|
WHAT YOU CAN DO Sign the resolution opposing the monument as it now reads |
JAPANESE AMERICAN VOICE Making Our Voices Heard |
|
HOME | INTRODUCTION | BACKGROUND | INSCRIPTION | RESOLUTION | LETTERS | DISCUSSION | |
|
| TO: National Japanese American Memorial Foundation (NJAMF) Board of Directors (Mel Chiogioji, Chair), and NJAMF Executive Director, Cherry Tsutsumida FROM: Harry Fukuhara, Phil Ishio, Kelly Kuwayama, Jun Mori, Don Nakanishi, Frank Sogi, Turk Suzuki, and Rita Takahashi SUBJECT: NJAMF operations DATE: 22 December 1999 [Note: The original version of this memorandum was transmitted, via e-mail, to Cherry Tsutsumida on 14 December 1999. Despite repeated requests (via telephone and e-mail messages) that this memorandum be given to all Board members right away, nothing has happened for eight days. By not following up and sending this communication to the Board, the NJAMF Chair and Executive Director are providing more evidence that they have selectively disseminated and/or withheld information that the Board needs to make informed decisions. We are now forced to send this memorandum to you ourselves. This revised memorandum reflects a few changes based on new information that came in after the original memorandum.] The National Japanese American Memorial Foundation (NJAMF) Board of Directors has been receiving distorted, incomplete, or false communications from the Board Chair and Executive Director. The flow of inappropriate information is matched by the lack of critical information the Board and community must have to make informed and wise decisions. Further, procedural irregularities bring the integrity of the NJAMF into question. To follow are some specifics related to each of these three problem areas. Distorted, Incomplete, or False Communications In the Executive Director’s Operational Report #1 (dated 5 December 1999), Cherry Tsutsumida wrote that, "At their last meeting on October 21, 1999, the Fine Arts Commission acted to unanimously approve all components. . . of the Memorial to Patriotism, including the Foundation’s inscription submission, with the exception of the haiku." Instead of having approved the text, the Commission advised the Board to further discuss the inscription and to address its controversial components. This is verified in the transcript of the 21 October 1999 Commission’s meeting, which says, "There remains only the question of the inscriptions, . . . That the final inscription submission therefore would be the only thing excerpted [sic (exempted or excepted?)] from this total green light on every other aspect, . . ." (pp. 77-79). Specifically, the transcript says, "The outstanding matter of the two contentious inscriptions" (p. 79) remain to be dealt with. One of the two "contentious" inscription items the Commission identified was the haiku poem, which was not the winning entry in the nationwide haiku/tanka contest. A transcript of the Commission’s 21 October 1999 meeting reveals the Commission’s "strong preference" (p. 79) to exclude the haiku because "It has a lot of strikes against it." (p. 79). The second "contentious" inscription the Commission identified is Mike Masaoka’s quotation (labeled JACL creed). According to Ms. Tsutsumida’s Operations Report #1, "On November 22, the Executive Director met with the Fine Arts commission [sic] and was told that the attribution to the Japanese American Creed would be dropped but the quotation and Mr. Masaoka’s name would remain." Actually, the Commission did not make final decisions about the inscriptions. Instead, they suggested, in addition to dropping the Hosokawa haiku, a possible compromise before it received a deluge of letters from Japanese Americans and veterans objecting to inclusion of any quotation by Mike Masaoka. Despite communications that lead one to believe that inscription decisions must be made expeditiously, Commission Chairman, J. Carter Brown, said, ". . . we have really a lot of time before every letter is designed and put on the wall" (p. 81). Ms. Tsutsumida’s report indicates that, there was a "lengthy discussion" about the memorial text. The Commission of Fine Arts wanted the Board to have substantive discussions to iron out its differences, but this did not happen. On the contrary, the Board rushed through this important item later on the agenda, apparently more concerned about moving on than addressing the full scope, depth, and range of issues behind the controversy. On 21 October 1999, the Commission of Fine Arts had a meeting and received testimonies with respect to the proposed inscriptions. The full Board had not been informed that such a meeting and hearing would take place, despite the fact that most Board members were in Washington, D.C. anyway, for the ground breaking ceremonies and Board of Directors meeting. The importance of this meeting is captured in the