In front of a 4,050-square-foot canvas.
kelly o
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Change the name, and tell TWIF to F-OFF.
Paint the walls!!!!!!!
Nonprofits are running/ruining this country.
Xavier
http://www.theworldisfun.org/contact.php
The World is Fun
7551 B 15th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117
206-414-8943
Xavier
We feel you, GDC.
Be creative, change the name and make some art.
TWIF is a toxic relationship, let it go.
We love you, GDC!
After reading this article it's clear that was not the case. The infighting is unfortunate, and Seattle has missed an opportunity to show leadership in the arts. Now we get to see the world pass us by as other cities around the world embrace public art and use it to promote tourism and create more vibrant public spaces.
It sounds like TWIF are being incredible jerks quite frankly and are undermining the very thing they claim they're promoting. Like bratty kids that want to own the sandbox, now nobody gets to play.
Events such as beer fests, street food fests and neighborhood events are a good segue into the world of volunteering for those people who may be intimidated by the thought of something more serious such as building housing for low income families with no construction experience.
TWIF partners with 20+ non-profits in Seattle and provides volunteer opportunities there as well--Treehouse for Kids, Marra Farm, Operation Sack Lunch, the Orion Center, etc, where it's not all beer and food trucks.
Starry-Eyed Seattle (that one is for poster 6)
Seattle's Soul
So many other names that could be used...please just get the boring walls muralized.
The World is Fun
206-414-8943
All these people need to get a real job and a life.
@Everyone and especially TWIF --
On to my real point, this is one of those situations where all of Seattle's artists--no matter what kind of work you do needs to come together and let TWIF know that their non-profit has much more to gain from working with Seattle's artists in the long-run than they can gain from owning the rights to the name "Stunning Seattle."
And we all know that there is much more to this story than is being told here, but TWIF got caught with their hands in the "cookie jar", so to speak--any and all of TWIF's plans when they shut the doors on GDC are now null and void and they need to recognize this fact and move on--now it is time to make nice.
Justin and Golda have built up a vast network that includes some of the best artists in this city, some of its best performance artists, street artists with years of work under their belts, writers, photographers, documentarians etc. These are all people that would and could much better serve TWIF's board of directors (who, I am told are the real villains of this piece) (and their corporate mentality of the short-term predatory return) in the long-run, but instead they are treating Seattle's artists with utter disrespect.
If I were TWIF, I would completely change my tactics, bend over backward for the GDC and ask Golda and Justin just how they have come so far in such a short amount of time and it ain't through shortcuts, stealing other people's hard earned work. This type of behavior may have worked in the 80's but it never worked in Seattle, where we value community, history, sharing and stewardship of each other's talents, creations and especially hard work.
C'mon TWIF, do the right thing, stop standing in the way, give up the idea that you are going to make anything from the actions of others and recuperate your relationship with this city's artists. That is what will really matter over the long haul! Its not too late.
X- TWIF contact info follows:
http://www.theworldisfun.org/contact.php
The World is Fun
206-414-8943
Xavier-
-Violett
-Violett
It's interesting, I think that this is a bit of zeitgeist--a difference, if you will between our generation and the generations of say the fifties and sixties--and that is the belief that if you just speak the truth--if you air what is right and just that we as a collective American people will ensure that that justice will be pursued and all will be well.
But that is no longer the truth. I personally blame the seventies movie Capricorn One for that shift, but of course that is impossible. Perhaps justice has never been so simple, clear and perfect--but more importantly--our perception of that justice has become unclear, untrusted and untrustworthy and in a way that is a much bigger loss--to all of us.
And so TWIF will merely wait until all of this has passed and we have all either chosen to forget all about it or chosen to agree that we will act as though we have forgotten, which is far, far worse.
TWIF should go back to pouring beers and let the artists of GDC continue Stunning Seattle.
