrifice. Instead of allowing for a sculpture showing a deception to be the legacy of veterans in Sarasota. The fact that it immortalizes an assault is a given. This realization will only grow in time. As a sculpture, its image and message has continued to deteriorate these past 10 years. This sculpture has failed and I expect it will eventually be unwelcome. It is simply on that path and only a suppression of our cultural growth will delay it. So we can embrace the change and be an example of foresight and promise. Have the strength to accept that in reality, among other problems, this sculpture does not do justice to our veterans and that realization will eventually lead to its removal. Let’s be proactive and take that step now.

Page 60 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Kelly Kirschner <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 5:37 PMTo: Kelly FranklinCc: Thomas Barwin; Jen Ahearn-Koch; Shelli FreelandEddie; Willie Shaw; Hagen Brody; Liz Alpert; Josh

Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Joanne McCobb; [email protected]; Wendy Lerner; Jeff Jamison; Emmett Gregory; David Smith; Shayla Griggs; Steven Cover; Jacob Ogles

Subject: Re: Unconditional Surrender - Public Art Committee meeting


City Leaders: As a member of the City Commission that voted to accept Jack Curran's donation for a ten‐year period, I wanted to send everyone on this distribution list some perspective from back in time in the hopes that it helps the City now move on and surrender ourselves to a new era; or as Jacob Ogles wrote this weekend, return to our roots as a community with great civic pride of our home‐grown artists and their world‐class work. The Commission's decision for the ten‐year period was quite purposeful and unlike the conflict and dissent on whether or not to accept Curran's gift, there was much agreement with our Commission and the Community that there was little interest in perpetual commitment to statues on public land in the City, muchless for such controversial ones (for all the reasons Jacob listed in his column) like "Unconditional Surrender". One of the key influencers in our decision to accept the gift was Dr. Larry Thompson and Ringling College's support for accepting and placing the piece on the Bayfront. It appears that like others in our dramatically changed world of 2020, that Larry and Ringling's views have evolved and it's telling that Ringling and their new Sarasota High campus are not interested in hosting the statue, even temporarily during roadway construction along the bayfront. It seems our national conversation on statues, meaning, messages conveyed to the public and most importantly, to our children, has never been so intense and thoughtful. Ms. Franklin and Mr. Ogles' writing on our statue demonstrates this locally as well as giving ample reason for why this piece should go. It is time for the community to move on and appreciate why the ten‐year period was intentional. To that end, I support Ms. Franklin's bulleted suggestions for removal below and hope that we can bring this chapter to a close soon. I'd welcome speaking with any of you about our deliberations on this piece should you have the desire. Warm regards, Kelly . On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:25 PM Kelly Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: Dear City leaders, Yesterday's Public Art Committee meeting restored my faith in our ability as a democracy to have mature discussions about complex issues. I am very grateful to the members of the Art Committee for diving into a really thorny social issue at this turbulent political moment.

Page 61 of 132

2

How staff handled the meeting was less faith‐restoring. I submitted materials several times to the Public Art Committee and its staff liaisons, and I was under the impression that the public comment I provided in writing would be read as a public comment. It was not. I am also aware of several emails to the Public Art Committee that were not included in either the initial meeting packet or the supplement with July 6‐8 emails that was appended to the meeting notice. Specifically, I know that mental health professionals and women's health professionals submitted important expert commentary about sexual violence and PTSD triggers which was not in the public materials. In addition, I believe former City Commissioners may have weighed in. These are critical data points which were hidden from the public record. I have lymphoma, and as long as COVID‐19 remains a threat, I cannot expose myself to a room full of folks to speak in person at City Hall. I had hoped to submit a video comment, but was unable to obtain the footage from an interview I did for Susan Atwell's show in time. I will endeavor to submit that when this item is discussed at the City Commission. I am also attaching, for your reference, the very moving and apt statement from Public Art Committee member Joanne McCobb, explaining why this statue cannot continue to be displayed as an interactive tourist attraction on the bayfront or anywhere else in the city the way that it has been (as an unquestioned exemplar of joy and peace), and false and dangerous model of what heroism and love look like. Before Mr. Smith derailed the discussion with an (un?)intentional filibuster, the Art Committee was actively discussing Ms. McCobb's recommendation that the City ask the Johnson foundation to reclaim the statue. The filibuster not only changed the discussion and drained a half hour from the meeting, but also buried the lede ‐ that military leaders acknowledge that the photo depicts a sexual assault, which may well explain why the Sarasota National Cemetary has never been willing to display it ‐ despite the contention that this valorizes our troops, it unfortunately does the opposite. The Art Committee passed a motion recommending the statue be sent to storage as we take more time to figure out what to do with our now known 25‐foot tall 3‐D depiction of a forced and unwelcome kiss. So, wither from here?

The most cost‐effective solution would be to tell the Johnson foundation to reclaim it now on their dime (which the donation agreement explicitly anticipated ‐ see section 11c attached). This would save the City critical funds at an economically difficult time, and preserve our tiny public art budget for public art.

We could just leave it in storage (as clause 11b of the donation agreement provides for).

We could re‐invent it and exhibit it at The Ringling or Ken Thompson park as a true conversational and educational piece of art. Although the donation agreement precludes our altering the statue itself, we could honor those terms, while still showing how this behavior's acceptability has changed over time by projecting the words "#MeToo" on the female figure's leg, or, more cost‐effectively, surrounding the area with yellow crime scene tape and displaying a version of the SPD photo from when it was graffitied. There are many creative minds and talented artists in Sarasota, and I think, if we ever want to spend the 75K‐100K to move it out of storage, build a new stand, and add interactive elements to re‐conceptualize the piece and make it reflect the experiences of both of the individuals it depicts, we could end up with a very interesting piece of art somewhere. But a plaque alone won't cut it (they tried that with an edition of Unconditional Surrender in France, and no one reads it, and folks who have no idea what it depicts keep making out under it. That must end. It is abhorrent and dangerous.)

We have some decisions ahead as a City on this, and I hope there will be ways made available for immune‐compromised citizens to participate when the Art Committee's recommendation is brought to the City Commission. I also hope that staff will allow the Art Committee to do the art committee's work and render their policy recommendations without interference.

Page 62 of 132

3

Thank you, Kelly Franklin Laurel Park ‐‐ Kelly Kirschner Vice President and Dean Division of Executive and Continuing Education 727.864.8880 Eckerd College 4200 54th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 https://www.eckerd.edu/more

To help protect you r priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Eckerd College and Center for Creative Leadersh ip logos

Page 63 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:56 AMTo: David SmithSubject: FW: Keep our statute!

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:51 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Keep our statute! Thank you and I meant Unconditional Surrender. Wholly typo batman. Take care, Mark Riley On Jul 8, 2020 8:09 AM, Steven Cover <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Riley,

Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee.

Steve

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:31 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Keep our statute!


We love the statute Unconstitutional Surrender. We hope you will help us keep it on the bay front!

Thank you,

Mark Riley

Page 64 of 132

2

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] Date: Jul 7, 2020 6:27 PM Subject: Keep our statute! To: [email protected] Cc:

We love the statute on the bay front. Please vote to keep it, it's gorgeous.

Mark Riley

Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E-mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.

Page 65 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:44 PMTo: David SmithSubject: FW: Surrender statue movement

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 3:25 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Surrender statue movement FYI ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Nancy Halpin <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 12:48 PM To: City Commissioners <[email protected]> Subject: Surrender statue movement Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! I just wanted to express my disappointment that the statue may be moved and not brought back. I live in Nokomis and it has always been a spot I would bring visitors If anyone would take the time to read the interview with the actual woman in the actual photograph, Greta Zimmer Friedman, they would realize how this a is wonderful and historic moment captured in time. I hope it will be placed in a prominent place to reflect the joy of the end of WW 2. Sent from my iPhone ________________________________ Under Florida law, e‐mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e‐mail address released in response to a public‐records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E‐mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.