fact that materials were assembled, packaged, and spiral bound for the Commissioners (but which were not given to Board members, not even the ones who were present at the Commission meeting). The Commission of Fine Arts will meet on 20 January 2000. According to an article published in the Nichi Bei Times (by Yuriko Nagano, 17 December 1999), Charles Atherton of the Commis-sion of Fine Arts "is welcoming the public to drop by and make statements at their hearing, which will be held from 10 a.m. on January 20, 2000, Thursday, at the Commission of Fine Arts, National Building Museum, 441 F Street, N.W., Suite 312, Washington, D.C. 20001-2728." The entire NJAMF Board should be fully apprised when such hearings are scheduled, and they -- and the community -- should be given equal opportunity to comment and testify. Contrary to what people are being led to believe, final approval for the inscriptions has not been made. In a 1 November 1999 letter to J. Carter Brown, Chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, the NJAMF counsel said that Mike Masaoka "articulated a set of principles that represented the true sentiment of Japanese Americans . . ." and that "The Japanese American Creed was recognized as representing the true sentiment of Japanese American [sic]." When asked to produce substantiating evidence for such conclusions, the author, Gerald Yamada, produced none. In fact, there were no attempts to garner community sentiments before ideas were presented as representative of the people, and this became a central source of anger and resentment in the community. Yamada is entitled to speak for himself, but he should clearly state that he does so as an individual, not as the so-called representative of or general counsel for the Foundation. Ms. Tsutsumida’s Operational Report #1 contains a section titled, "Summary of Concerns Being Raised," which does not fully capture the many points that were raised in opposition to including the "creed." The memorial should unify the community and make everyone proud. It should not stir up resentment and whip up the same furor that arose when JACL spoke "for" the people without consultation. The memorial should be inclusive of everyone, and it should not pinpoint certain individuals and organizations for special attention. Ms. Tsutsumida’s repeated use of the word, "allegation," distorts the reality of existing evidence. The scope and nature of the Mike Masaoka and JACL controversies are not based on simple allegations but rather on documentation from archival sources. Also in the Operational Report #1 is a section, "Charges Being Made Against Mr. Masaoka." Like the word, "allegation," the word "charges" conjures up images of unfairness and unsubstantiated communications. Allegations and charges were not made. Rather, attention was directed to existing documents that reveal the nature and scope of the controversy. Operational Report #1 should have included the fact that, several years earlier, the NJAMF Board considered and then rejected a proposal to include a quotation by Mike Masaoka. The section, "Background on NJAMF Action on the Inscription," is silent on this matter. In the above-mentioned "Charges" section, a point was made about today’s versus yesterday’s "civil rights" context. This section is offensive because of language (uses the word, "Negro") and content (suggests that what was acceptable in the past is not acceptable today). Civil rights violations were never acceptable – not then and not now. Further, the point about "Monday morning quarterbacking" is dangerous. Redress opponents used the same argument to undermine the drive for redress. Lack of Critical Information and Insufficient Notice The entire Board has been given only select information. Other important information is oftentimes not disseminated to all members of the Board. Ms. Tsutsumida’s Operational Report #1 says the Commission of Fine Arts suggested that the citation, "The Japanese American Creed," be dropped and that this is "a concession Chairman Chiogioji accepted." The Board was neither apprised of the suggestion or Chiogioji’s unilateral decision nor asked to take action for its approval. Accurate, complete, and timely information should be provided to the entire Board. It is unacceptable to be advised that final decisions have been reached (as mentioned in the previous section) when it has not. Further, the entire Board should be advised of such important matters as the Commission of Fine Arts meetings and hearings, which lead to final decisions that are of major significance to the Foundation. During a Board meeting, the Board was told that, Akemi Dawn Matsumoto Ehrlich (author of the tanka poem) had no objection to inscription of her poem with no attribution. The truth is that, Ms. Ehrlich is not happy with deletion of her name, but she thought all