Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner says nepotism EO will help stop outmigration
Next Post: Does the governor realize he’s been in office almost four years?
Posted in:
* The New York Times takes a look at the alleged cover-up by the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation over the provenance of what it claimed was a hat once owned by the former president…
In 2015, the foundation took further steps to gain evidence that Lincoln owned the hat, said Nick Kalm, a vice chairman of the foundation’s board of directors. It arranged for the F.B.I. to take DNA samples from the hat, one of three of Lincoln’s believed to have survived, to see if it matched. […]
[Alan Lowe, the executive director of the museum] said he had no knowledge of this analysis until the chief executive of the foundation, Carla Knorowski, told him about it in January, when the nonprofit was seeking state funding to alleviate its debt. […]
Mr. Kalm disputed that the foundation had been secretive about the reports and said Mr. Lowe and previous leaders were kept informed. […]
“Did we keep it from the public? Sure,” he said. “But this isn’t a public issue.”
The private foundation, Mr. Kalm said, had no “duty to disclose.” He said if the reports had offered conclusive evidence one way or another, the foundation would have communicated that to the public.
It’s a “public issue” because the foundation’s hat was being displayed to the public as a bona fide item by a publicly funded museum. And it’s a “public issue” because they’re now asking the public for a bailout.
But they had no “duty to disclose.” Sheesh.
* Here’s something that hasn’t been played up nearly enough…
In the world of Lincolniana, it’s hard to fathom a more valuable artifact than Lincoln’s stovepipe hat. In 2007, an appraiser valued the hat now in Springfield at $6.5 million and used adjectives like “transcendent” to describe its apparent majesty.
It once belonged to Louise Taper, a wealthy West Coast collector who sat on the Lincoln foundation board when the purchase occurred but is no longer a member. […]
Taper purchased the hat from that previous owner for an undisclosed price in 1990.
In 1988, [former state historian Thomas Schwartz] valued the hat at $15,000, a far cry from its $6.5 million appraisal in 2007, Lowe told WBEZ. […]
In 2007, prior to the foundation’s purchase of the hat and other artifacts from Taper, an appraiser acknowledged he did not investigate the provenance of the hat. Instead, he based his evaluation on “prior in-depth research” by the museum.
In their 2013 report, Rubenstein and Lewis said they couldn’t find any evidence of that research.
So, Louise Taper buys the hat two years after a former state historian appraised it at $15,000. The foundation then buys the hat from Ms. Taper 17 years later for $6.5 million, while Taper sits on the foundation’s board. And the foundation’s purchase was based on research that can’t now be found.
How convenient.
* Press release…
The Illinois House Committee on Tourism will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, October 12 at the Michael A. Bilandic Building to review allegations of financial mismanagement on the part of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation (ALPLF), the nonprofit entity tasked with raising money for the taxpayer-supported Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, State Representative Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, announced today.
Ives made the announcement after speaking with Representative Ann Williams, D-Chicago, Chairperson of the Tourism Committee. The Committee will also schedule a follow-up hearing in Springfield during the Fall Veto Session of the General Assembly in November.
Recent media reports have highlighted the Foundation’s massive debt and controversy surrounding the authenticity of a stovepipe hat purported to have belonged to Lincoln, which is part of the collection at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield.
They ought to seek subpoena power.
…Adding… From Rep. Ann Williams…
Hey Rich, the date/time for the hearing was posted today before we had the opportunity to firm up the date, details and witnesses. I am working closely with Rep. Barbara Wheeler (she’s minority spokesperson) for the committee and we decided it’s best to have the initial hearing in Springfield, to better accommodate the stakeholders and maximize attendance and participation in the hearing. I’ll keep you posted - in the meantime we continue to gather information and do our due diligence in preparation for the hearings.
So, the Chicago hearing is off.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 1:31 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Rauner says nepotism EO will help stop outmigration
Next Post: Does the governor realize he’s been in office almost four years?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The bipartisanship displayed by Reps. Ives & Williams is refreshing.
Comment by Not Kendall County Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 1:38 pm
I wonder who Rep. Ives is looking to blame ??
Comment by Not Rich Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 1:45 pm
Any estimates of it’s current value? Maybe it’s time to take hat in hand to Antiques Roadshow.
Comment by Taper Caper Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 1:52 pm
===Taper purchased the hat from that previous owner for an undisclosed price in 1990.===
The previous owner is probably still laughing about that sale.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 1:55 pm
–It’s a “public issue” because the foundation’s hat was being displayed to the public as a bona fide item by a publicly funded museum.–
The foundation has also solicited and received millions in donations from the public to pay off the loan, based on the assurance that the goods, including the hat, were authentic. They’ve sought state funding to pay off the loan at least three times.
Anyone know who the mystery lender is? I can’t help but think the identity of the person or entity that bankrolled this fakakta scam is important.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 2:01 pm
==
Anyone know who the mystery lender is? ==
I think the specific question is who was sitting on both the bank board and the foundation board at the time of the loan?
Comment by RNUG Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 2:35 pm
Sometimes, what looks like a blatant scam, is a blatant scam.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Sep 24, 18 @ 10:35 pm
Must be a new low in corruption if the D’s & R’s agree to investigate together.
Comment by A Voter & Taxpayer Tuesday, Sep 25, 18 @ 8:50 am