In early July, shortly after the new murals in the Capitol Rotunda were revealed, two presuit notices were filed contesting the artwork and the process leading to its installation.
The murals went from being a run-of-the-mill improvement project to a media sensation and lightning rod for controversy when it appeared one of the four murals — “Shivaree of Seneca Rock” — depicted Babydog. In the painting, an English bulldog that bears a strong resemblance to Gov. Jim Justice’s beloved pet sits in the grass between a painter and a mandolin player.
Under the raucous discussion of whether Babydog (or her ancestor) “should” or “should not” be in the painting were emerging questions of how it all happened.
One presuit notice was filed by Tom Acosta, a McDowell County artist and city councilman. When the murals were first being commissioned in 2010, Acosta was a “prospective vendor with an expression of interest” in doing the project.
In an interview with Talkline, Randall Reid-Smith, the secretary of arts, culture and history, said he recalled there being “eight pre-bids” at the time. However, the project ended up on the “Impossible to Bid List” and was directly awarded to one of the pre-bidders, John Canning & Co., of Connecticut.
Acosta alleges the direct award to John Canning & Co. was “the willful and intentional violation of the [state’s] purchasing procedures.” He seeks to hold Reid-Smith “personally liable for the cost, to date, of the John Canning contract” and halt future payments.
When the government is spending taxpayers’ money, it must do so responsibly, and bidding out projects to get the best quality work for the best price is part of that responsibility. If the state failed to properly bid out the mural project, that’s a big problem. If Reid-Smith interfered to grant the contract to a specific company of his choosing, that’s an even bigger problem.
The other notice is part silly and part legitimate. Huntington native and art enthusiast Gregory S. Morris told an HD Media reporter the murals “hurt my heart, aesthetically speaking, and so I set out to discover how and why this happened.”
Morris’ complaint is the murals don’t follow the vision of the original Capitol architect, Cass Gilbert. The part we find frivolous is that Morris seeks “to compel removal from the Capitol Building … the ‘historic and allegorical’ murals.”
Art is subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems unjust that one person’s dislike for the murals could force the removal of artwork paid for with public money and installed in a public place for the public’s enjoyment.
Where Morris’ lawsuit does touch on a legitimate issue, however, is the allegation that the inclusion of Babydog “was the result of the action of a select ad-hoc subcommittee that met in violation of the Open Governmental Procedures Act.” He also alleges that the entire mural process violated the laws regarding “substantial changes” to the Capitol.
That is worth pursuing. The government and its agents have a responsibility to do to the people’s business (especially when spending taxpayer money) in full view of the people. A select group shouldn’t have the ability to bypass oversight or go around rules and procedures without consequence.
We find no fault in the men’s efforts to hold government officials to account. Demanding the murals be removed entirely, however, is a step too far.