Page 66 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:10 AMTo: Ricos PizzaCc: David SmithSubject: RE: We love unconditional surrender

Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: Ricos Pizza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:29 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: We love unconditional surrender


Please keep the statute on the bay front. We love it. Mark Riley Ricos Pizza


Page 67 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:58 PMTo: David SmithSubject: FW: unconditional surrender

FYI

From: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 4:57 PM To: Diana Corrigan <[email protected]> Cc: Marlon Brown <[email protected]>; Steven Cover <[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: RE: unconditional surrender Diana, Thanks for sharing your immediate thoughts. There will be lots of inputs on this matter as various other ideas are also being received. I have staff working on a framework and/or outline in terms of how this discussion and decision making process will continue.

From Sunny Sarasota,

Tom Barwin City Manager City of Sarasota 1565 First Street Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: (941)954-4102 Fax: (941)954-4129 From: Diana Corrigan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 12:41 PM To: Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]> Cc: Carl Shoffstall <[email protected]>; Thomas Barwin <[email protected]>; Marlon Brown <[email protected]>; John Lege <[email protected]>; Lou Costa <[email protected]>; Norm Dumaine <[email protected]>; Kevin Bales <[email protected]>; Chris Goglia <[email protected]> Subject: Re: unconditional surrender

Page 68 of 132

2

Hi Jen, Tom, Marlon, Carl, Chris and everyone, I would also like to survey our members about this. As Chris shared, I feel we will have some mixed reactions about the statue and I would like to get everyone's opinion. That statue is very tall and it might look out of place, as it would be the tallest thing on the Circle. (I believe it's well over 65 ft tall) Without seeing a concept of what it would like look it's hard to tell.

Do you think it would be possible to create a concept drawing, showing the scale of the statue in comparison to the height of the trees in the park? I believe that would be helpful for everyone in determining what it would look like if placed on the Circle. My biggest concern about moving the statue to St. Armands Circle is giving it the proper, and respectful, visibility it deserves without making it look like it's out of place. To place it in the center of the Circle Park (which is like a retention pond during heavy rains) would hide a great deal of the statue and would make it look like two heads "popping out" in the middle of the park above the trees. I also have concerns, for the statue, because of the many special events that we hold in the park. With car shows, boat shows, art festivals, etc. loading in and out of the park I wouldn't want to see anything accidentally happen to the statue. I do remember, a few years ago, when a driver accidentally jumped the curb and hit the statue.

I did speak to a couple of city residents, last week, who were very upset that the statue was being taken down and away from the bayfront. One lady that I spoke with, who had a European accent, was extremely upset. I suspect that she was a child, in Europe, during WWII and this statue means a great deal to her and she wants to see it remain on the bayfront where everyone can see it. I did watch the commission meeting last week, so I was able to explain to them what is happening and that the city really wants to honor the wishes of the WWII veteran who purchased the statue for the visibility on bayfront 10 years ago. As you can imagine, there is nothing that I would love more than to have another reason to bring tourists to the Circle, however I want to make sure that we do the right thing. I think Chris's idea about placing the statue by the Lido Beach Pool/Pavilion is an excellent option as well ‐ especially since the statue is of a sailor and the beauty of the blue water of the Gulf is in the background. Just a thought. Diana On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:18 AM Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]> wrote:

Page 69 of 132

3

Hi Carl, Thanks for the suggestion. Did you talk about this with the St Armands folks? Jen ___________________ Jen Ahearn‐Koch Mayor, City of Sarasota 941.914.7646 cell Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected] Sent from my IPhone Please be aware that any emails sent or received by this email address are public public record. Under Florida law, e‐mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e‐mail address released in response to a public‐records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E‐mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.

From: Carl Shoffstall <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2020 7:42:42 AM To: Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]>; Shelli FreelandEddie <[email protected]>; Liz Alpert <[email protected]>; Hagen Brody <[email protected]>; Willie Shaw <[email protected]>; Thomas Barwin <[email protected]>; Marlon Brown <[email protected]>; John Lege <[email protected]> Cc: Lou Costa <[email protected]>; Norm Dumaine <[email protected]> Subject: unconditional surrender


Good morning all

I would like to make a suggestion to relocate the statue to St Armands circle. Being a tourist attraction it would be good for business

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

Carl Shoffstall

Florida Playstructures & Water Features Inc

Page 70 of 132

4

1808 James Redman Pkwy #178

Plant City, FL 33563

813‐967‐2687 cell

813‐704‐4395 main office

Commercial Pool & Spa Contractor CPC1457810

Electrical Contractor EC13002736

NPCAI Certified Playground Installer 2015‐1236

Certified Playground Safety Inspector 31529‐618

OSHA #36‐601307899


‐‐ Diana M Corrigan Executive Director St. Armands Circle Association 941-388-1554 phone 941-388-2855 fax [email protected]

Page 71 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Irwin Srob <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2020 11:04 AMTo: David SmithSubject: Unconditional Surrender Statue (corrected-I was attempting to go South on 41)

Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! I am writing to you concerning the placement of the Unconditional Surrender Statue. I believe that having a huge statue at a major intersection is a major distraction for drivers, especially new visitors to Sarasota. I was in a major accident a few years ago. A driver rear ended my car, full force, where I was stopped at a yield sign, as I was waiting for traffic to pass so that I could get on and go South on route 41, in front of the Unconditional Surrender Statue. I suspect that the driver who crashed into my car was distracted by the statue. While waiting for the police the traffic backed up on 41 and the Ringling Bridge. Thousands of dollars of damage was done to my car. I suspect that I have not been in the only auto accident taking place near the statue caused by the huge statue distracting drivers. I recommend that’s the statue be permanently removed from this major intersection and placed where it cannot distract drivers or cause additional accidents.

Page 72 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:50 PMTo: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobbCc: David SmithSubject: public art committee - letter and images re unconditional surrenderAttachments: photograph of original publication in bound volume.jpg; sequence-8-web.jpg; frame 24 - woman




Page 73 of 132












Page 74 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:50 PMTo: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobbCc: David SmithSubject: public art committee - letter and images re unconditional surrenderAttachments: photograph of original publication in bound volume.jpg; sequence-8-web.jpg; frame 24 - woman




Page 75 of 132



Page 76 of 132


Page 77 of 132

of 132

1

David Smith

From: Kelly Franklin <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:31 PMTo: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobbCc: Steven Cover; David Smith; Shayla GriggsSubject: Unconditional Surrender - letter for packetAttachments: History-and-Future-of-Unconditional-Surrender-in-Sarasota.docx


Dear Members of the Public Art Committee, The maturation of the 10 year loan agreement for Unconditional Surrender, and the necessity of removing it from its current location due to the coming roundabout construction, have raised the issue of the future of this "controversial" sculpture in Sarasota. I am attaching here a brief history of the statue, how it came to be here, and the growing awareness of the untenability of our City's continuing to display it prominently (or at all) in the #MeToo era. I have been vocal in publicly raising my concerns about what this statue depicts: https://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20200611/guest‐editorial‐surrender‐statue‐isnt‐love‐joy‐or‐peace‐its‐assault Now that Sarasota has fulfilled its legal obligation to display the statue in situ for the 10 year period required in the loan agreement, I would recommend that the City exercise its right to ask the artist's estate to reclaim it and display it at his semi‐private museum in New Jersey, where a host of his other creations reside. I am immune‐compromised, and will therefore be unable to attend the meeting of the Public Art Committee on July 8 because of the COVID‐19 threat, but I would ask that this material be included in the official meeting packet and accepted as my public input. Thank you for your consideration. Kelly Franklin Laurel Park

Page 83 of 132

Kelly Franklin June 16, 2020 1 of 4

The History & Future of Unconditional Surrender in Sarasota

How it came to be here

A Styrofoam version of Seward Johnson’s Unconditional Surrender statue was brought to Sarasota in 2005 for temporary display as part of “Season of Sculpture” exhibition mounted by a private non-profit. Several WW-II area veterans and their supporters became attached to the statue and made arrangements to purchase a metal version which would be donated to the City after display in the same location for a period of 10 years, ending June 10, 2020.

