2016.01.03 Sunday

026 A voice unheard

I read the investigation review report that was released on December 18, 2015. I would like to raise some questions.

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-1)
Why does the report limit the scope of investigation and items of investigation to the new evidence, the inappropriate judging concerning guest artists, only?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 5)
Regarding the contents of investigation
(1) Scope of investigation/From the sending of invitations to participate in competition up to final selection of winning works
(2) Items of investigation/Items listed hereunder
• Invitation letters that were dispatched to 8 designers
• Whether there was any preferential treatment in relation to the invitations
• Effects of invitation to selection of winning works, if any
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-2)
Why is there no account of the revisions that took place between the time period of December 17, 2014 to April 7, 2015; there is no mention of “when, to whom, how many times” such revisions were made, though these are serious issues related to the public competition and selection process.
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by organizing committee, page 6-7)
2014
November 18 [Second day of selection]
• Of the 14 works, 4 were selected for the final round. Upon discussion among the judges, first, second and third place winners were decided.
December 9: The emblem design was sent to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Initial preparations towards trademark registration began.
December 16: Received word from IOC that “multiple similar trademarks were found”.
From December 17 on: Revisions applied for trademark registration began.
2015
April 7: Final revision plan was submitted to organizing committee officials.
April 27: Investigation for approval by IOC and trademark registration began.
April through July: Explanation given to judges for approval. (One judge refused approval)
July 24: Official emblem was unveiled.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-3)
Why weren’t the six judges beside Mr. Takasaki and Mr. Nagai and the 96 entrants told about the guest artists? Why was the fact not released? Why did the committee send out invitations to participate in the competition three days before releasing entry guidelines? Why did they add the words “Please treat as confidential” to the invitation letter?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 10)
Then, the director of marketing, acting upon his own responsibility, instructed one person (referred to hereunder as “assistant”) who was offering assistance for tasks and operations to send out invitations to participate in the competition, which was co-signed by the head of the judging committee and the creative director, to the aforementioned eight designers, three days before releasing entry guidelines.
The fact that invitations were sent to eight designers was not mentioned in the entry guideline documents later released, and was never revealed through organizing committee press releases.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question 4)
Despite the fact that it came to light and it was publicly recognized that two of the eight judges had taken part in vote rigging, on what basis can the organizing committee conclude: “The criticism that ‘the whole selection process was fixed to make Sano’s logo a winner’ does not apply”. What is the basis for the statement, “There was no evidence to be found”?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 21)
Any wrongdoing was limited to the first round only, and it was conducted in secret, outside the knowledge of the other judges besides the head of the judging committee and the creative director. Thus there was no evidence to be found that it affected the selection process thereafter. Therefore it cannot be said that the rigging had any effect on work designed by Kenjiro Sano being chosen as the winning logo.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-5)
I remember Mr. Takasaki, who according to the investigation review, admittedly knew the entrant and his work that was entered in the competition, making statements during the judging session, endorsing the first place design. Was the video footage of this scene reviewed?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 21)
Therefore, after carefully studying the email records of all related personnel, conducting hearings, and assessing the voting activities of judges, the facts tell us that the criticism that “the whole selection process was fixed to make Sano’s logo a winner” does not apply. 
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-6)
The selection of the Yusaku Kamekura Design Award took place a month after the emblem selection; which means when the invitation to the first-place winner was sent, at that point, he had not yet won the Yusaku Kamekura Design Award. Doesn’t that make this statement inconsistent with actual facts according to the timeline?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 21)
Furthermore, the head of the judging committee disclosed that he had chosen Mr. Sano as one of the recipients of the invitation letters to participate in the competition because Mr. Sano was the most recent winner of the Yusaku Kamekura Award, considered one of the most prestigious graphic design awards in Japan, and he felt that Mr. Sano was one of the most impressive young designers in Japan. There is nothing illogical in this statement.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-7)
What is the basis of the statement: “Though one of the judges had been in contact with one of the invitees to the competition (…) no evidence was discovered that the two had inappropriate contact regarding the emblem selection”. Are we supposed to assume the basis is self-reporting from the hearing carried out on a voluntary basis?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 22)
There was one judge who had been in contact with one of the invitees to the competition during the time period between the invitation letter being sent out and the actual selection, but in connection to a matter unrelated to the competition itself. No evidence was discovered that the two had inappropriate contact regarding the emblem selection.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------
(Question-8)
The report says that “The creative director proposed that the judges should select a runner-up design”, and that he said, “If there should be any problem, I will personally go around and give explanations to the judges.” I have no recollection of these statements. Actually, I have no recollection of most of the conversations that allegedly took place right after the selection session; or the contents of the exchange have been changed around. Was the report written after viewing the video footage and checking the actual conversations?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 23)
Right after the design plan submitted by Mr. Sano was selected by unanimous choice by the judges on the selection committee as the candidate emblem for the Olympic Games, the creative director told the other seven judges that he would like to decide on a runner-up design, in case there should be any problem with Mr. Sano’s design related to trademark registry, or in case the IOC did not give its approval. Other judges gave their opinions such as “revising the original design should be enough” and “the first-place and second-place designs differ in a fundamental way. We can’t simply say we should go to Plan B if Plan A doesn’t work.” Thus the judges did not clearly decide on the strategy in case the Sano design could not be adopted as the official logo for the Games for some reason or other. The creative director opined, “In case there should be any problem, I will go around and explain”; after which the selection committee adjourned.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-9)
What act is specifically inferred by “a small act of unfairness” in the statement,“A small act of unfairness was implemented in secret” ?

