Thursday, April 28, 2011


Just found this: "The mural, putting up the mural, or taking down the mural, never created a job and that’s my position"[LePage] "Hmm, the artist who was hired to paint the mural might disagree." (quoted from a comment to a blog post)


Pen Bay Person said...

Great editorial in Portland Daily Sun today (4/28) about premature, you know, ahem, celebration of victory by Monsieur LePage.

The authors of the OpEd piece said:

"Still to be answered are the U.S. Department of Labor’s demand for the mural to be re-hung (or the Reed Act funds that paid for the mural returned), the issue of LePage’s breaching the artist contract and whether the LePage administration violated the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990." The piece also noted that any damage to the work would raise additional legal issues.

Of course, the federal court action actually referred to other breaches of the law, including violation of the administration act. The mural was selected as part of a well considered and democratic process involving representatives of the Depart of Labor and the Arts Commission. The removal was a unilateral (and we believe unauthorized and therefore illegal) act by the Governor.

Even the government speech Supreme Court case that Woodcock leans so heavily on was about a council of people making a decision during what must have been a public meeting.

shekhinahshaman said...

Thanks! Glad you liked the piece---'We' wrote it!