Open memo to: National Japanese American Memorial Foundation Board of Directors
From: Rita Takahashi
Subject: concerns about board operations
Date: 11 July 2000
At the 8 July 2000 National Japanese American Memorial Foundation (NJAMF) Board Meeting in San Francisco, I handed out my response to the board’s 14 June 2000 letter to editors. My response, which was circulated to the press on 18 June 2000 (to the same vernaculars the NJAMF submitted their letter to), addresses the reasons why many throughout the nation and I are protesting what is to be inscribed on the Japanese American national memorial.
In addition to documenting why people object to the inscriptions and why there is a nationwide grassroots movement for change (headed by JAvoice.com), I also noted why several board members take issue with NJAMF’s decision-making processes. As I noted during the open session, what transpired during this board’s morning closed session was but another good example of the problems with process.
Public Right to Know and Free Speech Issues:
Immediately after the Board came to order, it was called into a closed (for board and the executive director only) "executive session" to discuss issues I believe should have been discussed during an open meeting. It was clear that the executive session was specifically designed to prevent the press reporters and private individuals present from hearing the board’s debate about whether to keep information about board action from floating outside the confines of the narrow board. What was discussed did not involve personnel action and it was not one that is of a confidential nature. As I said in the open meeting, debating whether to exclude the press and public from attending this meeting and deciding whether board members should be prevented from speaking to the press about any and all subjects are normally not the stuff of confidentiality. During this open meeting, I merely stated the subjects of the executive session, not the specific content, statements, or actions taken.
I am very concerned and disturbed that the Board even questioned whether the public has a right to know what transpired in the meeting and whether Board members should be essentially "muzzled" and prevented from speaking their mind about anything related to decisions made by the Board. It is shocking that, despite our constitutional protections of free speech, there was such a discussion about stifling free speech in an executive session. Hiding behind the cloak of "executive session" to prevent information flow is an abuse of what executive sessions are for. Any attempt to violate the public’s right to know and the individual’s right to free speech is repressive and dangerous, and it raises questions about motivation for such acts.
Community Outreach Issues:
During the meeting, I also stated my concern that, from the beginning, Board communications have been insular and not readily open to the public. What happened at an accompanying Board event for this meeting provides another example of what’s wrong with process. When Board member Harry Fukuhara called to ask me whether I would be one of 4 Bay-area contributors sponsoring a reception in San Francisco, I said I would be happy to do so if the event is open to the public. I insisted on the importance of being more readily accessible and accountable to the public, and I said I would not support an elitist event featuring only "invited" guests. I advocated for an open community reception in San Francisco, where the community would be welcome to attend a reception to meet the Board Members, to learn more about the memorial, and to interact with those involved.
As a follow-up, I expressed the same sentiment several times to the Executive Director, Cherry Tsutsumida. Meanwhile, two respectable and well-established San Francisco organizations – the National Japanese American Historical Society (NJAMF) and the Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California (JCCCNC) – agreed to co-sponsor the reception, which would have been held at the JCCCNC large event room. Expenses for this event were also covered, as I agreed to pay all charges as long as the reception was open to the public (and publicized in the Japanese American vernaculars).
In response, Ms. Tsutsumida wrote, "I have contacted Mr. [Yosh] Uchida, Mr. [Harry] Fukuhara and Mr. [Cressey] Nakagawa, the other board members from your area who will be sharing the costs for the reception. I have told them about your discussion with certain community groups. They have expressed the desire to host a reception for Board members only." The communications between Tsutsumida and me are attached herewith. I was puzzled by Tsutsumida’s comment because Fukuhara had already told me on the phone that he agreed with the idea of having a public reception. At the Board meeting (and reconfirmed in a 10 July telephone conversation), Fukuhara said he received no word from anyone since my 20 June memo and that he did not say he wanted a reception "for Board members only." Unfortunately, the idea of an open community reception was squelched. As a gesture of openness and appreciation to this supportive community, the board should have seized the opportunity and accepted the community organizations’ offers to sponsor such an important community event.
Conflict of Interest Issues:
Another process issue is that of proper board voting patterns. It is commonly understood that, ethically, one must recuse oneself from voting on matters with which one has a conflict of interest. One should not, for example, vote when the results benefit oneself or significant others, such as relatives, close associates, or friends. The NJAMF Board has allowed violations of this commonly understood principle.
Conclusions:
There is no "vituperative vendetta" here, as charged by the NJAMF against dissenting board members. Rather, there have been repeated attempts to rectify process irregularities and wrongs. Further, concerted efforts have been devoted to presenting the Board and public with information documenting historical facts surrounding the controversy over the inscriptions. JAvoice.com: Committee for a Fair and Accurate Japanese American Memorial created its website to give the public ready access to critical information related to Japanese American history. It gives the entire public a voice and an opportunity to make that voice heard. More than 900 persons nationwide have made their voices heard by signing a resolution calling for inscription changes and accountability on the part of the U.S. Department of Interior and NJAMF. This is far from a "vituperative vendetta."
The integrity of this memorial is on the line. Just and proper means must be used to achieve the ends.
Fax to: Harry Fukuhara
From: Rita Takahashi
Re: board reception
Date: 20 June 2000
Harry: Since you seem to be the one coordinating things for the upcoming July board meeting in San Francisco, I am writing to express my concerns about a reception that is not open to the public. Here is a message I conveyed to Cherry and her response:
My early morning 6-20-00:
Mel and Cherry: I write again to advise that two organizations, JCCCNC and NJAHS in San Francisco have agreed to host a reception for the entire public on Friday evening when the NJAMF is meeting for its Board Meeting. Rosalyn Tonai, NJAHS Executive Director, can be reached for arrangements. I've agreed to pay the expenses for this community event.
To make this happen, press releases need to be issued right away. It is important that the NJAMF Board take a more "responsive to the community" approach so as not to be perceived as elitist. Events, like receptions, should be open to public, and we should welcome and encourage the public's attendance and participation. We should consistently provide avenues for the community to hear about the memorial and to raise questions and make comments. Please let me know what the plans are. Thank you. Rita Takahashi
Cherry Tsutsumida’s response:
Rita:
I have contacted Mr. Uchida, Mr. Fukuhara and Mr. Nakagawa, the other Board members from your area who will be sharing the costs for the reception. I have told them about your discussion with certain community groups. They have expressed the desire to host a reception for Board members only. You are free to discuss the reception with them further if you feel that it would be helpful to them to understand your concerns.
Cherry Y. Tsutsumida/cc
|