GDC believes that it’s in poor taste that Amy Faulkner of TWIF would make the claim that somehow The Stranger did not take the due diligence to hear out TWIF’s side of the story. This is an insult to the quality of reporting that The Stranger does and the level of persistence that Cienna Madrid exhibited in the process of writing this article. The fact is that Cienna took great measure to ensure that Amy Faulkner, Executive Director of TWIF was given equal opportunity to present their side of this, in a phone interview, for as long as needed. The fact is that TWIF denied Cienna Madrid a phone interview until the 11th hour, claiming that all questions must be pre-prepared and sent via email. It is unfortunate that TWIF feels that the article did not address their interests. We feel that TWIF’s unwillingness to present evidence to back their claim of ownership of the Stunning Seattle brand is the direct cause. Additionally, it should be noted that TWIF’s claim to GDC’s Stunning Seattle brand seems to be largely based on services which were provided to GDC by TWIF under our original fiscal sponsorship contract. These services are clearly defined in the contract as duties of TWIF in exchange for 5% of the grant funds for TWIF’s administration fee. Every example we can find of TWIF’s contribution to the development of the Stunning Seattle project were defined as TWIF’s duties in our original fiscal sponsorship contract. Nowhere in that contract does any language give TWIF any interest or ownership of the Stunning Seattle brand.
“In addition to serving as a fiscal sponsor to the Project, the Sponsor will provide the following resources to the project: Shared use of office space for meetings, Use of the Sponsors online project Management system, Event Planning, Grant Writing, Fundraising, Social Media and Public Relations consultancy.”
It is important to note that TWIF prematurely breached this fiscal sponsorship contract and have yet to provide any evidence to back their claim of exemption from the termination clause of the contract.
“Termination: Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days' written notice to the other party. The foregoing notwithstanding, if the Sponsor reasonably determines that its continued fiscal sponsorship of the Project may jeopardize the Sponsor's tax exempt status, the Sponsor may terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to the Project.”
GDC is left asking ourselves, how could we possibly have put TWIF in jeopardy of loosing their tax exempt status, when a single dollar has yet to change hands? After all, this is a reimbursement grant and every dollar spent on this project to this date has been out of GDC’s pockets. We’ve raised and contributed the money needed to get this project to the point where we are now, knowing that the city will not reimburse us for the money spent to this point because a contract is not yet in place.
Going back to the article, TWIF’s claim that half the story has not been told is partially correct, indeed a lot that was covered in the interview with Justin Hart was not included in this article in order to make it fit the allotted size.
Namely that TWIF prematurely breached their fiscal sponsorship contract with GDC without honoring the termination clause requiring 30 days notice.
The Department Of Neighborhoods informed GDC that they were contacted by TWIF who attempted to take administrative control of the project and were told that they did not have authorization as the fiscal sponsor to take control of the project. Soon after, GDC was presented with the "partnership agreement" which would have given TWIF the power to remove GDC from the project. GDC did not sign that partnership agreement and subsequently upon learning that GDC was requesting a meeting to review that contract, TWIF prematurely terminated their contract. The mere fact that TWIF was compelled to force this second contract on GDC is itself further supporting that GDC indeed owns the project, and the Stunning Seattle brand.
The article doesn't go into how GDC has worked tirelessly since the dissolution with TWIF to restore the Stunning Seattle project, and to foster new relationships with community groups, businesses, sponsors, artists, and partners. Because of these baseless claims made by TWIF, GDC is being forced to complete the majority of this work all over again, all at our own expense once again. It isn't apparent in the article but none of the money spent before the contract with the city is finalized will be reimbursed. Until TWIF retracts the baseless claims they have made, the burden of expense will continue remain GDC’s personal responsibility. Since there is no allocation in our budget for changing our name, the city is asking us to comply with their request to change our name at GDC’s own expense.
The article also does not mention that TWIF, without warning seized control of the Stunning Seattle Facebook and Twitter accounts as well as shared email accounts and months worth of data collected by GDC which was stored in a "shared online workspace" which was provided as per the fiscal sponsor agreement by TWIF. After reviewing GDC’s claim to these social media accounts, the accounts were all restored into GDC’s control.
Although the article mentions that TWIF claims that the Stunning Seattle brand was created together, this is not true. GDC has presented several testimonials and even email evidence that clearly show that we had defined the name, and the intent of the event before ever having met with TWIF for the first time. When GDC presented the idea at TWIF’s board meeting to the TWIF board of directors before going to contract, Stunning Seattle was complete with the name, and the theme of the event had already been conceptualized and defined by GDC. This meeting was attended by several TWIF board members as well as 3 members of the GDC and occurred several days before a contract was ever signed. It is very unfortunate that none of the TWIF board members who were present at this meeting have come forward to confirm that the project name was presented at that meeting along with the project idea.