To say that this donation was contested is an understatement. There was a multi-year civic battle pitting veterans against artists and the Public Art Committee (which found, 5-0 that the artwork did not meet Sarasota’s public art criteria and recommended refusing the donation). Although concerns about the apparently forced nature of the kiss were raised by some, the statue’s method of selection, lack of uniqueness, method of fabrication, and intentional copyright infringement were the primary factors debated in public. In a 3:2 vote, the City Commission decided to override the recommendation of its Public Art Committee; the deciding vote came from then-Mayor Kelly Kirschner, who cited the sentimental reason that his brother was in the Navy.

VJ-Day in Times Square

August 15, 1945, or “V-J Day” (Victory over Japan) marked the end of World War II. From all accounts, there was much spontaneous celebration and kissing in the streets that day, in Sarasota, New York City, and throughout the country.

There was a bit of a craze at the time called the “Hollywood Kiss,” which entailed couples consciously performing exaggerated versions of an idealized smooch for eager photographers. As documented on a website created when the statue’s presence in Sarasota was first debated, some of the kissing that occurred that day consisted of consensual exchanges between individuals who knew one another, or strangers mutually engaging in the celebration, and some were not. This one was not. Some were brief busses. The one embraced by history was forceful, prolonged, and invasive, and looks like just what it was - a unilateral act of conquest

The iconic photo

As described by Alfred Eisenstadt himself in the captions of his famous photograph as well as subsequent memoirs, what he witnessed, and shot 4 photographs of in Times Square that day, was of an inebriated sailor stumbling and grabbing a woman from the crowd.

In both Eisdenstadt’s 4 frames and those of the public domain snapshot by Navy photographer Victor Jorgensen of the same pair from the waist up, the faces of the subjects are obscured, and over the years, many different individuals came forward to claim to be either the nurse or sailor.

Page 84 of 132


In 2012, a book entitled The Kissing Sailor, by a naval college professor and a historian, settled the long-running mystery by using contemporaneous accounts from the participants and onlookers and forensic analysis of the photos (ironically, the definitive proof is that the sailor was on his first date with the woman he ultimately married, and her face is clearly visible over the shoulder of the sailor in one of the 4 frames Eisenstaedt shot that day).

The sailor in Eisdenstadt’s image was George Mendonsa, of Rhode Island. The “nurse” was Greta Zimmer (later Friedman), an Austrian-born Jewish émigré whose parents died in Nazi concentration camps. Working as a dental hygienist at the time, Greta ventured to Times Square on her lunch hour to see if the rumors she had heard about the war ending were true. Mendonsa, who had seen combat in the Pacific, spotted a woman on the street wearing a white uniform who reminded him of the nurses tending wounded sailors on a battleship. He bowled into her, knocked her off her feet, put her in a headlock, bent her over backward into a physically painful and subordinate position, and forcibly kissed her for 4-5 seconds while she struggled and clutched her purse and balled up her fist to push him away. He did this while a crowd looked on in shock and two photographers took pictures. So...the most famous kiss in history was a forced kiss

While individuals who lived through that day bristle when the modern phrase “sexual assault” is applied retroactively to the events that occurred on that unique moment in history, the case that the incident in Times Square was unilateral, forceful, and lacked consent, is best made by the unwilling participant:

“It wasn’t my choice to be kissed,” Greta stated in a 2005 interview. “The guy just came over and grabbed!” she said. “That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me. I did not see him approaching, and before I know it I was in this tight grip.”

Once you hear the truth, the image unwinds before your eyes. His left arm is headlocking her. His right arm has a tight grip on her waist. Her chin is tucked back, pulling away. Her hand, in one of the less iconic frames, is balled into a fist against his chest. Her body says no. His body says mine.” From Medium

In interviews, Greta said that she was proud to be part of an iconic moment in history, but also spoke of the shame that kept her from coming forward for 30 years lest her fiancé think her a willing participant. Even “…Time, whose parent company discontinued the monthly publication of Life magazine in 2000, noted that “many people view the photo as little more than the documentation of a very public sexual assault, and not something to be celebrated.”

My concern is not to litigate what the proper label is for George Mendonsa’s unilateral and aggressive actions on a unique day in history in another city 75 years ago, but rather about how we end the horror show we’ve created on our bay front turning a frozen moment in time from the past into an interactive tourist attraction in the present.

Page 85 of 132


To eyes that did not live through WWII, and particularly for those who have experienced sexual violence, it is repellent and dangerous to see loving couples contorting themselves to emulate a forced kiss that Greta herself refused numerous entreaties to recreate because, as she told the Veteran’s History Project in 2005, “it wasn't a romantic event”.

One need not hear the story in Greta’s own words in order to judge from the off-balance stance of the female figure, the deep and painful arch to her back, and locked elbow around her head, that we are witnessing a vanquishing.

While stock and trade of romance novels, in real life, being forced to submit to the will of another is the stuff of nightmares, not dreams. It is, therefore, as I have argued, unconscionable to use a 3D rendition of this incident as a tourist attraction and kissing post.

Sarasota’s reputation – do we want to be known as the city with the “#MeToo Monument?

That the statue is a popular site is not in dispute. Visiting Unconditional Surrender is listed as #25 of the 130 things to do in Sarasota on Tripadvisor. However, as was argued in 2010 and is still true today, few, if any, of the 2,500,000 individuals who visit Sarasota each year are come solely for the purpose of seeing the statue – it is an en passant stop, not an economic driver for the city.

There was both local “Iconic kiss may not be something to celebrate,” and national media coverage of the story behind the photograph when Greta died in 2016 (CBS News, Smithsonian, Wall Street Journal), It made international news when Unconditional Surrender was tagged with #MeToo the day after George Mendonsa died in 2019 (CNN, Huffington Post, NPR, The Guardian, BBC, NBC, The Telegraph, The Washington Post, USA Today.

Page 86 of 132


The growing awareness is already impacting Sarasota’s reputation. For example:

Makes one ill to even drive by: As a long time visitor of Sarasota over the years, I was disappointed by this addition to the harbor area. It achieves the rare combination of vaguely artistic kitsch mixed with a celebration of a time and moment when casual harassment or even assault was accepted, even romanticized. Sarasota is capable of so much better, particularly when thinking of using a symbol to honor the sacrifices and celebrate a hard won victory at the cost of so many lives… The last time we drove by it. I found it useful as an educational opportunity to explain acceptable behavior and changing social ways to my nearing teenage son. Jason R – Meadville Pennsylvania - June 2019 - Traveled with family May 2019

Whither from here?

In a #MeToo era, it is simply untenable for Sarasota to keep displaying this statue where it has the way it has. Some have suggested adding the #MeToo tagging back to the statue, which would be particularly appropriate given Seward Johnson’s lack of respect for the intellectual property of the artists and photographers he adulterated. Indeed, other problematic statuary symbols are being re-thought and redisplayed in ways that reflect the changing perspectives on the individuals and events they valorize. But such a change to this statue would not be respectful to the memories of those who served in that war or lived through those tumultuous years.

Despite the attempts of some through the years to equate this statue and the event it depicts as a fitting tribute to the sacrifice and valor of our armed forces, that perception is not universally shared, even among members of the military. For example, the option proposed by columnist Carrie Seidman, of displaying the statue at the Sarasota National Cemetery seems like a Solomonic solution, the cemetery has declined it in the past as inappropriate.

Given the inherent affordances of the sculpture (most specifically its scale), emulation in this Instragram era seems inevitable even if properly signed and moved to a less heavily foot-trafficked piece of public land. It is hard to hide a 26 foot tall material #MeToo metonym, so if it stays on public property anywhere in Sarasota, it seems inevitable that the statue will invite future defacement, provoke pain for survivors of sexual violence, set the wrong example of heroic and acceptable behavior, and damage our city’s reputation.

According to the terms of the 2010 Loan & Donation Agreement for this statue:

“...The city is free to sell or to loan, or to convey "unconditional surrender" to a third party. The city is free to decide that simply doesn't want to own it anymore and can contact the sculptor foundation to take it back and they have 90 days...”