(Question-10)
An investigation and review conducted by third-party advisors revealed that irregularities were carried out by persons belonging to the organizing committee, in their roles as organizing committee members. Then why does the organizing committee write in a detached manner, “that is surely not the way for the organizing committee” as if they themselves had nothing to do with such irregularities?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 28)

“A small act of unfairness was implemented in secret in order to send out the best emblem ever”. Acts of misconduct that we see take place around us are described in a similar line of thought. We hear comments like “Injustices applied for a greater goal don’t count as injustices” or hear about “an act taken to create something great”. During the hearing, we repeatedly encountered the phrase “It’s the results that count”. No one doubted the words and everything was pushed forward accordingly. There was an atmosphere that disrespected fair procedures and overlooked compliance. Hell-bent on getting it right—that is surely not the way for a modern organizing committee for the Olympics and Paralympics
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------
(Question-11)
In the statement, “(G)oing ahead with the specialist-mindset, forgetting to give thought to ‘the people’ who make up the biggest membership of this ‘All Japan’ project”, what does the “specialists” in the “specialist-mindset” point to? I want this specialist group properly addressed, giving specific names. For the honor of judges who were not involved in any improper act I demand that the meaning and aim of the statement be explained in full.
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 28)
However, things did not go that way. The biggest defect that we discovered at this time was the wrongness of going ahead with the specialist-mindset, forgetting to give thought to “the people’s event”, disregarding it was a search for a logo that would be “admired by the people”. During the process the “people” were forgotten—the people who make up the biggest membership of this “All Japan” project. No matter how wonderful an emblem was developed for the Games, if the selection process lacked fairness, it would never win the support of the Japanese people.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

(Question-12)
By “irregularities had taken place”—does this mean rigging of the selection process?

(Question-13)
A third-party review panel came to the conclusion that “it had no effect on the outcome of the selection”. What is the basis for this conclusion?
‥‥‥‥‥
(Investigation report compiled by the organizing committee, page 30)
○ It was discovered that irregularities had taken place during the first round of the selection process.
○ The emblem holds a symbolic significance for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Thus we deeply regret that there were improprieties discovered in the selection process.
○ As was pointed out by the review panel, though it had no effect on the outcome of the selection, the issue could have affected the entire emblem selection process.
‥‥‥‥‥
---------------------------------------------------

As a Japanese citizen, I would like to give my heartfelt support to the activities of the Organizing Committee as it works towards bringing about a successful 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is my genuine wish. Unless I truly believed in this, I would not be able to go on writing.
 
