May 25, 2010 | CCAC
As a reminder, the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 25 at the US Mint Headquarters in Washington, DC. On the agenda is the review for the 2011 US Army and Medal of Honor Commemoratives. Coin World is reporting that the designs are less than inspiring.
If you cannot attend the meeting, you can follow the tweets of CCAC member Donald Scarinci to read real-time updates from the meeting. Just follow @Scarinci on Twitter. Scarinci has already begun tweeting about the designs the CCAC are reviewing also noting the Coin World article on the designs. Stay tuned!
May 9, 2010 | CCAC, technology, US Mint
As a proponent of using technology to advance all my favorite activities, I was happy to read about Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee member Donald Scarinci was tweeting about the last CCAC meeting in Philadelphia. The posts on his Twitter account (@Scarinci) made for an interesting read as to what was discussed at the meeting.
If you are unfamiliar with Twitter, I recommend that you read my previous blogpost about the service.
A few days after the meeting, I heard from Scarinci via email who said that he had been studying Twitter for a few months before deciding to use the service. This is understandable because for the uninitiated, Twitter can be confusing. Scarinci, whose interests include law, numismatics, and art, decided to try Twitter to share his interest with others. “I decided to go forward with Twitter in order to communicate to people and at the same time make it worthwhile for people to follow. I didn’t want to focus just on law or just on numismatics or just on art,” Scarinci wrote. “I wanted to show myself as a full multidimensional person—opinionated, insightful, diverse, sensitive, at times insensitive. If used thoughtfully, twitter will allow me to display my personality and my interests as a mosaic rather than as a single static snapshot.”
What makes Scarinci’s perspective on using Twitter interesting is that it provides an insight into one member of the CCAC. Many of us never meet the CCAC members. Sometimes we hear them speak at various shows. But using Twitter as a way to allow us to meet him, at least virtually, allows us to understand at least one of the personalities making the selection on the coinage we care about.
When Scarinci contacted me, I said that I wish I would have known before the meeting because I would have followed his tweets. Since discovering his tweets, I have added @Scarinci to my list of followers on both the account that I use with this blog (@coinsblog) and my personal account. Although it was difficult to be one his followers when he tweeted he went to Katz Deli in Manhattan the other day (stop thinking of their corned beef… it’s the best!).
After a recent online and public “discussion” with CCAC member Gary Marks about the lack of communications from the CCAC, it was refreshing to hear from Donald Scarinci with a very different and positive attitude on communication with the public. Scarinci wrote:
Reporting from the CCAC meeting as it was happening is something I always thought should be done. I never understood and still don’t understand why the Mint does not web cast the CCAC meetings. We are, after all, a citizens committee. Each one of us on the committee has different perspectives and different levels of knowledge about numismatics and about art. The CCAC is very much as congress intended it to be—a peoples’ committee. While imperfect, it is probably the only way to debate and decide coinage designs in a democracy. So why not bring people in as the discussion unfolds and involve anyone who has an interest into the very core of the process. Twitter allows that to happen in real time without attaching people to a viewing screen for hours at a time. Instead anyone interested in the subject can get information in brief sentences. If the writing is clear and simple, the communication will work for busy people with day jobs even better than a web cam. That’s my opinion.
Amen!
I applaud Scarinci’s initiative and appreciate his efforts. I hope the concept of using modern communication techniques can be institutionalized by the CCAC and the US Mint and expanded to include more citizens in the process. Scarinci will be tweeting during future meetings. I will be following those updates (@Scarinci) and suggest anyone interested in the work of the CCAC to follow, too.
May 2, 2010 | ANA, CCAC
After taking some time off from blogging following the announcement of the new $100 federal reserve note, there have been a number of news items I wanted to mention that will talk about in more details over the next few days. But I wanted to mention a few as a “preview” of things to come.
Dave Harper wrote on his blog about Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee member Donald Scarinci was tweeting from the CCAC meeting at the Philadelphia Mint this past week. You can read the tweet on his account @Scarinci. As a proponent of using technology to reach out to everyone, I was very happy to go back and read Scarinci’s tweets from the meeting and hope he continues and others follow. I will write more about this topic soon with quotes from Scarinci.