GDC would like to address the response to the article which TWIF posted on their blog on August 15, 2013 titled: “The Truth About Stunning Seattle”
TWIF’s response claims to be both fact and truth however we’ve found several misleading statements which we must address. Furthermore, the response seems to provide absolutely no evidence to back TWIF’s claim of ownership of the Stunning Seattle brand, but rather seems to distract from the very point of this argument, that TWIF is claiming ownership of the Stunning Seattle brand. Instead of providing actual evidence this response launches into a myriad of half truths and inaccuracies. We implore TWIF to substantiate these claims with clear evidence.
Let’s explore some inaccuracies presented in TWIF’s response:
“We wrote the grant for The Neighborhood Matching Fund together and we were awarded the grant in the name of one of our board members in early fall of 2012.”
GDC submitted the grant which was prepared for the most part by Justin Hart. Although Amy Faulkner did contribute a few pieces of narrative, the majority of the grant application was prepared by the GDC. Justin Hart personally worked tirelessly alongside Allyn Ruth of the Department of Neighborhoods going through nine revisions before the grant was ready. The part of the grant that Amy Faulkner had the most involvement in was the budget and the timeline. These parts of the grant had to be completely reworked by the GDC before they would be acceptable by the DON. It should be noted that based on the Fiscal Sponsorship Contract that TWIF drafted and both groups signed, they were to provide these “Grant Writing Services” in exchange for 5% of the grant. As confirmed by the DON, the grant was awarded to the project group (GDC), not the fiscal sponsor (TWIF). The project group has always been GDC. This is documented in the grant numerous times. The fiscal sponsor at the time was TWIF. The DON has always been clear with the GDC that we reserve the right to change fiscal sponsors at any point in the project. Katy Hewitson of TWIF volunteered to use her name and mailing address as the primary contact address for the project group GDC because of her ability to receive mail in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Katy Hewitson was replaced by another GDC member shortly after the dissolution with TWIF.
“Once we were awarded the $49,000 grant we began to worry that when all was said and done the project could have money remaining and as a responsible nonprofit we decided the best thing to do was to come to an agreement as to where that money would go in advance of the event.”
It is very important to note that in this grant, TWIF already stood to make $2450 as the fiscal sponsor through administrative fees. Additionally there is absolutely no way that this grant could possibly end up with a surplus of cash for the following reasons:
Not a single dollar of surplus money exists in the budget of the grant, as TWIF has mentioned.
More importantly, this grant is a reimbursement grant, so we are unclear what financial practice that TWIF was imagining which would allow them to keep any excess cash from the Stunning Seattle NMF grant.
Regardless, the issue of any leftover funding related to the Stunning Seattle project is a moot point considering that TWIF breached their contract and severed their connection as fiscal sponsor to the project. GDC is unclear how any of these points relate to TWIF’s claim of ownership over the Stunning Seattle brand. We are also surprised that TWIF would display such a level of concern over a possible surplus of a couple of hundred dollars when they have seized our physical promotional items including 8 large foam core display panels and two display easels. These items are worth over $300 and were purchased using GDC funds. Additionally at this point GDC has expended over $300 in printing, mailing supplies, paper, and postage alone. We have also spent our own funds on website design, domain fees, and hosting. These costs only reflect some of GDC’s direct costs and do not address any of GDC’s indirect costs such as transportation and time spent, let alone the cost of having to rebuild all of the data TWIF removed our access to on the shared online workspace. This also doesn’t address the time GDC spent rebuilding Stunning Seattle’s social media presence after TWIF locked us out of our own social media accounts, which they were being paid under contract to maintain.
“We drafted an agreement to the GDC asking that if there was any money remaining from the event that it would not be distributed to people or our organization and, instead, be placed in an account for future year’s of the project.”
It is very important to note that the Graffiti Defense Coalition (GDC) is a large group with regular meetings that was founded in April 2011. Our group has existed long before our relationship with TWIF. GDC has many activities outside of Stunning Seattle such as live painting and event organization, mural organization and production, promotional and outreach activities, independent consultation, graffiti impact evaluation services, and free graffiti abatement for the elderly and those affected by the Graffiti Nuisance Ordinance. Remember that TWIF is claiming that this second agreement was drafted to protect a possible surplus of a few hundred dollars. Keeping that in mind, below is our analysis of the second agreement (Partnership Agreement).
