Friends of the Barnes Foundation attorney Eric F. Spade, Esq. will argue for new hearings on the Barnes matter on Monday, March 24 at 9:30am. Montgomery County Deputy Solicitor Carolyn Carluccio will argue for new hearings on behalf of the County.

Attorneys for the Barnes Foundation and the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office will argue for everyone to shut up so they can get on with their plans to destroy a national cultural treasure. They say:

we do not have a right to intervene;

that we are vexatious, which means we are only spending countless hours and lots of our own money in order to annoy them;

that our bringing up the issue of the secret appropriation of $107 million PA Senate appropriation is scurrilous and should be STRUCK FROM THE RECORD;

that the $50 million from the County isn't real because it was only offered in a letter, not in a full blown Resolution (that's odd, because at the time, they only said "No, we're moving.";

that the change in Township reg's that permit up to 140,000 people a year plus school groups is not worth anything at this point. (That's odd, too. When R. Perelman was quoted about an ideal number for visits to the Barnes in a 2001 article in the Inquirer, he mentioned 140,000 people. Perhaps he changed his mind.)

Friends of the Barnes and Montomery County have made a very strong case for re-opening hearings. In the intervening years since Judge Ott gave permission for the move, so much has been learned about this case and about the Barnes itself that it cries out for a major "do over". Opinions aside, there is a mountain of hard facts that reveal clearly that moving the Barnes art collection would be horribly wrong. To name just a few:

The Barnes Foundation, in its entirety has been deemed eligible to apply for National Historic Landmark status. That is NOT the National Register status, which many buildings have. This is on the order of Monticello, Mount Vernon, etc. That reason, in itself, should be enough to pull the would-be Movers back from the brink. But no, Phyllis Beck, Barnes' Legal Counsel referred to that as a "band-aid" and tried to make it look like the status concerns only the building, which it does not. Our National Historic Landmarks are precious and the Barnes belongs in that realm. Removing the art collection destroys eliminates this potential.

The increase in admission from 62,000 to more than 140,000 can easily generate about $1 million a year. That's just about enough to cover the operating deficit.

The offer of a $50 million lease/purchase from the County IS a valid solution for support of the Barnes Foundation. It is certainly a less risky scenario than the perilous financial future the Barnes would face on the Parkway, as described by an expert in the earlier hearings: "Matthew J. Schwenderman, a partner at Deloitte & Touche, testified that the foundation's proposed three-campus model - Merion, Philadelphia and Ker-Feal - would require revenues of $11.3 million a year, of which $4.25 million would have to come from donations, $2.5 million from an endowment and the rest from admissions and other sources." (NYTimes)

The business about the PA Senate appropriation of 2002 for $107 million for the Barnes building in Philadelphia needs to be investigated. The fact that the current Board and the Attorney General are asking for references to this being "struck from the record" is rather illuminating and unbecoming.

The current trustees are acting like a guardian who, once appointed, causes the death of her ward, so that she can obtain her ward's legacy.

It all adds up to a situation where the Powerful Ones are like a huge dog that have managed to get their jaws around a wonderful bone and they are not going to drop it unless they have to or, unless perhaps they are offered another bone. Meanwhile, we will continue to function as the conscience of the people, the fleas on the dog by telling the truth and working to save the Barnes in its historic home.

The possible outcomes are that Judge Ott will a)say then and there that based on what we have all learned since 2004 (and that's a lot), he orders new hearings;b) say then and there that based on whatever, he denies the petitions request for new hearings; or c) that he wants to think it over and will get back with a decision at a later date.

Come to the County Courthouse on Monday, March 24 if you possibly can. 9:30am in Courtroom B.

Thanks for your steadfast support.

Evelyn Yaari