Thus, my recommendation would be to exercise that clause in the donation agreement and return the statue to Seward Johnson’s estate for display at Grounds for Sculpture, the semi-private open air museum he founded in New Jersey

Page 87 of 132

�� !�"#$%&!�'(�)*+,)-�!+�.-�/,$$-01� �0,0�%+!�$--�*,'�#223+#)*,%45�#%0�.-6+3-� /%+"�,!� �"#$�,%�!*,$�!,4*!�43,257�8+9+)#:$!�$:3;,;+3�<3-!#�=,''-3�>3,-0'#%!+90�?@A�B-"$�,%�CDEC�+6�!*-�'+'-%!�)#2!:3-0�.(�2*+!+F+:3%#9,$!�G963-0H,$-%$!#-0!�+%�IJK�L#(1M*,9-�$*-�0,0�%+!�0-$)3,.-�!*-�,%),0-%!�#$�"*#!�,$�%+"�3-6-33-0�!+�#$��$-N:#9#$$#:9!57�$*-�0,0�0-)9,%-�!*-�'-0,#&$�,%;,!#!,+%�!+�3--%#)!�!*-�6#'+:$�/,$$�6+3�!*-)#'-3#$�O:%",99,%4�!+�29#(�#9+%4�",!*�!*-�-N:9!,%4�'(!*$�+6�"*#!�,$�.-,%40-2,)!-0�,%�!*-�,)+%,)�,'#4-1 %�CDED5�"*-%�!*-�9#!-�K#)/�?:33#%�2:3)*#$-0�A-"#30�K+*%$+%&$�CPJ6++!�!#99$!#!:-�+6�!*#!�'+'-%!5�*,$�4+#9�"#$�!+�2#(�!3,.:!-�!+�!*-�<3-#!-$!�<-%-3#!,+%�#%0!+�*,$�.-9+;-0�$2+:$-1�8,$�"-99J,%!-%!,+%-0�4-$!:3-�"#$5�:%6+3!:%#!-9(5�.#$-0:2+%�#�6:%0#'-%!#9�',$3-#0,%4�+6�"*#!�*#22-%-0�,%�B-"�Q+3/�?,!(�+%�G:4:$!ER5�ESRT1� !�"#$�%+!5�#$�'+$!�#$$:'-0�+3�23+F-)!-05�!*-�9+;,%4�3-:%,+%�+6�!*+$-$-2#3#!-0�.(�#�9+%4�"#35�.:!�3#!*-35�#�03:%/-%�'#%�43#..,%4�#�"+'#%�*-�0,0�%+!/%+"5�/%+)/,%4�*-3�+66�.#9#%)-5�29#),%4�*-3�,%�#�*-#09+)/5�.-%0,%4�*-3�+;-3.#)/"#305�#%0�6+3),.9(�/,$$,%4�*-31U#$!�(-#35�",!*,%�CR�*+:3$�+6�!*-�0-#!*�+6�!*-�$#,9+3�,%�!*-�2*+!+5�!*-�)+9+$$#9',$:%0-3$!#%0,%4�+%�$:%%(�A#3#$+!#&$�$*+3-9,%-�"#$�!#44-0�",!*�VW-X++1G9!*+:4*�!*-�43#66,!,�"#$�Y:,)/9(�"#$*-0�#"#(5�%+�.9#$!�63+'�#�*+$-�)#%�-3#$-.3+#0-3�#"#3-%-$$�+6�"*+�,$�.-,%4�6+3)-0�!+�:%)+%0,!,+%#99(�$:33-%0-3�!+�"*+'5,%�.+!*�H,$-%$!#-0!&$�2*+!+�#%0�,!$�@3+.0,%4%#4,#%�ZL�$,':9#)3:'�+%�A#3#$+!#@#(1

[\]�]��

Page 88 of 132

�� !��!��"�� !�� #�� $�� !�� #��!��!��!��"��!��!�� #�� !�� #��!��!��#��!��%��&��'()*��#�� !�� )��#��+��!�� (��!!��!��!�� ,��-��!��#�� &��#��&�� .� ��#�� #� �� *��/��/��!��!��!�� 0�� !�1��2(�� !�3��!!�� !��-��!��4��!��!��5��/��!��!�� !��!��#�� 33#��!�� )��6��#�� 1�� 2�Page 89 of 132

�� !��"��#��$%�� &�� '��()**+�,-./0*1/�*12)3�1/�4.5-)*�6.-0�./7�-)85*.-*+�9.*03�:;)�<.+=->/:?

Page 90 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:20 AMTo: Ryan Chapdelain; David SmithSubject: FW: Unconditional Surrender

FYI

From: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:10 AM To: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]> Cc: Willie Shaw <[email protected]>; Liz Alpert <[email protected]>; Shelli FreelandEddie <[email protected]>; Hagen Brody <[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]>; Steven Cover <[email protected]>; Marlon Brown <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Unconditional Surrender According to the Observer the Commission took action to place the statue in storage. If this is true, I wish you would have infromed me of this. That changes things.

On Jun 3, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: Do you see a condesending tone in Barwin’s response?

Begin forwarded message: From: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Unconditional Surrender Date: June 3, 2020 at 12:01:36 PM EDT To: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]>, Jen Ahearn-Koch <[email protected]> Cc: Willie Shaw <[email protected]>, Liz Alpert <[email protected]>, Shelli FreelandEddie <[email protected]>, Hagen Brody <[email protected]>, Robert Fournier <[email protected]>, Steven Cover <[email protected]>, Marlon Brown <[email protected]> Dear Ms. Hoffman, As always, thank you sharing your thoughts. What we are going through these days reflects and perhaps should remind us of the importance of not only the diversity of thought, but the reality of the equal importance of perpetual reconciliation when all do

Page 91 of 132

2

not agree, which is virtually also a perpetual circumstance. Although decisions have yet to be made related to Unconditional Surrender’s next location, like you I hope and believe the community will accept whatever direction we go in. Thanks, stay well.

From Sunny Sarasota,

Tom Barwin

City Manager City of Sarasota 1565 First Street Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: (941)954-4102 Fax: (941)954-4129

From: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:03 AM To: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]>; Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]> Cc: Willie Shaw <[email protected]>; Liz Alpert <[email protected]>; Shelli FreelandEddie <[email protected]>; Hagen Brody <[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Unconditional Surrender Mr. Barwin, For the last several years, you took the oversight of this statue under your discretion, so it makes no sense to have a special meeting of the Public Art Advisory Board that is adjourned under the COVID environment. Additionally, the city does not own the statue. It was never officially accepted into the public art program and remained on loan for the duration of its occupancy within the public right of way. Please reconsider this decision. Whatever you do with the statue, there will be unhappy people. Just make a decision and do it. I believe if you do so, the backlash will be short‐lived. As you know, I feel you should return it to the Seward Johnson Foundation, who owns the statue. Thus there is no reason to spend tax dollars on it. Another solution is to ask the foundation what they would like to do with it, and they should pay to relocate if that is their wish. Virginia

Page 92 of 132

3

On May 31, 2020, at 8:14 PM, Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]> wrote: Thanks Virginia for your input on Unconditional Surrender. I appreciate it! Jen ___________________ Jen Ahearn‐Koch Mayor, City of Sarasota 941.914.7646 cell Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected] Sent from my IPhone Under Florida law, e‐mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e‐mail address released in response to a public‐records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E‐mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.

From: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 11:33:28 AM To: Thomas Barwin <[email protected]> Cc: Jen Ahearn‐Koch <Jen.Ahearn‐[email protected]>; Robert Fournier <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! Hi Tom, I hope all is well with you & your family. A good place as an alternate location for Unconditional Surrender is the out by Mote Marine Lab and City Island Park. There is a circular drive with a mound on the north side that would be a proper setting, and it’s proximity to the Mote Lab as a tourist spot would give it excellent access and plenty of room for whatever.