The American Numismatic Association has change how they are assigning convention sites and has decided to add a convention in the Fall. I was a bit confused by the announcement after reading the the World’s Fair of Money will be centered in Chicago and the National Money Show will be part of a rotating series of cities. This is clearly a nod to finding what has been described as “the best bourse cities” which benefits the dealers more than the collectors. Interesting, in the May 2010 edition of The Numismatist, President Cliff Mishler quoted ANA Governor Jeff Garrett that Mishler told him, “He reminded me that there are not two classes of ANA membership—dealers and collectors—but rather a single community, one that cares about the well-being of the hobby.” It is interesting how Mishler could tell an ANA governor that the ANA is a community yet support a convention policy that is clearly geared to the dealer community.
In the April 2010 edition of The Numismatist, Q. David Bowers writes about the aging of the ANA membership noting that 47-percent of its membership is between the ages of 50 and 60. While Bowers notes that there “are several reasons why numismatics has lost its appeal to younger people,” he claims that it is nothing “the ANA has done or not done.” Bowers sites studies that show that younger people have embraced technology and social media to fill their spare time. With all due respect to Mr. Bowers, then why has the ANA not embraced this new social media paradigm? Why isn’t the ANA trying to fit in that electronic social networking space? The ANA has no social media presence or outreach program to these users with the exception of a website and Facebook page and not real electronics communication policy. By the way, did you know the ANA was on Facebook? It is not even advertised on the front page or the ANA’s website!
Finally, your intrepid blogger was recently interviewed for a national publication that will be printed in the late summer. I will write more when it gets closer to the publication date.
Mar 10, 2010 | CCAC, medals
Over the last week, it was announced that Heidi Wastweet of Seattle, Washington was appointed to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee as a specialist in medallic sculpture. Wastweet is an accomplished artist whose credits include the design of many medals, the founder of the Seattle Sculpture Guild, and a member of FIDEM.
There have been other articles about Wastweet’s biography. I want to focus on her work. To visit her website gallery it is clear that she can be best described as an awesome artist! From bonze sculptures to commissioned medals, I click on every image and am just in awe of her work. Wastweet created a fantasy piece of what could be my favorite allegedly non-coin, the 1964-D Peace Dollar (seen here).
Of Wastweet’s sculptures, I was most intrigued by the her “Tribute to Auguste Rodin,” a study of Rodin’s Gates of Hell created for a private collector. Having only read about Rodin’s sculpture in Paris, I am intrigued by her work and the imagery that Wastweet used to create her work.
After visiting her virtual gallery with mouth agape, I can only say that Wastweet may be on the wrong side of the table. Maybe she should be creating the artwork instead of judging them. I see Wastweet’s addition as a good move for the CCAC and hope she can provide valuable input to the designs of US coins.
Feb 28, 2010 | CCAC, US Mint
The US Mint announced on Friday that they are accepting applications for the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee to represent the interests of the general public. Application deadline is March 31, 2010.
Looking over the list of CCAC members it appears that the term of Dr. Mitchell Sanders is expiring in 2010. Dr. Sanders has been the Chairman of the CCAC from 2005 through 2009.
According to the US Mint:
The CCAC was created to advise the Secretary of the Treasury on the selection of themes and design proposals for circulating coinage, commemorative coins, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals and other medals. The CCAC also advises the Secretary with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins, as well as the mintage levels and proposed designs of commemorative coins.
Sometimes, it does not seem that the CCAC is maintaining this advisory role or they are not communicating it properly. Recently, I have been critical of the CCAC and even had a public “discussion” with a member of the CCAC that highlighted the problems with communications.
What would happen if the CCAC had a different point of view? What would happen if the CCAC had a citizen member who was interested in bringing the voice of the general public into the committee who would also be interested in ensuring that the working of the CCAC would be published in full to the general public? Could it be possible that the CCAC be seen as more of a representative of the general public?
