I
want to
speak to you on a more personal level. Initially, I will comment
on several
areas - those being our commitment, your input, approach on endorsements,
estimated cost and funding, and contacting the President. I
will date the entries and post new observations periodically.
I wanted
to give you the opportunity to understand why some decisions
are made and what course, and potential corrections, this project
may take.
This page is similar to a BLOG,
but it will not be updated on a daily basis, nor does it provide
for reader feedback. This page presents project progress mixed
with some personal thoughts. If you would like to contact me
please use our Contact Us link on the main menu.
February
2, 2008
We have just
completed updating and moving the site to a new server. We
have added a donation cart and automatic credit card processing.
This coming Thursday we have a meeting with US Congressman
David Price's District Director. There is a potential for some
federal funding. We will be exploring that avenue.
One of our
Honorary Chairs is going to meet with Jon Voight today at Walter
Reed Army Hospital. I made a presentation folder and CD for
Mr. Voight. He is an outspoken supporter of our troops.
We are filing
the forms to request a listing with America
Supports You. That is a very influential site listing organizations
that are helping our troops. We don't know if a memorial listing
will fit their criteria, but we'll see.
We have been
working with Buzz Aldrin on his endorsement. It's a process
that takes some time.
November
21, 2007
Form N-02 Articles of Amendment was
filed today with the NC Secretary of State. We are changing the
name of the corporation from War on Terrorism Memorial to Freedom
Memorials. Everything else remains the same. We will be transferring
the site to the new domain in the coming days. Logos and address
changes will be made.
This name change was made because
some sponsors suggested a political connotation with War on Terrorism
Memorial. The memorial effort is not political, so we made the
change to avoid any misunderstandings.
October
3, 2007
The location for the Afghanistan & Iraq
War Memorial will be the 45th Infantry Division Museum's Thunderbird
Park in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
September
21, 2007
An announcement about a location
is coming in October.
September
9, 2007
I'll be traveling to confirm a site
location within the next two weeks. As soon as this is formalized
I will make an announcement here and on the main page of our
Website.
June
1, 2007
We've met with representatives who
would like to see us locate the Afghanistan & Iraq War Memorial
in their respective cities. Location is an ongoing process, so
we prefer not to identify the competitors. We hope to make a
decision within the next 60 days so we can begin formal fundraising.
April
12, 2007
Carl spoke with Mr. David Levy of
the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) today. He reaffirmed
that all new memorials had to get the approval of Congress, and
it would take years to accomplish. Carl also spoke with Mr. Michael
Conley of the American
Battle Monuments Commission. The commission was established
by Congress in 1923, as an agency of the Executive Branch of
the Federal Government. They are the guardians of America’s
overseas commemorative cemeteries and memorials, and they were
authorized by Congress to build the Korean and WWII memorials
here in the US.
Mr. Conley mentioned that Congress
is leaning toward a 10 year span before any new memorials can
be built on or near the DC Mall. Their new thinking is a concept
called Healing Memorials. That idea
has some kind of political correctness written all over it.
According to a recent article (March
2007) by the Associated Press titled For those honoring
U.S. dead, no more Vietnams, the American people
want to honor these brave men and women now, not some time in
the distant future. Smaller local monuments are being erected
across the U.S. If we want to see a memorial of this magnitude
in place any time soon we need to consider venues other than
Washington, DC. The advice from both gentlemen today was to forget
about Congress if we want to see this memorial come to pass any
time soon. They both agreed the memorial was impressive and a
timely endeavor.
March
27, 2007
We were informed by an IAVA representative
that some modifications were made to the Commemorative Works
Act in 2003, but I could not find reference to those on the Net.
He mentioned, in any event, congressional approval for a memorial
in the DC area and environs would be a twenty four step process.
After reading S 311 RS, a bill before the Senate in April 2000
concerning the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation, it
appears provisions of the CWA can be struck or modified.
But there is strong opposition for
more construction on the Mall by some private organizations.
They refer to the Commemorative Works Act many times with no
reference to any modifications being made. Adding to the procedural
hurtles would be the need for approval by the National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC), the Commission of Fine Arts, and
the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. We're talking
about years of negotiations with no guarantee of success.
We received a letter today from the
military college mentioned earlier in my March 11 statement.
It said they are still studying our request. The second paragraph
read, "Our concern is that no veterans' organizations or
military associations have yet signed on and there is the possibility
that those groups may be working on similar projects." They
went on to say that they may endorse the project after other
organizations take the initiative.
This is a perfect example of the
logic that drives these organizations, and unfortunately, much
of society today. They're nervous about making a commitment.