Page 93 of 132

4

Of course, I would prefer to have the city return it. Along with many reasons why it’s inappropriate and does not conform with Sarasota’s public art standards. I deeply resent spending money on it during this time, mainly when we do not even own it. Good luck, Virginia Virginia Hoffman 2582 Hawthorne St. Sarasota, FL 34239 941 400-5217 [email protected]



Page 94 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:59 AMTo: A ZovarCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Kissing Statue

Thank you for your comments, and we will make sure they are forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Currently, we are looking at both options, and this will be part of the discussion on Wednesday. Steve From: A Zovar <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:55 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Kissing Statue


Good morning, Please keep the statue in downtown Sarasora. All of our tourist guests love it. It's a piece of history and has just a wonderful story. My opinion is, if the vote is to remove it, could it be moved to another location? As opposed to being stored? Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Aja Zovar


Page 95 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:24 PMTo: Allen SmucklerCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Kissing Sailor

Mr. Smuckler, Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:23 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Kissing Sailor


Message submitted from the <City of Sarasota> website. Site Visitor Name: Allen Smuckler Site Visitor Email: [email protected] Personally...I don't think the Kissing Sailor is an eyesore... In fact, I look at it as a landmark and will do everything in my power to help save it... Please leave it alone for crying out loud... many people respond to it in a positive, meaningful and thoughtful way. It should not be offensive to any one!


Page 96 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:12 AMTo: sunnybunny sunnybunnyCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Regarding the Kiss statue

Ms. Hill, Thank you for your comment, and we will make sure it is forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: sunnybunny sunnybunny <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 6:40 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Regarding the Kiss statue


Please leave the statue at the bayfront. AnnMarie Hill


Page 97 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:11 AMTo: [email protected]: David SmithSubject: RE: The Sailor Statue

Ms. Sermon, Thank you for your comments, and we will make sure they are forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:40 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: The Sailor Statue


Please remove that enormous piece of irrelevant art to someplace more fitting...like a town with a naval base. I

would love to see that statue replaced by something relevant to Sarasota's rich history. Anything circus-themed

would be better than that sailor statue, which really has absolutely nothing to do with Sarasota.

Thank you for your consideration,

Bridget Sermon


Page 98 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:49 PMTo: Cierra LyonsCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Unconditional Surrender Statue

Ms. Lyons, Thank you for your comments, and I will make sure they are forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Steve ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cierra Lyons <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:47 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender Statue Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! My name is Cierra Lyons and I live in Sarasota. I’ve heard of the thought to move/get rid of the Unconditional Surrender Statue that is here in Sarasota. Please do not get rid of this historical piece of art from Sarasota, it is beautiful and would be extremely missed. PLEASE do not get rid of it. Thank you so much for your time, I hope you have a good rest of your day and stay safe. ________________________________ Under Florida law, e‐mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e‐mail address released in response to a public‐records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. E‐mail messages sent or received by City of Sarasota officials and employees in connection with official City business are public records subject to disclosure under the Florida Public Records Act.

Page 99 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:43 AMTo: David SmithSubject: FW: Unconditional Surrender relocation

FYI From: Damon Powers <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:32 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender relocation


Hey Steven,

I just wanted to give my opinion on where Unconditional Surrender should be relocated. Two ideas I had are out on Bayfront park by O’Leary’s (Would be easiest and probably most cost effective move) or out in the middle of St Armand’s circle. As a resident that’s born and raised in Sarasota, and has spent his whole life in Sarasota (30 years) I really enjoy this statue and think it’s a great tourist attraction. Every time you drive by the statue you see people taking photos with it. Please don’t let a small group of people determine the fate of the sculpture.

Thank you Damon Powers


Page 100 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:45 PMTo: Dorothy OkrayCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Statue.....sailor. IT BRINGS JOY!

Ms. Okray, Thank you very much for your comments, and we will make sure they are forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: Dorothy Okray <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:40 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Statue.....sailor. IT BRINGS JOY!


I think the statue of the sailor and the girl kissing quite lovely. Celebrating with a kiss. The woman is not struggling. She, too, is joining in. How sad it to condemn every act someone doesn't agree with through perhaps jaded eyes.. Look at it. NO STRUGGLE. To me it represents the joy and gratitude of seeing our troops come home at the end of the war.


Page 101 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:00 AMTo: David SmithCc: Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Emmett Gregory; [email protected]; Jeff Jamison; Wendy

Lerner; Joanne McCobb; Shayla Griggs; Steven CoverSubject: public input for July 8 2020 meeting of public art committee - Kafi BenzAttachments: photograph of original publication in bound volume.jpg; sequence-8-web.jpg; frame 24 - woman



Dear David, As I discussed with you during our telephone conversation, I have multiple factors of vulnerability that make me better advised to avoid public gatherings during this pandemic, So I will have to rely upon the attached as my public input. Thank you for assuring me that the documents and images I have provided will be taken into consideration as if I were able to present them at the July 8, 2020 public meeting of the public art committee during the discussion under VII. New Business, a) Artworks Storage During Gulfstream Avenue / US 41 Roundabout Construction. Although I address the social issues with the statue entitled Unconditional Surrender, the committee should be concerned primarily with the artistic factors I have noted regarding its failure to meet standards for public art in Sarasota. Those alone should be the basis for recommending the exercise of the option to return the statue to its source during the timely opportunity to do so, rather than to deliberate its disposition during the intersection construction. The social issues I have noted regarding the statue also are important to our community and may be considered as significant secondary factors for your recommendation for the deliberation by the city commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the meeting. Cordially, Kafi Benz president, Friends of "Seagate" sculpture studio director, Jim Gary's Twentieth Century Dinosaurs ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Friends of "Seagate" Inc. <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:17 PM Subject: Fwd: public art committee ‐ letter and images re unconditional surrender To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>


Page 102 of 132

2



Page 103 of 132












Page 104 of 132



Page 105 of 132


Page 106 of 132

of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:45 AMTo: Karle H MurdockCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Unconditional Surrender

Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: Karle H Murdock <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 8:41 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender


Steven Cover My objection to “Unconditional Surrender” lies clearly in the name. The statue depicts an assault. Yes it is symbolic of the end of WWII. It is also symbolic of the rape and pillage that occurs after one tribe concurs another tribe. For, some women, I am sure it recalls a moment of violence that was done to them. The moment depicted is not a celebration. As an artist I object to the central placement of such an inferior piece, a copy of a copy of another artist’s photo. The design is not original. The craft is not top notch. My credentials are that I am a 40+ year Fine Art Professional. Sarasota has many many far better artists and designers than this. The world has many better works of art. There is a lot of excellent art in the world from people who do not have this kind of cash money to buy their way into public spaces. "Unconditional Surrender" is big, it isn't great. It is there mainly because it didn't cost the city very much. Lots of people are amazed by it’s scale. People like to look up her skirt. Watch for 15 minutes and that is what you will witness, a communal degradation of women. Maybe it could be moved to Ed Smith Stadium where it matches the old fashioned Americana it represents. It does not well represent a city that advertises any sophistication in art. Sincerely, Karle H Murdock, Ringling School of Art & Design class of 1983, Sculpture Major.


Page 110 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:11 PMTo: Kelly FranklinCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Unconditional Surrender - letter for packet

Ms. Franklin, Thank you for your comments and your letter, and we will make sure they are received by the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: Kelly Franklin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:57 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Unconditional Surrender ‐ letter for packet


I am immune‐compromised and will not be able to attend this meeting. I understand these materials should go to you. I hope the members of the art committee will act with decency and compassion, and not inflict on today’s and tomorrow’s women the indignities our predecessors have had to bear living under the foot of this monstrous celebration of drunk white male privilege.

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message:

From: Kelly Franklin <[email protected]> Date: June 16, 2020 at 1:31:12 PM EDT To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Unconditional Surrender ‐ letter for packet

Dear Members of the Public Art Committee, The maturation of the 10 year loan agreement for Unconditional Surrender, and the necessity of removing it from its current location due to the coming roundabout construction, have raised the issue of the future of this "controversial" sculpture in Sarasota.

Page 111 of 132

2

I am attaching here a brief history of the statue, how it came to be here, and the growing awareness of the untenability of our City's continuing to display it prominently (or at all) in the #MeToo era. I have been vocal in publicly raising my concerns about what this statue depicts: https://www.heraldtribune.com/opinion/20200611/guest‐editorial‐surrender‐statue‐isnt‐love‐joy‐or‐peace‐its‐assault Now that Sarasota has fulfilled its legal obligation to display the statue in situ for the 10 year period required in the loan agreement, I would recommend that the City exercise its right to ask the artist's estate to reclaim it and display it at his semi‐private museum in New Jersey, where a host of his other creations reside. I am immune‐compromised, and will therefore be unable to attend the meeting of the Public Art Committee on July 8 because of the COVID‐19 threat, but I would ask that this material be included in the official meeting packet and accepted as my public input. Thank you for your consideration. Kelly Franklin Laurel Park


Page 112 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:10 AMTo: [email protected]: David SmithSubject: RE: Keep our statute!