I would like to see the CCAC take the next step and make the CCAC’s proceedings more open to the citizens. I would also like to see that whatever comes in front of the CCAC is available to the general public to read, analyze, and comment on either through the media or on their own. I would like to see the CCAC general public representative be more of a representative to the input of the general public being represented.
That being said, what if your intrepid were to apply for this opening?
The problem is that in this town, politics is the rule and not the exception. I am sure that my criticism on this blog and other venues will work against me even though I had called for the expansion of the CCAC’s role in how it relates to the US Mint. Another issue is that I work for the same company as a current member of the CCAC. Although my company does not do business with the US Mint, there is no telling how this situation would be viewed by those making the decision.
However, I have demonstrated significant and thoughtful of opinions on the US Mint and CCAC that includes suggestion for improvement. It would be great if I could work with the CCAC to try to improve what they do for the US Mint and make suggestions that would benefit the Mint’s coinage programs. I know I would be in the forefront to expand their communications capabilities to get the public more involved and better support the collecting community.
So what do you think? Should I apply? Leave a comment here and I will consider your suggestions.
Feb 4, 2010 | CCAC, policy, US Mint
Last week I had a public discussion with Gary Marks, a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee about my comments about the CCAC on CoinNews.net. My initial comments were based on an article that Mr. Marks says misrepresents the work of the CCAC. After following up with asking for more information, Mr. Marks produced a quote buried in a document on the CCAC website that was lacking context. It is evident that Mr. Marks does not fully understand the issue.
The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee is supposed be a conduit for the public to have input to the coin design process. The CCAC is supposed to work with the US Mint to create coin designs that represents the best of the best. It is a committee that is to do what President Theodore Roosevelt did as part of his “pet crime.”
New York Yankees limited partner John McMullen once said, “Nothing is more limited than being a limited partner of [George Steinbrenner].” McMullen has not tried to pry information from the CCAC and the US Mint!
Openness of the federal government was first codified in the Freedom of Information Act signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966. At the time, it was referred to as the “Sunshine Laws.” Before the growth of the computer age, the purpose was to make documents that were not sensitive or classified available to the public. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have mandated their administrations to expand the availability of government information as electronic capabilities have improved.
On January 20, 2009, the first day of the Obama Administration, President Obama signed the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which said that “agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.” By August, the White House issued the Transparency and Open Government memo telling agencies that they have 120 days to report to the Office of Management and Budget how they would make the processes more open.
Rather than making the process more open as the President requested, the CCAC and the US Mint appears to be stuck in the mindset of the electronic world before the invention of the World Wide Web.
Although the meetings are open to the public, knowing when the meetings are being held is almost a state secret. Although announcements are made via a press release by the US Mint—of course everyone follows the US Mint’s press releases—the CCAC website has no information as to when meetings are held. Rather, the front page says to call a Washington, DC telephone number to listen to a recorded message about the meeting. Meeting announcements are not posted on the web site. Neither are the agendas in advance of the meeting. Instead of following the President’s executive order to be more open, the CCAC makes meeting announcements are technically legal but violates the spirit of open government.
Even using the 20th century forms of communications, the CCAC is not updating their website. At this time, minutes have not been posted for the last four meetings. Not that it matters because the information is sparse and really does not explain what the CCAC is doing.
There is also nothing worth reading on their Press Room page.
Anyone attending the CCAC meetings are handed a package of papers with an agenda, support letters, and even images of the proposed designs being discussed. These packages contain a phenomenal amount of information that when combined with the sparse minutes provides a better insight into what the CCAC has discussed. But these packages are not available to the public. If you know someone attending the meeting, you can ask them to obtain an extra copy. When I called the US Mint to ask to receive a package, I was told that it could not be done but I could receive copies of the coin images if I signed a copyright release. More than a year ago, I submitted a request for the release. After my application was rejected because I could not provide a company name, I was told I would have to sign a form for each request.