On November 8th 2012 TWIF presents GDC with an additional (second) contract. This new contract titled: "Partnership Agreement" would have the following results:
1. The contract would remain in effect for a term of 5 years.
2. The contract would entitle TWIF to 50% programmatic control of GDC and all of its affairs extending beyond Stunning Seattle.
3. The contract would prevent GDC from organizing its own finances, budget, expenditures, fundraising, and grant writing.
4. The contract would give TWIF equal ownership of the brand "Stunning Seattle"
5. The contract would forbid GDC from organizing another event or any event of similar or competitive nature for 5 years.
Obviously you can see that this “Partnership agreement” is designed to give TWIF programmatic control of every aspect of GDC extending far beyond Stunning Seattle. Would you sign this contract? It should be noted that GDC was informed by the Department of Neighborhoods that during this same timeframe Amy Faulkner of TWIF had contacted the DON without GDC’s knowledge or consent to try to take control of the Stunning Seattle NMF grant. It is GDC’s opinion that upon learning that the DON would not let TWIF make administrative changes to the grant as the fiscal sponsor, they then drafted this “Partnership Agreement” to attempt to assume control of our neighborhood group. Considering these revelations in hindsight, we feel our position of asking TWIF for a meeting to discuss the details of this contract was completely valid.
We would like to address some serious inaccuracies with TWIF’s timeline of events.
“On 11/11/12, shortly after asking the GDC to review the agreement we were informed by the GDC that they did not wish to move forward with the project.”
This is 100% false. This did not happen. GDC never made any such communication to Amy Faulkner, TWIF, or the TWIF board of directors on this date or any other date. To be clear, nobody from GDC ever said to anyone ever that GDC did not wish to move forward with Stunning Seattle. A claim such as this is very serious as it relates to a legal binding contract for services in exchange for money. A notification of this gravity would always need to be made in writing and signed by representatives from the parties who originally signed the contract. We did not make such a notification. We implore TWIF to produce such a communication from GDC.
“On 11/12/12 we emailed the GDC making the following statement ” if you do not want the partnership to move forward that is fine but the Stunning Seattle brand was built together so neither party should proceed with it.” We never wanted to use the Stunning Seattle name beyond that point and never had any intentions of doing so.”
By this point TWIF was already in breach of the fiscal sponsor contract by withholding GDC’s access to the “Shared online workspace” as well as locking us out of the Stunning Seattle social media accounts without any warning. TWIF refuses to provide any evidence that the Stunning Seattle brand was created in part by them. TWIF has done nothing to substantiate their claim. TWIF has failed to explain how their involvement in a contract which they clearly breached, somehow gave them any interest to the Stunning Seattle brand.
“On 11/21/12 there was a meeting scheduled between TWIF’s Board of Directors and the GDC in an effort to come to a resolution. The GDC cancelled this meeting.”
This meeting was cancelled by Gabriel Ayerza of TWIF before a meeting date had even been chosen. Mr Ayerza cancelled the meeting citing our request for a copy of the contract as an impasse. This is all clearly documented in email evidence.
“On 11/30/12 we received a letter from GDC’s attorney threatening litigation. The letter instructed us to only have contact with their attorney from that point forward preventing us from meeting on any resolution. Most disappointing about the article is that a smart reader would finish the article thinking TWIF is the litigious group in the story and would be surprised to learn the one and only attorney letter came from the GDC, not the other way around.”
It’s unfortunate that TWIF is willing to downplay the serious nature of breaching a written contract. The fact is that TWIF breached the very contract that they themselves had drafted. They have claimed an exemption to the 30 days notice clause in the termination section of the contract. TWIF’s claim of exemption makes absolutely no sense and has not been explained or substantiated in any way. TWIF seized our property, both intellectual and physical. More importantly TWIF continued to post as Stunning Seattle on our social media sites for 2 weeks while claiming that neither party should use the brand. GDC felt that it was only right to send a cease and desist letter to TWIF based on the fact that they were telling us not to use the brand, yet continuing to use the brand themselves.