Mr. Riley, Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:31 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Keep our statute!


We love the statute Unconstitutional Surrender. We hope you will help us keep it on the bay front! Thank you, Mark Riley ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: [email protected] Date: Jul 7, 2020 6:27 PM Subject: Keep our statute! To: [email protected] Cc:

We love the statute on the bay front. Please vote to keep it, it's gorgeous. Mark Riley


Page 113 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 5:24 PMTo: Michael RadellCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Unconditional Surrender

Mr. Radell, Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: Michael Radell <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 5:01 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender


Mr. Cover: In regards to the statue, "Unconditional Surrender", I request that it be permanently removed from Sarasota. It can be donated to another city, if someone wants it, or sold. I've lived here for 46 years and I managed just fine before it was here. I won't miss it a bit. Sincerely, Michael H. Radell, DDS


Page 114 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:43 AMTo: PANDORA SEIBERTCc: David SmithSubject: RE: The Horrid Statue

Ms. Seibert, Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: PANDORA SEIBERT <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:39 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: The Horrid Statue


Dear Mr. Cover ~ I am in huge favor of the removal and relocation of this horrid statue. Not only remove it, but I am in favor of relocating it to another city, donating it but don't pay for storage. It's a waste of tax payers money to store. Just get rid of it! Pandora Seibert


Page 115 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:54 AMTo: Paula ArnettCc: David SmithSubject: RE: Statue

Mr. and Mrs. Arnett, Thank you for your comments, and we will make sure they are forwarded to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: Paula Arnett <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:51 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Statue


My husband and I recently purchased a property in Sarasota. We love the Unconditional Surrender statue located downtown. Although it has nothing to do with Sarasota, we think it is fitting as a welcome for boats arriving in the marina. Paula and Gary Arnett


Page 116 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:10 AMTo: Ricos PizzaCc: David SmithSubject: RE: We love unconditional surrender

Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve From: Ricos Pizza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:29 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: We love unconditional surrender


Please keep the statute on the bay front. We love it. Mark Riley Ricos Pizza


Page 117 of 132

1

David Smith

From: R Kashden <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 1:55 PMTo: Steven Cover; David SmithCc: [email protected]; Emmett Gregory; Wendy Lerner; Jeff Jamison; Josh Botzenhart; Joanne

McCobb; Leslie ButterfieldSubject: Public input for Unconditional Surrender Statue destination


Dear Mr. Cover and Mr. Smith, I’ve been informed that the best way to submit materials to the Art Committee for their meeting this week is to send them to you. If my information is not correct (I apologize), please forward this email to the appropriate individuals. ======================================================= To the Arts Committee, I am sure by now that all the members of the committee are well versed in the issues that surround the Unconditional Surrender statue, including the major points:

The statue was and still is not in accordance to City’s public art policy,

It is an unlicensed derivative work which violates copyright,

And most importantly, it glorifies a photo of a drunken man putting a non‐consenting woman in a head lock and forcibly kissing her.

There are few times in one’s life when they are presented with a moral decision. With you being in the “room where it happens”, I implore you to do the right thing (which is what the art committee wanted to do 10 years ago before the city circumvented it) and return this statue to its creator. Respectfully yours, Ron Kashden 1876 Oak Street Sarasota, FL 34236

Page 118 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:26 PMTo: Skip DyrdaCc: David SmithSubject: RE: re the bayfront sculture

Mr. Dyrda, Thank you for your comments, and we will forward them to the Public Art Committee. Steve

From: Skip Dyrda <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 2:23 PM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: re the bayfront sculture


Hello, Mr. Cover I read a notice on FaceBook (where else, right?) about a meeting regarding whether the sculpture depicting the famous WWII Sailor kissing a lady could possibly be removed. I'll keep this short(ish). I vote to keep it right where it stands. Or....if it has to be moved, hopefully for a more valid reason other than someone doesn't like it, I think it would look good anywhere in Bayfront Park. I happen to like it. And...I've been a full time working artist for over 20 years. I've painted murals in downtown Sarasota and some of those had their own issues with many of the same cranky people who are complaining about this piece. They simply like to complain. And there are probably a few who are upset because THEY don't have a piece standing somewhere in Sarasota. Sour grapes, I think they are called. I've also been to the sculpture garden in New Jersey where these sculptures are created. A wonderful place and Mr.Seward Johnson was very creative. So I say it should stay. Please don't listen to the same handful of sour grapes who do nothing but complain. We need more art (and hopefully public art murals) in Sarasota, not less. And this particular piece is very popular. All the best Skip Dyrda www.emurals.com

Page 119 of 132

2


Page 120 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:08 PMTo: Steven Cover; David SmithCc: Shayla GriggsSubject: Fwd: Is the sailor's kiss on V-J Day a sexual assault?


Mr. Cover, Please forward this to the Public Art Advisory Board. I have looked on the city web site for their emails but something has happend to the Public Art web site and it is not included in your meeting anoucment. Please make this part of the public record for the meeting tomarrow. Thank you, Virginia Hoffman

"PC Alert: Is the iconic image of the sailor kissing the nurse on V-J Day amount to a sexual assault? In a word, yes. The kiss seen 'round the world was captured by crackerjack photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt, who snapped the picture in New York's Times Square after the Japanese surrendered. Most people assume the sailor was embracing his girlfriend, but in fact, the apparently intoxicated sailor, upon hearing the news of the surrender, ran out into the streets kissing a number of women he didn't know. As a Marine officer noted to Situation Report by e-mail: "If in 2014 when our troops pull out of Afghanistan, a sailor, soldier or Marine were to do the same thing, aggressively kissing strange women in the street with no prior consent, he would be facing charges under the new Article 120 and if convicted could possibly be required to register as a 'sex offender.'"

To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

David Sedney, leaving the Pentagon; The sexual assault crisis deepens for Hagel; Is the sailor’s kiss on V-J Day a sexual assault? No dressing down at DIA; Chaos aboard

the Porter and a bit more.

Page 121 of 132

2

By Gordon Lubold Sedney, departing. The deputy assistant secretary of defense for Af-Pak and a longtime Afghanistan hand, will leave the Pentagon May 31, according to the E-Ring's Kevin Baron. He will be replaced by Michael Dumont, a rear admiral in the Navy Reserve, who serves as chief of staff for the U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa, and deputy chief of staff for strategy, resources and plans there. Baron reports that "DOD policy denizen Jennifer Walsh will fill the seat in the short term." Sedney, one of the longest-serving DASDs, was a fixture on the defense secretary's so-called "Doomsday plane" anytime it went to Afghanistan. Pentagon pressec George Little yesterday called Sedney "a national treasure" who will be missed. Baron, on Dumont: "Dumont has extensive Af-Pak experience. He was chief of staff of the Office of the U.S. Defense Representative to Pakistan (ODRP) and then served as deputy chief of staff for stability operations at the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Joint Command." Hagel's biggest challenge as SecDef might not be the one he expected. No question the Pentagon's budget woes and regional instability in the Middle East and other operational issues will test Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. But the bigger leadership challenge, for now, will be resurrecting the military's reputation in light of the deepening sexual assault scandal, which took another, darker turn yesterday after revelations that an Army sergeant first class assigned to III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas was under investigation for pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault, and maltreatment of subordinates. Investigators are also looking into whether the soldier had forced a subordinate into prostitution, the WaPo and other outlets reported. Again, it was a case of the person hired to monitor or prevent sexual assault being an alleged perpetrator. The E-7 was also a program coordinator at the unit's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention program -- echoing the case of the lieutenant colonel in charge of the Air Force's sexual assault prevention office, who was recently arrested on sexual battery charges. The sergeant was immediately removed from the job, and As a result of the new case, the Pentagon announced yesterday that Hagel had directed each service to re-train, re-credential, and re-screen all sexual assault prevention and response personnel and military recruiters. Hagel is also "looking urgently at every course of action to stamp out this deplorable conduct and ensure that those individuals up and down the chain of command who tolerate or engage in this behavior are appropriately held accountable," Little said. Hagel is angry. Little, on Hagel getting the news about the latest incident: "I cannot convey strongly enough his frustration, anger, and disappointment over these troubling allegations and the breakdown in discipline and standards they imply." Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Democrat from Missouri, who has been vocal on sexual assault issues in the military, says it's time to reevaluate who is being put into sexual assault prevention jobs. McCaskill, in a statement last night: "Are folks filling these jobs who aren't succeeding elsewhere? Or are these jobs being given to our best leaders? These allegations only add to the mounting evidence of the need to change our military justice system to better hold perpetrators accountable and protect survivors of sexual assault."