Keiko Hirano
 
Keiko Hirano:
Designer/Visioner, Executive Director of Communication Design Laboratory
Hirano served on the panel that chose the official emblem for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics, which was ultimately withdrawn.

五輪エンブレム問題の
事実と考察
001 責任がとれる方法で 002 公募期間の短さ 003 『展開』『展開性』『展開力』 004 知らされなかった招待作家 005 ブログを読んで下さっているみなさまへ 006 利害優先の土壌 007 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.1 008 修正案承諾拒否の経緯と理由 - vol.2 009 『公』の仕事 010 専門家の盾 011 秘密保持誓約書という密室 012 いまこそ、私心なき専門性を問う 013 判断の論拠 014 最終の審議 015 金銭感覚と敬意の相対性 016 表現におけるモラリティと表現者のモラル 017 言葉のちから 018 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.1 019 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.2 020 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.3 021 何のための調査なのか、調査の目的は何なのか - vol.4 022 願い 023 摩訶不思議な調査報告書 024 負の遺産とならないように 025 出口なき迷路 026 届かぬ思い 027「社会に位置づくデザイン」という観点 028 無責任主義の村 029 審査委員として知り得た情報のすべて 030 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.1 031 新聞寄稿文への異論 - vol.2 032 1対3の構図 - 「A案」VS「BCD案」 033 今を生きる 034 負の連鎖……を断つために 035 欲望の公害 精神の断絶 036 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.1 037 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.2 038 イカサマ文書 by JAGDA - vol.3 039 事実はひとつ 040 新世界へ 041 JAGDA文書への意見と要望 ― 法律の専門家による分析 042 JAGDAの回答 JAGDAへの要望書 043 「要望書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する更なる質問 044 「意見書へのJAGDAの回答」に対する質問と提案 045 ブラック・デザイン
Tokyo 2020 Olympics Logo Controversy--Facts and Observations 001 My way of taking responsibility 002 Duration of contest was way short 003 “Development” “Development Capabilities” “Development Power” 004 Guest artists I wasn’t told about 005 To My Readers 006 A culture where special interests take priority 007 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.1 008 How and why I refused to accept the modified design - vol.2 009 Strictly “public” work 010 Specialists as shields 011 Behind closed doors-secrecy surrounding a non-disclosure agreement 012 Time to put selfless expertise to the test 013 Rationale behind my decision 014 The final review session 015 Is the money mindset relative to paying respect? 016 Morality of expression and the morals of its creator 017 The power of words 018 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.1 019 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.2 020 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.3 021 An investigation for what? What is the purpose of the investigation - vol.4 022 My wish 023 Mystifying investigation report is out 024 In order to prevent a negative legacy 025 Stuck in a maze with no exit 026 A voice unheard 027 A viewpoint that calls for “design with a place in society” 028 A village with a policy of irresponsibility 029 Every piece of information that I garnered as a judge on the selection committee 030 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.1 031 Objections to a newspaper contribution - vol.2 032 The underlying picture of one against three - “Plan A” versus “Plans BCD” 033 Living in the moment 034 Putting a stop……to a negative chain of events 035 Pollution by greed and discontinuity of the spirit 036 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.1 037 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.2 038 Bogus document by JAGDA - vol.3 039 Every fact has only one version 040 Toward a whole new world 041 Opinion and request regarding JAGDA document―An analysis by a legal specialist 042 Reply from JAGDA Request letter to JAGDA 043 More questions re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 044 Questions and proposal re: "Reply from JAGDA regarding Request Letter" 045 Rogue design