hands were tied because Cherry Tsutsumida told her that the U.S. Park Service forbade such attributions. The NJAMF has neither disseminated important information to the community (e.g. the proposed inscriptions) nor encouraged or invited public comment. Rather than speaking "for" the community, the community should be given an opportunity to speak for itself because the community provided financial support. The proposed inscriptions should be published in its entirety, and the public should be encouraged to provide input. Procedural and Process Irregularities Decision making processes frequently reflect a blatant disregard for following proper process. Ignoring, side-stepping and violating procedures are improper, disrespectful, and dangerous (if not illegal). The following are but a few examples: - Committees were established to discuss and hammer out recommendations prior to presentation before the Board. Upon recommendation from the committees, the Board is to take action. Frequently, however, decisions are made privately outside the committee structure and then brought directly to the full Board for action, without even going through the committee that has responsibility for the action in question. Many decisions about the memorial inscription were made following this type of improper process. One specific example of circumventing committees and decision channels is the process used to include Bill Hosokawa’s haiku in the memorial. The NJAMF sponsored a contest to select one poem from among all the entries received nationwide. Akemi Dawn Matsumoto Ehrlich’s poem was clearly selected by the NJAMF board’s haiku/tanka committee and approved by the full Board. When Hosokawa drafted the memorial inscriptions, his haiku simply appeared after being added without proper protocol. - Actions that have been taken by the Board are frequently ignored and thrown out, without a formal Board vote to abandon its already-passed motions. Witness what happened to the Board’s decision to have an ad hoc committee (consisting of Mel Chiogioji, Bill Hosokawa, and Kelly Kuwayama) amalgamate various versions and positions of the proposed memorial text. The amalgamated version was never brought back to the Board for discussion and action. Instead, an individual Board member was allowed to make a motion on the floor, and it was voted on immediately, in violation of the NJAMF By-laws. This was a critical motion that called for reinserting Mike Masaoka’s quotation in the inscriptions, and it was based upon a false representation that he was the Father of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. There was no vote to override previous Board actions. - A motion to add quotations to the memorial inscription was made without disclosure of the specific quotations. Only names of individuals were identified (including one by Mike Masaoka, which has stirred such a controversy, as demonstrated by the many protest letters submitted to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and National Park Service). Immediate action on this motion was allowed, and the Board passed the motion without knowledge of what was to be included. - Decisions by fiat frequently occur, and many Board members are not even aware it is happening because the Board is not advised. For example, the memorial has been labeled, "Memorial to Patriotism." The Board did not discuss the merits or take any action to formally approve such a title. Conclusion and Resolution The above-mentioned problems and issues are serious, and each must be rectified immediately. The entire Board has the duty, obligation, and responsibility to oversee all aspects of the Foundation. We must take the time and expend the energy to correct gross errors and problems. We ask that the Chair and Executive Director provide complete and timely reports of all rectifying actions and results to the Board of Directors. We also ask that the entire proposed text be published in all Nikkei vernaculars. The whole community should be encouraged to review all aspects and provide comments. If the Foundation wants to claim that the inscriptions reflect community views, then it must have the data from which to make such an assertion. The community must be given the opportunity to speak for itself, and they should be asked to send their timely correspondence directly to: The Honorable J. Carter Brown, Chair; U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, National Building Museum; 441 F Street, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20001, with copies to Mr. Terry Carlstrom, Regional Director, and Mr. John Parsons, Associate for Lands, Resources and Planning, U.S. National Park Service, 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20242, and to the NJAMF, 1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 660, Washington, D.C. 20036-4504. |
|