Page 122 of 132

3

Welcome to Wednesday's edition of Situation Report. Sign up for Situation Report here or just e-mail us. And always, if you have a report, piece of news, or a tidbit you want teased, send it to us early for maximum tease. If we can get it in, we will. And help us fill our candy dish: news of the military weird, strange trends, personnel comings-and-goings, and military stories of success or excess. And please follow us @glubold -- it would make our Wednesday. PC Alert: Is the iconic image of the sailor kissing the nurse on V-J Day amount to a sexual assault? In a word, yes. The kiss seen 'round the world was captured by crackerjack photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt, who snapped the picture in New York's Times Square after the Japanese surrendered. Most people assume the sailor was embracing his girlfriend, but in fact, the apparently intoxicated sailor, upon hearing the news of the surrender, ran out into the streets kissing a number of women he didn't know. As a Marine officer noted to Situation Report by e-mail: "If in 2014 when our troops pull out of Afghanistan, a sailor, soldier or Marine were to do the same thing, aggressively kissing strange women in the street with no prior consent, he would be facing charges under the new Article 120 and if convicted could possibly be required to register as a 'sex offender.'" Does the Navy celebrate the kiss with a life-size statue on the base near the Battleship Missouri? Yup. There are two known statues recreating the iconic Eisenstaedt image, including a life-sized one near the battleship memorial on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. Pic of "Unconditional Surrender," here. More from the Marine officer on what it all means - "From my perspective this statue seems to embody the disconnect in the messages society is putting out right now. I would say this is a 'teaching moment' but I think that phrase is too cliché and is often over used by those generating the mixed messages in the first place. There are some adult conversations our whole society needs to have on the state of male-female relations, but I don't think we are mature enough yet to handle such a conversation without devolving into political posturing, name calling, slogans and epitaphs geared at galvanizing our own preconceptions rather than find understanding and consensus for achieving the greater good for all." No one will be dressed down for the "Dress for Success" presentation at DIA. An informal presentation on how to dress for work was never officially sanctioned, but it caused a stir after US News' Washington Whispers reported about it in February. But now the presentation itself was released after a FOIA request, as reported by US News here. The presentation tells women to dress according to their personality, body types, skin, hair and eye color. US News: "In terms of makeup, the presentation does not 'advocate the 'The Plain Jane' look' - makeup 'helps women look more attractive,' after all. But it reminds employees that "too much makeup distracts from a professional look" - you want "just enough to accentuate your features." The presentation also assures women that open toed shoes, as long as they're heels, are 'no longer a faux-pas' (thank God!). But don't wear any stockings with them." But news of the presentation rose to the top of DIA, where its director, Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, has bigger things to worry about. A memo Flynn sent to employees distanced the agency from the presentation. "I apologize to the entire workforce for the unnecessary and serious distraction of this 'Dress for Success' briefing," Flynn's memo says. "I too find it highly offensive." The memo says the agency did not condone the briefing, and, as Flynn says,

Page 123 of 132

4

"even smart people do dumb things sometimes." But, he added, "no one is going to be taken to the wood shed over this." The Army is committed to the pivot. When it comes to "military diplomacy," senior level exchanges, exercises, and other face-to-face interaction with commanders in the Asia-Pacific region, the Army is on board, Baron reports. Baron: "It's yet another sign of the Pentagon's commitment to the rebalancing and Asian regional security...much of what the Army does in the Pacific is walled-off from the budget cuts required by sequester, including all funds for the defense of South Korea and extending to all of the 'enabler' forces required to support that mission. That makes cuts in other areas even deeper, especially equipment maintenance," said Lt. Gen. Francis Wiercinski, commander of U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC). Wiercinski: "We've been able to fence our engagements throughout our theater of operations... Those will continue to move forward." FOIA in action: Navy Times gets the recording from the bridge of the USS Porter as it collides with a tanker. Blow-by-blow by NT's Sam Fellman: "The officer of the deck recommended turning right immediately, the standard maneuver. [Porter's commanding officer] Arriola disagreed. The ship slowed instead, the crew weighing their options. But the supertanker continued bearing down. The OOD recognized that the merchant was crossing ahead of them but didn't press the issue. In the confusion, Arriola made a fateful choice -- turn left and streak across a vessel's bow for the second time. 'Hard left rudder!' Arriola bellowed, according to a pilothouse recording. Arriola ordered five whistle blasts, the danger signal, and full speed to try to make it across the tanker's path. 'All engines ahead flank,' Arriola ordered. 'Let's go. Get me up there, flank!' Porter did not make it clear in time. The most complete and vivid picture of these missteps and what happened next has emerged from newly released ship logs and recordings, including a four-minute audio tape of the collision, all obtained by Navy Times via a Freedom of Information Act request." Read NT's story and hear the audio here. The Navy is pretty proud of the drone it launched off an aircraft carrier. Yesterday, the Navy sent out three press releases touting the launch of the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator from the USS George H.W. Bush off the coast of Virginia, landing about an hour later at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. There was the first release, then the one with pictures, then a final one just to make sure everyone saw it. It was the system's first at-sea, catapult launch, and it went well, apparently. Not to be outdone, images emerged of a new stealth drone being developed by the Chinese. Killer Apps' John Reed reports: "These jets are meant to replace the current crop of slow, low-flying, propeller-driven UAVs that military planners assume will be highly vulnerable in a modern conflict where one nation doesn't have absolute control over airspace. For example, the U.S. Navy envisions these planes doing everything from aerial refueling missions to penetrating advanced air defenses to perform strike and surveillance sorties. Until now, we had only seen Chinese versions of U.S. drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper and what appears to be an attempt to field a high altitude, jet-powered spy plane similar to the RQ-4 Global Hawk." Getting out of your bubble: how cartoonists see the Pentagon's budget woes. It's worth looking at even if not all of them are all that clever because it reflects how people outside Washington see the defense budget. A nod to US News for putting it together. See the slide show here.

Page 124 of 132

5

A Pakistan election monitor in Lahore writes on Reuters about the election: "...the winners and losers matter less than the historic process. For the first time, the entire nation was galvanized by election fever. A stunning 36 million new voters registered, especially women and young people. Voter turnout was 60 percent compared to 44 percent in 2008. An unprecedented 15,600 people ran for national or regional political office. Many from outside the ranks of Pakistan's traditional leaders," writes Anja Manuel this morning. John Allen, former ISAF commander, to Situation Report, on the elections, by e-mail: "This was a real victory for the democratic process in Pakistan. The election is historic, and the Pakistani people are to be congratulated for persevering at the polls. With this vote, the Pakistani people said yes to democracy and no to the forces of extremism and terrorism, which would have had the outcome be otherwise." Get smart: on cyber. Talk today with cyber experts about how the U.S. government and the private sector can work to protect systems and intellectual property in "The New Spycraft: Cyber Espionage in the 21st Century." Where/when: Noon to 1:15 p.m. at the Truman National Security Project and the Center for National Policy at One Massachusetts Ave., NW. On the panel: CNP President Scott Bates; Richard Bejtlich, chief security officer for Mandiant; Emilian Papadopoulos, chief of staff for Good Harbor. @CNPonline.