Group A won't commit until they see Group B commit, and the cycle
goes on. Please take a minute to read the disclaimer statement
at the top of our Endorsement page.
It amazes me why this college or any other organization can't
seem to find the courage, if you want to call it that, to endorse
a concept that will honor
our Iraq and Afghanistan fallen military. I wonder what the families
of fallen soldiers who graduated from this institution would
think about their hesitation.
March
21, 2007
Contracting
I received an e-mail yesterday from
a person who took issue with our contractor list. He made an
accusation about cronyism because, as he saw it, we’ve
already selected contractors in certain specialties without going
through the bidding process. In his view it’s about getting, “the
most bang for the buck.”
I’ve was a builder, renovator
of historic homes, and contractor for many years. We always worked
when other companies were laying off during recessions. Why was
that? Was it because we came in with the lowest bids? No. It
was because we were the best at what we did. We were perfectionists,
and that was the main concern of the clientele for whom we worked.
I know contracting, and I’m
still a perfectionist, as is Carl. I’m sure many of the
boards who have headed up large-scale building projects, memorials
included, didn’t know which end of a hammer to hold, couldn’t
pour concrete, or run electrical conduit. So what they probably
did was select a general contractor who came up with the lowest
bid on the project. That GC then, presumably, would select sub-contractors
who came in with the lowest bids on portions of the job. That
may or may not happen. The GC might already have his favorite
subs, I know I did when I was in the business.
The point is the GC is now heading
the project with little oversight from the board. Did the board
select the contractor who could actually do the best job, or
did they select solely based on a low bid in an attempt to get
the most bang for the buck? The latter can backfire
and have dire cost overrun and workmanship consequences. You
may read about this everyday in your local paper.
This project is hands on all the
way for Carl and me. We want a memorial the world can be proud
of, one that will survive the test of time. We have not made
formal selections of contractors, but we have painstakingly searched
out professionals with the credentials and proven performance
to do the best job. That’s what counts. If there’s
a company out there who would like to be considered for one of
the sub-contracts, one that has a proven record of accomplishment
and a perfectionist dedication to their workmanship, we invite
them to get in touch with us. We’ll consider all options.
One thing you can be sure about,
we’re not going to overpay for the work contracted. This
isn’t a $500 per toilet seat government project. I know
contracting. I know what’s reasonable and what’s
not. I know the difference between professional craftsmanship
and shoddy work. We will demand the best for the memorial designed
to honor our fallen heroes. If some people want to accuse us
of some type of cronyism, that’s their prerogative. I assure
you that’s not the case. We’ll use people in whom
we have confidence, not just a low bidder from Any City USA.
It’s your money. I’m sure you want it used in the
wisest possible manner. Carl and I have proven records of accomplishment.
Check our resumes. We’ll supply all the references requested.
The person who sent me the e-mail message was, in reality, questioning
our reputations and management skills due to his own perceptions
without actually talking with us about the project. That’s
short sighted at best.
The Tributes
One person sent me an e-mail complaining
that since I mentioned the Diamond
Memory™ Tributes so much it appeared we were
using this memorial to promote a new product. That is not our
intention. However, the tributes, or more specifically the individuals
represented on them, are the focus of the memorial.
The tributes were developed as a
way to immortalize the men and women who have paid the ultimate
price for freedom. During the research and development period,
I designed a Website to detail the testing and advantages of
these tributes versus others available in the marketplace. It
also demonstrates their different possible uses. I don't have
a fallen hero up yet because I have not received a tribute submission
form. That was just recently instituted.
I believe these tributes offer a
way to immortalize and remember loved ones like no others in
the world. When we put a sample tribute in the hands of a congressional
representative or general their reactions were always the same,
they’ve never seen anything like it. These tributes are
the timeless messengers for future generations. The men and women
represented on them remain the focus of this memorial.
What if we were going to use engraved
bronze tributes manufactured by a major supplier to the memorial
industry. Would we be accused of promoting their product? How
about the granite stones? Where does this end? Certain people
can find a way to interpret almost anything to fit their personal
belief systems.
Our goal is to honor the men and
women who have sacrificed everything for our freedom. The response
to this memorial design has been overwhelmingly positive, but
we do have to occasionally deal with negativism. One thing I
want to say to those individuals, if you have a better idea or
methodology - get
involved. We’ll listen to you. However,
simply making accusations doesn’t help the process.
March 11, 2007
Our Commitment:
Almost three years ago, Carl
Regutti and I envisioned a unique way we might honor the brave
men and women who have
lost their lives fighting terrorism. There are plenty of memorials
using one or more realistic statues or contemporary sculptural
creations to represent a point in history or event. We wanted
to do something different.