GDC sought legal advice at this point to verify our legal standing in this situation. Upon recommendation of our legal council we authorized our lawyer to communicate with TWIF to make them aware of the possible legal repercussions based on the actions TWIF was taking. Upon analysis by our legal team it began to become clear that TWIF was overstepping their legal bounds in the fiscal sponsorship agreement. More importantly since TWIF had breached the contract and was no longer acting as GDC’s fiscal sponsor, it was important that we communicate to TWIF that they no longer had any reason to contact the city relating to the Stunning Seattle project. We have always been clear in all of our communications, as in the letter from our attorney, that we welcome any communication from TWIF related to a path of resolution. We have provided clear instructions to TWIF on how to do so. Any claim that our attorney’s cease and desist letter is preventing resolution in this matter is completely false.
“We haven’t made efforts to hinder their success; in fact, we’ve gotten out of the way. “
False. Everyone involved knows that TWIF’s claims are the only blocking issue and the sole reason that the walls were not painted in the summer of 2013. We have documented letters from The City of Seattle stating that TWIF’s claims are the only blocking issue. From the very beginning of TWIF’s withdrawal from this project they have made a myriad of decisions which have hindered Stunning Seattle’s progress greatly. From the hostile takeover of the Stunning Seattle social media presence, to the physical and intellectual property TWIF has seized from GDC and refuses to return, TWIF has been the main hindrance on our project since we parted ways. TWIF has made untrue and unfounded accusations to both the Department of Neighborhoods, perspective sponsors, and most recently the general public in their response to the article in The Stranger. As alluded to in the article in The Stranger, it should be noted that GDC has multiple documented examples of misconduct by Ms. Faulkner of TWIF. Her misconduct was demonstrated to us multiple times in the form of rude and obscene email language that was both unexpected and uncalled for in any professional environment. These issues greatly hindered the project even before our dissolution with TWIF. A great deal of time was spent addressing these issues of misconduct, when progress could have been made elsewhere.
GDC thinks that it is time that TWIF ends the charade. TWIF should immediately formally contact the Department of Neighborhoods stating in writing that no legal action will be taken against GDC or its agents or affiliates including the Department of Neighborhoods, or the City of Seattle moving forward.
We have sent an open letter to TWIF formally making this request of them. A copy of this letter can be found on the Stunning Seattle blog at http://www.stunningseattle.org/blog/
The complete Stunning Seattle timeline of events:
January 2012:GDC originates Stunning Seattle idea and brand without TWIF. It is important to note that GDC has email documentation of coining the name Stunning Seattle for the purpose of creating a large multiple mural event. This communication occurred before the GDC ever met with TWIF or Amy Faulkner.
March 2012:GDC proposes the Stunning Seattle mural project to the TWIF board at a TWIF board meeting. This is witnessed by the TWIF board and by 3 GDC steering members.
April 30 2012:GDC enters into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with TWIF which defines TWIF as a fiscal sponsor and defines specific duties to become TWIF's responsibility in exchange for remuneration of 5%.
July 16 2012:GDC submits the grant which was prepared for the most part by Justin Hart. Although Amy Faulkner did contribute a few pieces of narrative, the majority of the grant application was prepared by the GDC. Justin Hart personally worked tirelessly alongside Allyn Ruth of the Department of Neighborhoods going through nine revisions before the grant was ready. The one part of the grant that Amy Faulkner had the most involvement in was the budget and the timeline. These parts of the grant had to be completely reworked by the GDC before they would be acceptable by the DON. It should be noted that based on the Fiscal Sponsorship Contract that TWIF drafted and both groups signed, they were to provide these “Grant Writing Services” in exchange for 5% of the grant.
October 3 2012:City of Seattle contacts GDC notifying of NMF win.
November 8 2012:TWIF presents GDC with an additional (second) contract. This new contract titled: "Partnership Agreement" would have the following results:
1. The contract would remain in effect for a term of 5 years.
2. The contract would entitle TWIF to 50% programmatic control of GDC and all of its affairs extending beyond Stunning Seattle.
3. The contract would prevent GDC from organizing its own finances, budget, expenditures, fundraising, and grant writing.