To help protect yMicro so ft Office pauto matic downlopicture from the

Noting

Defense News: Southcom, where modern ISR was born, wants more assets. The Week: Can the military solve its sexual assault crisis? AP: Two Army generals (Allyn, Colt) to testify in Sinclair case. Politico: Fixing the VA-DOD health system fiasco. Army Times: Sequestration effects will last for years. Bloomberg: Russia ousting U.S. official accused of spying. National Interest: Bomb, coerce or contain Iran. CNN: Israeli military: Syrian rockets hit Golan Heights. Reuters: Syrian Internet is down.

The Latest National Security coverage from FP

David Sedney, leaving the Pentagon; The sexual assault crisis deepens for Hagel; Is the sailor’s kiss on V-J Day a sexual assault? No dressing down at DIA; Chaos aboard the Porter and a bit more.

A Liberal Case for Drones Food Fight

Page 125 of 132

6

Hagel will furlough civilians 11 days; Is the Air Force ready in Europe? Dempsey, not big on mil intervention in Syria; Why carrying pens is an occupational hazard for journos at Karzai’s palace; and a little bit more.

Beijing's 'Bitskrieg' A “sense of urgency” on sexual assault; Turkish PM on CW; Rising stars: the Pentagon trims

the brass; Does the Army need a therapist?; Gen. O: Army needs agile leaders;” Did dude look like a lady?; and a little bit more.

The Electric Kool-Aid Flashback Test Talking in Circles AF officer seemed like a good choice at the time; the problem with Hicks; On uniforms, a

pattern of duplication; Spencer for hire; what is a “SCAMMER?” Kath Hicks, out, and a bit more.

Russia's New Tip of the Spear

FP's complete national security coverage:

National Security Channel | The Best Defense | The E‐Ring | Killer Apps | See the Full NatSec Archive |

Sign Up for all of FP's Newsletters | Twitter | Facebook |

This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] Update Profile/Email Address SafeUnsubscribe Privacy Policy Foreign Policy Magazine is published by The FP Group, a division of the Washington Post Company. All contents © 2013 The FP Group. All Rights Reserved. Foreign Policy, 11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600, WASHINGTON DC 20036

To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.

Page 126 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Virginia Hoffman <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 5:55 PMTo: Steven CoverCc: David Smith; Shayla Griggs; Josh Botzenhart; Leslie Butterfield; Joanne McCobb; gracehu2003

@gmail.com; Wendy Lerner; Jeff Jamison; Emmett GregorySubject: Public InputAttachments: Virginia Hoffman_Public Input_Unconditionsl Surrender.docx

Caution: This email originated from outside the City's email system. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information. Verify requester via phone call before exchanging sensitive information. Think B4U Click! Mr. Cover I can not attend the meeting as I must physically distance, my husband hasUnconditional a compromised immune sytem. I trust you will read this into the public record as my public input on the agenda item Unconditional Surrender. ________________ Public Input Virginia Hoffman Resident of the City of Sarasota RE: Agenda item Unconditional Surrender Statue Ten years ago, the City Commission of Sarasota voted to accept the loan of Unconditional Surrender. At the ten‐year mark, the City had the choice to either take this statue into the Public Art collection or return it to the Seward Johnson sculpture foundation from whence it came. In early June, the City Attorney explained the original Donation/Loan agreement. The acceptance of the statue was presented to the City Commissioners as a done deal a no other options were offered nor proposed. These options exist in the original contract. When the discussion evolved into where to put the statue, then it was decided to involve the Public Art Advisory Board and here you are under the bus with a political hot potato. I served on the Public Art Board as Chair when the statue first came before us, and our board voted unanimously NOT to accept it into the public art collection. The reasons were that it did not comply with the mandatory and subjective criteria of the public art policies. • It is of poor quality a cheap casting from China with pit holes that were never adequately addressed. • It is not an original work of art reproduced many times; in fact, replicas can be purchased on Amazon. • There was an intellectual property rights infringement confirmed by the Getty Foundation that owns the rights to Alfred Eisenstaedt images. The Sculpture Foundation had to indemnify the City of liability. • The subjective aspect is that Seward Johnson's work has an unappealing kitsch quality and has never achieved critical

Page 127 of 132

2

acclaim with expert art critics. Robert Hughes, the famous Time magazine Art Critic and author of iconic art‐books, such as “Shock of the New” and “American Vision”, referred to Seward Johnson's work as "chocolate box rubbish." Ten years ago, I was against accepting the statue as I knew it would brand our community with the lowest common denominator, which happened, and I think we deserve better. I hope we can move past this brand and reach for a higher standard. My recommendation is to move not to accept the statue into the public art collection and/or put the statue into storage. Don’t allow staff to tell you that cannot make this motion, demand a ruling from the city attorney or city auditor. Thank you for your kind attention, Virginia Hoffman

Page 128 of 132

Public Input Virginia Hoffman Resident of the City of Sarasota RE: Agenda item Unconditional Surrender Statue Ten years ago, the City Commission of Sarasota voted to accept the loan of Unconditional Surrender. At the ten-year mark, the City had the choice to either take this statue into the Public Art collection or return it to the Seward Johnson sculpture foundation from whence it came. In early June, the City Attorney explained the original Donation/Loan agreement. The acceptance of the statue was presented to the City Commissioners as a done deal a no other options were offered nor proposed. These options exist in the original contract. When the discussion evolved into where to put the statue, then it was decided to involve the Public Art Advisory Board and here you are under the bus with a political hot potato. I served on the Public Art Board as Chair when the statue first came before us, and our board voted unanimously NOT to accept it into the public art collection. The reasons were that it did not comply with the mandatory and subjective criteria of the public art policies. • It is of poor quality a cheap casting from China with pit holes that were never adequately addressed. • It is not an original work of art reproduced many times; in fact, replicas can be purchased on Amazon. • There was an intellectual property rights infringement confirmed by the Getty Foundation that owns the rights to Alfred Eisenstaedt images. The Sculpture Foundation had to indemnify the City of liability. • The subjective aspect is that Seward Johnson's work has an unappealing kitsch quality and has never achieved critical acclaim with expert art critics. Robert Hughes , the famous Time magazine Art Critic and author of iconic artbooks, such as “Shock of the New” and “American Vision”, referred to Seward Johnson's work as "chocolate box rubbish." Ten years ago, I was against accepting the statue as I knew it would brand our community with the lowest common denominator, which happened, and I think we deserve better. I hope we can move past this brand and reach for a higher standard. My recommendation is to move not to accept the statue into the public art collection and put the statue into storage and ask the City Commission to forget about it. Don’t allow staff to tell you that cannot make this motion, demand a ruling from the city attorney or city auditor. Thank you for your kind attention, Virginia Hoffman

Page 129 of 132

1

David Smith

From: Steven CoverSent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:29 AMTo: David SmithSubject: FW: Unconditional Surrender is a GREAT Sculpture

FYI

From: Kenney DeCamp <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:25 AM To: Steven Cover <[email protected]> Subject: Unconditional Surrender is a GREAT Sculpture


Mr. Cover, Unconditional Surrender is NOT a 'horrible monstrosity' It's a fabulous monument and should remain in SRQ! Kenney DeCamp PA Vietnam Veteran 708-997-5437


Page 130 of 132

1

David Smith

From: JIM lampl <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:23 PMTo: David SmithCc: Steven CoverSubject: “Unconditional Surrender”


Please distributaries to Committe Members So many reasons for removing: 1. Why put ANYTHING on the Bayfront that obstructs/distracts from its most important asset ‐ its beauty? 2. Safety ‐ any driver distraction at this new Roundabout is dangerous! 3. As with the original Committee vote of 5‐0, as now, it doesn’t qualify for our Public Art Standards. 4. No matter the celebratory occasion at the time, we all know that is WAS and IS Non‐consensual, and we can’t/should not condone it. If we’re stuck with this piece of kitch, then move it to Ken Thompson Park. Doubtful that it would fetch any real money at auction. Jim lampl Downtown

Page 131 of 132

VIII. Unfinished Business b) Update on 10th and 14th Street / US 41 roundabouts FDOT review –

Steve Cover and David Smith

Page 132 of 132

Public Art Committee August 5, 2020 1:00 pm Regular ...

Documents

Transcript of Public Art Committee August 5, 2020 1:00 pm Regular ...