Most of the meetings are held at the US Mint’s Headquarters in Washington, DC. On occasion, meetings have been held during the American Numismatic Association’s Summer Seminar, Worlds Fair of Money, and recently the Florida United Numismatics show. While I would like to attend these events, I have a full time job, not in numismatics, that keeps me close to home. However, if I had access to the meeting package and a way of listening to the conversation, I would be able to make educated judgements on their work without having to rely on a second hand source like a non-numismatic newspaper.
Even if the CCAC continues to use 20th century communications, the Department of the Treasury does have the capability of creating a teleconference bridge that can be outbound only and recorded. This teleconference bridge will allow people who are not local to the meetings to listen to the meeting. In my “Real Life”™ job, I have used this service. It requires the bureau to request the service in advance.
After the meeting, the audio can be posted on the website so that anyone who could not participate during the time of the meeting could download the audio and listen at another time.
If the CCAC and US Mint wants to step into the 21st century, there are Internet-based audio services that can be used with greater capacity than the Treasury’s teleconferencing service.
Would it be too much to ask for the CCAC to have a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed? RSS feeds allows for better communication by my RSS reader letting me know when the site has created updates by watching the RSS feed. RSS is really simple. There are a number of programs to help create feeds and services that help publish feeds. As the webmaster for my local coin club, I provide an RSS feed when the website changes. I also use it to remind members of upcoming meetings.
Also, it is possible to integrate Google search into the CCAC website to provide search capabilities to visitors. There is no cost for this service.
If the CCAC participated in the Open Government initiative ordered by the President and made its deliberations more open to the citizens, maybe there would be a better understanding between the committee and the citizens they are supposed to represent.
Jan 28, 2010 | CCAC, policy
There once was a saying that you should not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. In this case, maybe Gary Marks of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee should consider how they deal with a blogger with an active blog. Mr. Marks commented on my response without understanding the point that if the CCAC had better communications outlets, we may not be having this discussion.
Here is the follow-up from CoinNews.net:
Mr. Berman [sic]wants to know how he would have known about the CCAC’s recommendation to put Roosevelt on the quarter obverse. Actually I known that it received prominent coverage in Coin World. He also asks why the CCAC’s documents are not on the web. Well, actually they are. Please go to ccac.gov and you will find them — right out there for the public to see. In fact, if you go to the January 27, 2009 CCAC meeting minutes you will find the following excerpt concerning the Roosevelt recommendation:
“9. Reverend Meier mentioned to the committee that he, as a private citizen, is urging legislation to place Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of National Parks Quarters, in tribute to President Roosevelt’s role in establishing America’s national parks.
10. Members expressed considerable enthusiasm for Reverend Meier’s idea. Several members pointed out that any such change would, be definition, be temporary, because the legislation creating the National Parks Quarter Program specifies that an image of George Washington will appear on the quarter after the program’s conclusion.
11. After extensive discussion about whether a sua sponte suggestion was within the CCAC’s mandate, the committee voted 8-0 to recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury that consideration should be given to placing an image of Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of quarters issued as part of the National Parks Quarter Program.”
Mr. Berman [sic] then suggests that the CCAC has “coordinated” talking points because he has heard from two members concerning the idea of improving the “spaghetti” haired Washington image on the quarter. Wow, I’m not sure who Mr. Berman thinks we are, but I can tell you that our committee is made up of hard working volunteers — most of them coin collectors — who share many of the same thoughts, aspirations and concerns held by many in the coin collecting world. We are certainly not career politicians who sit around “coordinating” talking points. If Mr. Berman has heard the same thing from two of us its simply because that is an area the committee is now focusing on.
To which I responded:
With all due respect to Gary Marks, I tried to subtly point out that you are spelling my name wrong by including “[sic]” in the quotes from his response to indicate that the previous word is not a transcription error. Mr. Marks responds to my comment by continuing the same mistake in the spelling of my name. Respecting the name of the person you are conversing with is important to having disparate points of view discussed in a respectful manner. Therefore, if Mr. Marks would like to continue this discussion, I would appreciate that he spells my name properly!
