Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Listen, Lead, Share Shows Urgency for Clean Energy Future
Next Post: Hickenlooper talks about legalizing weed
Posted in:
Responding to concerns over allegations that the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation paid millions for a stovepipe hat that may not have actually belonged to President Abraham Lincoln, State Senator and Legislative Audit Commission Co-Chair Jason Barickman and State Representative Tim Butler (R-Springfield) are calling for an audit to review the financial relationship between the foundation and the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum (ALPLM).
“The foundation is asking the state for millions of dollars to cover the purchase of artifacts, including the hat that has been heavily scrutinized,” said Sen. Barickman. “Before we can make a decision on that, we need to better understand the financial connection between the foundation and the ALPLM, as well as what agreements are in place governing purchases made by the foundation.”
“Even after the Illinois House hearing, many questions still remain about the relationship of the Foundation with the Presidential Museum and the money which has been raised for this state agency,” said Representative Butler. “This audit will hopefully shed light on the operations of the foundation and help us plan a path forward to the goal we all desire: ensuring the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum is a world-class institution.”
Barickman and Butler said that an audit of how state funds were spent will shed light on whether taxpayer money was misspent or mismanaged. The process may help determine if the foundation bought the famed hat from a former member of the board for $6.5 million without first authenticating its true origin.
The audit could also assess the merits of the acquisition of the $25 million Barry and Louise Taper Collection. The foundation secured a loan in order to purchase the pieces; however, a balance of more than $9 million remains. The loan is due in October 2019.
An audit resolution, SR2179 has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Barickman, and an identical resolution, HR1300, has been filed in the House by Rep. Butler. If either is passed by its chamber, the Auditor General will conduct an audit and report his findings to the Legislative Audit Commission.
I’d also like to see the loan itself looked into. Who provided it? What are the specific terms? How was it negotiated and by whom?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:14 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Listen, Lead, Share Shows Urgency for Clean Energy Future
Next Post: Hickenlooper talks about legalizing weed
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I saw some commercials that said Betsy Londrigan did all this. Start with her.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:22 pm
Definitely a follow the money situation. Start with board member ties to the bank that made the loan. Also subpoena records to see if board members other than Taper shared in the proceeds.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:38 pm
As a wise man once said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but SIX AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR A HAT??”
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:44 pm
I would want to know who got a piece of Springfield’s bond issuance that financed the purchase:
“Beard said the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation, which he also heads, will buy Taper’s items and donate them to the library-museum. The foundation is using a bank bridge loan, which will be paid off with proceeds from a planned sale of tax-exempt bonds through the City of Springfield. Money will later be raised to pay off the bonds.”
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-06-18-0706170278-story.html
Comment by Waterloo Fan Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:46 pm
Great example of the public - private partnerships Rauner liked to promote. /S
Seriously, Rauner had nothing to do with setting this one up.
Rich and others are right about this one: Follow The 💰.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:52 pm
== The foundation is using a bank bridge loan, which will be paid off with proceeds from a planned sale of tax-exempt bonds through the City of Springfield. ==
I don’t remember that part of it. Don’t think a bond sale happened. Anybody know for sure?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:54 pm
I know I’m missing something here - if the museum and the foundation are separate entities, couldn’t we just let the foundation declare bankruptcy and close while the museum keeps the artifacts? Or does the foundation “own” all the artifcacts too?
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 1:58 pm
I’d also like to see the loan itself looked into. Who provided it? What are the specific terms? How was it negotiated and by whom?
And I would add that since so much interest has already been paid, can it be renegotiated to reduce the principal?
Comment by I Miss Bentohs Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 2:17 pm
= I don’t remember that part of it. Don’t think a bond sale happened. Anybody know for sure? =
I am going to say no but I am only 99.9% sure … but I cannot believe it happened without my knowledge nor that I forgot about it … but I am getting old.
Comment by I Miss Bentohs Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 2:22 pm
Louise Taper had the collection that was bought and was also on the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum Foundation. Surprised other board members didn’t see the conflict here. Seems like she should do the right thing and give back part of the money. Just sayin
Comment by Milkman Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 2:28 pm
If my memory serves me correct, Taper also “donated” part of the collection in order to have naming rights to the Treasurs Gallery. Isn’t it now called the Louise Taper Treasurers Gallery?
