Weather Forecast

Motion made to try selling 'Afghans'

Friday, February 6, 2009 3:30 AM EST



 AddThis



NORTH ATTLEBORO - In a move aimed at breaking the impasse over the fate of the town's Russian masterpiece, Selectman Mark Williamson asked his board Thursday to considering selling the painting.

Williamson made a motion to sell the Alexandre Iacovleff painting, called "Afghans," provided selectmen and the school committee can come to an agreement on provisions of a trust fund for the proceeds.

The painting was once valued at more than $1 million, however with the changes in the economy, it is not clear whether that figure still stands.

The motion to sell the painting was seconded for discussion by Selectman Paul Belham, but it did not appear to have support from anyone except Williamson.

The motion was eventually tabled until next week in a 3-2 vote, with Williamson and selectmen Chairman John Rhyno dissenting. The vote to sell the painting was intended to put an end to the impasse between selectmen and the school committee, Williamson said.

Selectmen have previously voted not to sell the painting, while the school committee is in favor of selling it and using the proceeds to support arts programs.

The school committee recently declined to meet with selectmen about the issue, saying a compromise cannot be reached unless one of the boards votes differently.

"It seems to me in our role as the town's leadership, we need to break this stalemate. This vote will prompt the necessary discussion with all parties involved," Williamson said.

Even if the board authorized the sale of the painting, it would not be sold quickly, he said.

Selectman Michael Thompson disagreed, saying, "If we take this vote and say to sell it, we're basically giving up our rights over it. They will be on the phone tomorrow, and they'll sell it as quickly as possible.

"That thing would be on a ship to Russia tomorrow."

Rhyno reminded the board that the attorney general's office has said it could sue to block the sale of the painting because it is a public charitable trust. The town would then have to argue in court that it has become impractical for the town to keep it.

"Just two weeks ago, this board had a heated discussion on giving $1,000 for legal fees to a board," Rhyno said. "I'd ask that we get an estimate from our attorney and the school department's attorney on what this could possibly cost the town."

Rhyno asked that a representative from the attorney general's office be invited to town to discuss who owns the painting and what procedure would be used if the masterpiece were to be sold. Belham requested that the school department be asked if it is willing to absorb any legal costs that arise.

"If this board votes to sell the painting, the school department should agree to fund all legal costs out of its own budget if we incur any costs at all," he said.

Thompson said his position has always been that the town, not the school department, owns the painting. He recommended that the board write a letter to Sotheby's auction house, where the painting is stored, and ask for its return.

However, other members of the board were concerned that move could also result in litigation.

Selectman Dale Langille said he was disappointed that a majority of the school committee has refused to meet with selectmen on the issue.

"They should come to the table and talk to us. It's going to cost a lot more money to go into litigation about it," he said.

 



Post Your Comments


nealgouck wrote on Feb 7, 2009 10:08 PM:

" I have covered this topic in my blog. I am Neal Gouck and I am running for school committee. See my article at nealgouck.choseit.com. "

Betsy wrote on Feb 6, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Addendum to prior posting: It is possible -- possible, though I'm not certain -- that this piece is no longer protected under copyright which appears to have extended in the US 70 years past the death of the artist, May 1938. "

Betsy wrote on Feb 6, 2009 3:40 PM:

" At least investigate the process, cost and legality of having a reproduction made -- of the kind found in some museum shops -- to hang at the school and place the original on permanent loan to a Providence or Boston museum that can provide security and insurance.

Include a write-up to hang with Afghans explaining its history in North and its journey to the museum.

Why is this seemingly so difficult to at least consider??? "

sunfan wrote on Feb 6, 2009 3:23 PM:

" Just sell the painting to someone who will appreciate it. And don't donate anything you value to a school or town. "

blondie50 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 3:09 PM:

" The Town of North Attleborough should not be able to profit from the painting, as it was donated. They are just being very greedy, because they the painting is worth that much money. It was agift, not to be sold for a profit. The selectman who want the money, should donate their salary instead. I think if that painting is sold, families will never donate anything to the town agin. It is very wrong to profit from something that belongs to the town and the people in North Attleborough, not a selected few. "

mmarcia wrote on Feb 6, 2009 1:25 PM:

" I want to mention that Rhyno called it "masterpiece". WHAT? This isn't a DaVinci, or even a Wyeth. Heck, it hung for YEARS unnoticed in a dark auditorium. "

s-plumb wrote on Feb 6, 2009 1:19 PM:

" I lost track of this soap opera, but this is NOT the town I was raised in. Is there no Big Red Pride left?

Where is the respect for the deceased donor's family? It was given to the town. It is not proper to exchange a piece of art for $. If the town refuses the gift, it should be returned to the family. "

hardhearted wrote on Feb 6, 2009 10:33 AM:

" Has anyone spoken to Bank of America about displaying it in their building? "

mmarcia wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:57 AM:

" The BOS has to remember ONCE IT'S SOLD, IT'S GONE! It will never be an asset for the town.

To 'harry hindsight': they've tried to loan it out, but nobody wants it. Tells you something about it's value.

To 'Big Red 1': which one? 8-) "

Big Red 1 wrote on Feb 6, 2009 9:43 AM:

" The school committee is out of control (as usual). Bring the painting back to town and hang it where most townspeople can see it (Dunkin Donuts). "

realist wrote on Feb 6, 2009 8:55 AM:

" The school committee has to realize it's town property, not school property. As a matter of fact -- there's no such thing as school property it all belongs to the town.

I agree with Harry, let's return it to the donor's family. If it goes to court, I'm looking at you BofS and School Committee, only the lawyers win "

harry hindsight wrote on Feb 6, 2009 7:39 AM:

" I say sell it back to the donating family for $1. If the town is worried about insurance if it is brought back, why not continue the merit of the original donor and loan it to an art school or college in the name of the town. The town retains possession, the spirit of the original donor is honored and it reamins on public view for all to enjoy. "

spookey wrote on Feb 6, 2009 6:20 AM:

" i believe that, how can you sell anything, if no one knows who rightfully owns it. that issue has to be settled first. i also believe, that it is a slap in the face to the family, who, donated it to the town in the first place, and reject the idea of selling it. if you obviously don't want it, give it back to the donating family, because if you don't, it is going to cost a lot of money, if it goes to court. litigation isn't cheap today. "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 


Advertise with Us Jobs Real Estate for Sale Real Estate for Rent Place an Ad Subscribe Reprints Submit News thesunchronicle.com
Copyright © 2008 The Sun Chronicle, Attleboro-North Attleboro, MA. All rights reserved. | Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.