Mr. Marks notes that the information is on the CCAC website. However, with no search capabilities and with information less than what is available to those who attend the meetings, it is difficult to sit and read back through past meetings to find the information. It should also be noted that as of this writing, the minutes from the last FOUR CCAC meetings have not been posted.
What should be obvious from my response is that there is a communications issue. While the information is there, its usage and accessibility is lacking, even using the basic technology tools available to the CCAC and the US Mint. It should be incumbent on the CCAC and the US Mint to fix these communications issues to provide the public a better view into their work.
Again, if the CCAC and the US Mint cannot perform these basic functions, then my conclusion on how they perform their function does not change.
This is my last work in this forum. I will have a full comment on this on the Coin Collector’s Blog (coinsblog.blogspot.com) this weekend.
Stay tuned!
Jan 28, 2010 | CCAC, coin design, policy
My last blog entry, CCAC Dropped the Ball… AGAIN! appeared on CoinNews.net and generated an interesting response from Gary Marks, a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. Mr. Marks writes:
As a member of the CCAC, I read Scott Barman’s article, “America the Beautiful Quarters, CCAC dropped the ball again” with great interest.
According to Berman, [sic] his opinion about the CCAC’s actions concerning the call to put Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of “America the Beautiful Quarters” stems soley from his reading of an article entitled, “Debate rages in coin world: Theodore Roosevelt or George Washington on new quarter?”, published on January 20th.
Although he might have read the January 20th article, I was left to ponder if he might have misread or inadvertantly skipped over a part of it. His conclusions seem to suggest that he might have missed the following key sentence from the January 20th article, “Unfortunately, the change attracted no support in Congress, which initiates all changes in U.S. coins, including denominations, size, weight, metallic content and subject.” The key phase here is “the change attracted no support”.
Berman [sic] writes, “I am sure that members of the CCAC will ask that if there is no support for the design then why propose it?” The statement seems to suggest that Berman [sic] is unaware that the committee actually proposed it. But once we proposed it, it fell flat. No support materialized. Yet, Berman [sic] interprets the lack of support this way: “the CCAC wilted at the chance to refresh the sameness of the one coin’s design”. Did the CCAC wilt? I think not. We were the committee that started this discussion in the first place by making a bold recommendation! Yet, when no support materialized, the committee was faced with the option of “tilting at windmills” by trying to breathe life into an idea that was clearly and unfortunately dead, or to move on and consider doing something else to refresh the quarter obverse – like making improvements to Washington’s image. The committee is currently considering the latter.
Contrary to Berman’s [sic] interpretation of this situation, the committee did exactly what it was suppose to do – it provided independent advice based on what we thought was best for American coin design. But that advice was not taken.
Is refreshing Washington’s image an option with the same excitement as placing Roosevelt on the Quarter? Clearly not. Is it an idea that might actually have a chance of happening? Yes. Will it be an improvement over the “spagetti” [sic] haired Washington that currently exists on the quarter? Yes. On that basis alone, it is worth pursuing.
In my response to Mr. Marks, I followed up with:
I read the article correctly, Mr. Marks. I read the statement you emphasized and drew my conclusion from the statement and the information in the article.
Mr. Marks then said, “The statement seems to suggest that Berman [sic] is unaware that the committee actually proposed it. But once we proposed it, it fell flat.” How would I know that that the CCAC proposed this? Where was the reporting? Better yet, with the various directives from the President on the executive branch toward open government, then why aren’t the CCAC’s documents available on the web? What is on the web is so sparse it is difficult to understand what happened at the meetings. Maybe, if the CCAC published their materials on the web the concerned public would be able to understand what is happening without relying on the word count limitations of a non-numismatic publication.
I have heard the comment about the new design being better than Washington’s “spagetti” [sic] hair used since 1999 from another CCAC member. I am glad to know that the CCAC has coordinated its talking points on this consolation prize. Of course Washington’s spaghetti hair would not be an issue if Teddy Roosevelt appeared on the quarter’s obverse.