Comment by Steve Rogers Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:01 pm
MrJM…..It WAS a very wise man who said that! And, I believe that he said it in Clinton, Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:08 pm
A call seeking comment from the Lincoln impersonator was not returned.
Comment by Leigh John-Ella Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:10 pm
An operations audit, calculation of assets and liabilities, plus a review of the loan agreement are obvious first steps.
I trust the foundation board members knew that when they came looking for taxpayer money to pay off the loan.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:14 pm
I can’t believe there would be any questions about this Foundation. I mean its first three members were:
Lura Lynn Ryan, Pam Daniels and Julie Cellini.
For those with less history, that would have been Gov. Ryan’s wife, the House Republican leader’s wife and the wife of the guy that paid for and benefited from everything.
Comment by Leigh John-Ella Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:31 pm
1) The Foundation is a private entity that raises money at the request of the Museum and Library. Before the Historic Preservation Agency was dissolved, IHPA would work between the two to advise the Foundation what to spend money on when to raise money for projects. I assume today the Library and museum tell the foundation directly when they need assistance.
2) No state funds have EVER been used by the Foundation. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The Foundation raises money and gives it to the Library and Museum, not the other way around.
3) You can’t do a State audit of a private entity that does not take or use State dollars.
I cannot figure out why Tim Butler is on a mission to destroy one of the main economic engines of Springfield.
Comment by just the facts Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 3:55 pm
“No state funds have EVER been used by the Foundation. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
Let’s keep it that way.
Say ‘no’ to the bailout.
Comment by Leigh John-Ella Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 4:01 pm
== Or does the foundation “own” all the artifcacts too?==
I think they do. And their bylaws, IIRC, say their financials are their property and can’t be disclosed or audited by the state. To me, this is the kind of mess you get when you create things by executive order. There needs to be law governing the operation of this, and other foundations related to state activities and sites, that makes it clear what the roles are. I.e., the role of the foundation is to raise money and provide support for the site. The site is owned by the state, which makes all decisions about its operation. The foundations should not be acquiring any property except as provided in the site plan or as approved by site and agency management. I know this foundation has a lot of bigwigs who think they can do as they please, but jeez.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 4:01 pm
OK, thanks to JTF.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 4:02 pm
==Barickman and Butler said that an audit of how state funds were spent will shed light on whether taxpayer money was misspent or mismanaged.==
So if “No state funds have EVER been used by the Foundation. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.” Barickmen and Butler are mistaken?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 4:42 pm
–3) You can’t do a State audit of a private entity that does not take or use State dollars. –
They’re asking the state for $9.2 million to pay off a loan.
A wee bit of due diligence is required before you even consider such a proposal.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 6:06 pm
=== You can’t do a State audit of a private entity that does not take or use State dollars. ===
That is true, but I wonder if the Foundation has a “fee-for-services” agreement with the Museum concerning staffing.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 6:39 pm
RNUG,
Check out:
https://emma.msrb.org/EP348191-EP48494-EP670546.pdf
https://emma.msrb.org/EA417685-EA325620-EA721463.pdf
Comment by Waterloo Fan Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 8:14 pm
Waterloo, thanks for providing the link.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, Nov 15, 18 @ 8:33 pm
Waterloo, that’s good stuff.
So to buy the Taper Collection, the City of Springfield served as a conduit to issue bonds backed by a letter of credit from Harris Bank to the foundation.
The foundation was supposed to pay back Harris Bank, but defaulted in 2009.
–At June 30, 2009, the Foundation was in default on the line of credit agreement with respect to certain provisions. Subsequently, an agreement was negotiated to correct this.–
Whatever that was.
I presume Harris Bank has been faithfully repaying the bonds, per the line of credit? Do they still hold the paper?
Somebody must have had some serious clout to get a commercial bank to back bonds for a non-profit with no solid repayment plan to buy a bunch of artifacts of dubious origin and value as security.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 16, 18 @ 10:09 am