4. The contract would give TWIF equal ownership of the brand "Stunning Seattle"
5. The contract would forbid GDC from organizing another event or any event of similar or competitive nature for 5 years.
November 11 2012:After a meeting of GDC steering members we contacted TWIF and asked for a meeting to discuss the details of the new partnership agreement.
November 11 2012:Without responding to GDC’s request for a meeting, TWIF removes GDC access to "project information" in our shared online workspace as well as access to all of our social media platforms. Note that providing access to these items is clearly defined as TWIF's responsibility in our existing fiscal sponsorship contract.
November 11 2012:Faulkner states that she "intends to move forward with Stunning Seattle without us (GDC)" We have documented this in communication sent by Faulkner.
November 11 2012:TWIF says that on this date GDC announced to TWIF that they did not want to move forward with Stunning Seattle. This is completely false and did not happen. A claim such as this is very serious as it relates to a legal binding contract for services in exchange for money. A notification of this gravity would always need to be made in writing and signed by representatives from the parties who originally signed the contract. We did not make such a notification. We implore TWIF to produce such a communication from GDC.
November 13 2012:GDC contacts TWIF again asking for a meeting with the board.
November 14 2012:TWIF acknowledges our request for a meeting.
November 20 2012:GDC is contacted by Gabriel Ayerza of the TWIF board and offered three possible meeting dates. GDC also replies to Gabriel confirming receipt, and letting him know that the GDC steering members involved would discuss the scheduling.
November 21 2012:GDC contacts Gabriel Ayerza and requests a copy of the fiscal sponsorship agreement.
November 21 2012:Upon receiving this request for the contract, TWIF sent GDC a termination of contract and fiscal sponsorship notice. This notice wrongly accused GDC of putting TWIF in "Danger of losing their 501(c)3 status" even though we have not entered into a single financial transaction together as of yet. Additionally as GDC’s fiscal sponsor, any accounting to the IRS or any other financial body was TWIF’s responsibility. We are not sure how any action we've taken as GDC has involved TWIF in a financial way as of yet.
November 21 2012:Mr. Ayerza sends GDC another email citing GDC’s request for the signed contract as an "impasse" and informs us that our "Monday meeting" has been canceled. This was troubling because it was only one day later and we had not yet come to a conclusion as to which date(s) that he proposed were best, and thus had not even proposed a meeting date as of then.
November 24 2012:At this time GDC sought legal council as we felt that TWIF was endangering our project and our relationship with the Department of Neighborhoods. We contacted a legal attorney for advice on the matter as GDC felt that TWIF has for all intents and purposes "stolen" the project from GDC. We needed guidance on our rights and situation.
November 30, 2012:Our legal council sent TWIF a cease and desist letter informing them of the following:
1. TWIF has breached its contract with GDC and Stunning Seattle and their withdrawal from the contract was invalid because they have provided no valid evidence that GDC had committed any adverse action affecting their tax exempt status.
2. That the contract which was still in affect allowed GDC access to the shared data and social media accounts which TWIF was withholding from GDC.
3. That if the contract were to be terminated both parties would still be bound to the terms of the agreement for 30 days as put forth in our severance clause.
4. That nothing in the fiscal sponsorship agreement entitles TWIF to the Stunning Seattle brand in any way. The brand was developed prior to formation of the partnership and GDC has email evidence to prove it. TWIF's assertion of ownership over the Stunning Seattle brand is misplaced.
5. That TWIF does not represent Stunning Seattle and should not be contacting The City of Seattle or any other party on GDC’s behalf and should refrain from activities that may harm GDC’s image or discredit us in the eyes of any other party.
6. Finally the letter asks TWIF to change their course of action and refrain from such activities that could be construed as defamation among other things and that they may be subject to legal repercussions if they continue to make decisions that harm Stunning Seattle.
January 2013:GDC secures a new fiscal sponsor in order to proceed with NMF grant. Our new fiscal sponsor is Urban Artworks.
January 2013:GDC contacted the city and indicated we were ready to sign the contract to proceed and that we had a new fiscal sponsor Urban Artworks.
February 2013:GDC disputes TWIF’s control of the Stunning Seattle Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest accounts. We succeed in all cases.
March 14th 2013:City indicates that they are working on the contract, but it’s not ready.