For the record, I have “applied” to gain access to the artwork presented to the CCAC. Unfortunately, the US Mint, which manages this process, does not recognize bloggers in the same manner as journalists and my application was denied. Therefore, if the CCAC wants me to comment on the facts, provide them to me in a timely manner. Otherwise, you are a victim of your own bureaucracy which does not change my conclusion.
I invite the CCAC, including Chairman Mitch Sanders and representatives from the US Mint, to an open discussion on the issues of open government and how that could best provide their materials to the numismatic public for a better understanding of why filtered information garners responses they do not agree with.
Oct 2, 2009 | CCAC, US Mint
Yesterday, the US Mint has announced that they are seeking applicants for two openings to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC). The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the US Mint as to the design of numismatic products produced by the US Mint. CCAC’s recommendations are submitted to the US Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) for final decision.
“The CCAC is composed of 11 members: one specially qualified in numismatic collection curation; one specially qualified in the medallic arts or sculpture; one specially qualified in American history; one specially qualified in numismatics; three individuals representing the interests of the general public; and four individuals recommended by the Leadership of both the House of Representatives and Senate. CCAC members serve terms of four years and are Special Government Employees; therefore, they are subject to various applicable conflict of interest laws and ethics regulations.”
In this announcement, four year appointments are for the representative specially qualified in American history and one who is a specialist in medallic art. Interested parties should send a cover letter, a resumé or curriculum vitae outlining relevant experience, and an indication of which position is being applied for to the US Mint by fax to 202-756-6525, or by mail to the United States Mint, 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Greg Weinman. Applications must be postmarked no later than November 13, 2009.
Jun 4, 2009 | CCAC, cents, CFA, coin design, US Mint
For the last few months, the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee have been volleying between each other and the sculptor-engravers at the US Mint over the design of the reverse for the 2010 Lincoln Cent. Based on what is being reported one thing is clear, the designs are somewhat less than stellar.
Ok… they stink!
According to Public Law 145-109 Section 303 states, “[the] design on the reverse of the 1-cent coins issued after December 31, 2009, shall bear an image emblematic of President Lincoln’s preservation of the United States of America as a single and united country.”
While the mandate sounds simple, there is a catch: Lincoln only caught a glimpse of a united country. Prior to Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender on April 9, 1865, Lincoln visited Richmond after it was taken by Union troops. Lincoln was greeted as a conquering hero by newly freed slaves on his way to visit the Confederate capital. When Lincoln arrived at Jefferson Davis’s office, he sat behind Davis’s desk to symbolize that there was only one president who had the authority to rule over the land. Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865 and died on April 15.
Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 with 55-percent of the vote and a 212-21 electoral vote margin. On March 3, 1865, Lincoln gave his second inaugural address as the war was winding down. Lincoln’s theme turned to healing as he ended his address:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
With that rich and well documented history, someone could not come up with a good theme to represent the preservation of a united country?
Even though the Confederate states did not participate in the 1864 election, Lincoln’s re-election and inaugural speech laid claim to his desire to end this bloody chapter in our history and pursue a policy of peace. What would be a better iconic image than Lincoln delivering his Second Inaugural Address.
Although there is only one known photograph of the inauguration (see above), there are artists renderings that could be used to base a design. For example, the color image to the right of this paragraph was found on the Internet. I do not know who created the image but it shows Lincoln standing at a lectern with Vice President Andrew Johnson (a southern Democrat) sitting behind Lincoln, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase standing to Lincoln’s left. It is a better image to use than what appeared on the cover of Harper’s Weekly because it shows a more dignified proceedings’plus I think it would look better on a small coin, like the cent.
I think that this is a better idea than sheaths of wheat, shields, and images of the Capital building because it is clearly about Lincoln and how he lead the nation out of its bloodiest war into one United States.
If you agree with me, I encourage you to contact the US Mint, CFA, and CCAC to let them know if this idea. After all, it is our money, we should have more of a say in how it looks!!
Loading ...