March 18th 2013:GDC is contacted by the Department of Neighborhoods and informed that the DON sent emails by accident to our old TWIF email address at justinh@theworldisfun.org and these were intercepted by Amy Faulkner of TWIF. Subsequently in a reply to those emails Faulkner alleged that TWIF “owned the stunning seattle brand” and that Faulkner would “take measures” to protect what she thought was her property if GDC were to move forward.
GDC was also informed by Allynn Ruth of the DON that around November 11th 2012, the same timeframe when we were offered a second more controlling contract, that Amy Faulkner had contacted the DON without GDC’s knowledge or consent to try to take control of the NMF grant. Allynn Ruth indicated that Faulkner alleged to be a part of our neighborhood group as opposed to her position as the executive director of TWIF. According to Allynn Ruth, Faulkner attempted to switch the fiscal sponsorship away from TWIF to another unnamed group. Faulkner was informed by Allynn Ruth at that time, that she did not have the authority to “Switch” fiscal sponsors as she did not represent the neighborhood group which the NMF grant was awarded to, but rather Faulkner represented the fiscal sponsor agency which the neighborhood group contracted with to receive the grant. Faulkner was informed that she had only the authority to remove her group TWIF as the fiscal sponsor of the project.
April 11th 2013:The city presents a new requirement that for “Stunning Seattle” to continue, we would either be required to purchase an “Intellectual Property Insurance Policy” to protect the city against claims of copyright or trademark violation or to change Stunning Seattle’s name and branding at this already late point in the timeline.
Cc: Bernie Matsuno, Allyn Ruth – DON
Cc: Amy Faulkner, Gabriel Ayerza, Katy Hewitson, Brandon Kwaselow, Ty Garfield, Joshua Dand – TWIF
Cc: Cienna Madrid, Dominic Holden – The Stranger
Cc: Xavier Lopez – The Seattle Post Intelligencer
Cc: Jessie Gilliam – Councilmember Sally Clark’s Office
Cc: Frank Video – Councilmember Nick Licata’s Office
Cc: George Bakan – Capitol Hill Community Council, Seattle Gay News
Cc: Jeffrey Cook – Capitol Hill Community Council
Cc: Michael Wells – Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce
An open letter to The World is Fun (TWIF),
Recently we read the article in The Stranger titled: “Stunning Seattle - Meet the Greatest Mural Project That Seattle Might Never See” where your executive director Amy Faulkner stated that she has not made any threats to sue GDC or the Stunning Seattle project.
The Article:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stunn…
From the article in The Stranger:
In fact, TWIF allegedly threatened to sue GDC if it went forward with its city grant while using the name Stunning Seattle. In our interview, Faulkner denied this. "We've made no threats to sue them," Faulkner stated.
Since the article in The Stranger contains mixed messages from TWIF about whether or not these threats were made, GDC feels that it would be in the best interests of TWIF to offer the public some clarification. GDC would like to give TWIF the opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding once and for all by contacting the Department of Neighborhoods and stating in writing that no legal action will be taken against GDC or its agents or affiliates including the Department of Neighborhoods, or the City of Seattle moving forward.
The Department of Neighborhoods can be reached at the following contact information:
Allynn Ruth - Allynn.Ruth@seattle.gov
(206) 684-0301
Seattle Dept. of Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Matching Fund
700 Fifth Ave, PO Box 94649
Seattle, WA 98124-4649
Sincerely,
Justin Hart
Graffiti Defense Coalition Co-Founder
Stunning Seattle Director
Way to go GDC! Thanks for working so hard to bring Seattle into the modern age of large scale street art productions.
Making GDC change the Stunning Seattle name would be adding insult to injury. TWIF broke their contract with GDC for no reason, stole property both intellectual and physical, made claims that aren't true and have interfered with a city approved project. I think if anyone should consider changing their branding it's TWIF.
Furthermore no one is taking into account the cost and work involved in changing Stunning Seattle's name, which I bet is not covered in the grant. Re-branding isn't an easy thing to do mid-stream and it's confusing to participants. Re-branding is also very costly when you think of things like building a new website, printing of promotional materials and loss of artist interest.
GDC I wish you the best. I hope you find resolution and redemption.