On a more personal note, I would
like to do my part to honor these men and women who have paid
the ultimate price for freedom. I was not in the military, but
my father served in the OSS during WWII and my mother was a stenographer
on the War Crimes Trials in Nuremberg, Germany. She later worked
for the CIA and US Customs. I'm just your average citizen who
wants to make a difference.
Over the years we personally financed
the research and development (R&D) on the Diamond
Memory™ Tributes, the memorial/centerpiece design,
premium development, the Website, collateral materials, and
other incidentals that have brought us to this point. We are
committed to this project. We want to see this memorial come
to life, but that can only happen
with your help.
Location:
The District of Columbia was not a candidate due
to the 1986 Commemorative Works Act. Following
are several provisions of that act.
__________________________________________________________
"All memorials in areas
administered by the National Park Service and the General Services
Administration
must be authorized by Congress.
Memorial sites and design must be approved by NCPC, the Commission of Fine
Arts, and either the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of National Park
Service land, or the Administrator of the General Services, in the case of
GSA land.
The National Capital Memorial Commission advises the Secretary of the Interior
and the Administrator of General Services on policies regarding commemorative
works. The NCPC Chairman is an ex-officio member of this Commission.
An event or individual cannot be
memorialized prior to the twenty-fifth anniversary of
the event or the death of the individual.
Military monuments and memorials may only commemorate a war or similar
major military conflict or a branch of the Armed Forces. Monuments
and memorials
commemorating lesser conflicts or a unit of the Armed Forces are not permitted."
___________________________________________________________
Approach on Endorsements:
This effort has been slightly unnerving but educational
in the same respect. First, let me share a quote with you I heard
on Meet the Press this morning.
Larry Diamond of Stanford’s
Hoover Institution said, “America
is not at war. The US Army is at war. The rest of us are just
watching, or just
ignoring, while the whole fight is carried on by 150,000 soldiers
and their families.”
I hope, after this Website receives more notoriety,
that endorsements reflect a broader range of individual support
to demonstrate the previous statement to be inaccurate. At this
moment, however, the endorsees are primarily military related.
It was, and still is, our desire to demonstrate
a broad range of support for this memorial. At the onset we thought
it would give people more confidence in the project if we could
obtain and post endorsements by prominent leaders in the military,
government, and associated colleges. We thought this would be
a good start.
You may have read the endorsement page and our
disclaimer. I want to be very clear on this. We made presentations
to show people the Diamond Memory™ Tribute and
the memorial design. An endorsement reflects one’s opinion
on the new tribute and the memorial design only, unless otherwise
stated by the endorsee. We wanted to know if this remembrance
methodology, the use of these new personal tributes, was desirable.
We added the disclaimer so people would understand the limited
scope of an endorsement.
Let me start with our initial presentations, which
started in June 2006. We met personally with
twenty-two prestigious people. They consisted of high-ranking
military personnel, US and state congressional representatives,
mayors, council members, and leadership representatives at a
well-known military college. Every one expressed their support
for this memorial and the use of the new tributes. When asked
to make an endorsement, to date, none of them has done so.
Military personnel sighted the "Joint
Ethics Regulation (JER)" (DoD 5500.7-R) as their reason
for not being able to make an endorsement. I followed up with
a representative at the Department of Defense to get clarification.
It was explained to me, as it’s written in the document,
that military personnel can make personal endorsements and
use their military titles as long as it’s done in a private
capacity. Yet, none would personally submit an endorsement.
That left us wondering; what was the problem? Possible explanations
might be:
-
They don’t fully
understand the JER.
-
They were only telling us what we wanted
to hear, so making an endorsement might prove embarrassing.
-
They didn’t want
to go on record because of what others might think.
-
It’s too hard to
fill out the form on the Website.
-
They simply forgot about it as soon as we
left.
I wrote one retired general, who told me he would
be honored to make an endorsement, five times reminding him about
his commitment. I never heard from him. We welcome endorsements
from the leadership if they review the Website and personally
decide to support this project.
Politicians: It’s the same
story here, except they didn’t site the JER. They told
us they have their own ethics regulations that prohibit them
from making endorsements of private projects. One US congressional
representative told us he didn’t fully understand their
new ethics regulations, but they were working on trying to interpret
them. We stopped asking for their endorsements. We were informed
that a representative could come on board as an Honorary
Chair. There are no responsibilities, no liability, and no
statements are necessary. We welcome any politician who would
like to be so recognized. Please do get in touch.
A Military College: The
two representatives I met on one campus thought this was an
admirable project. The
head of communications said the request probably would not have
to go before the board. Days after the presentation I answered
e-mail questions about our management and the future status of
the memorial. None of these questions were pertinent to the focus
of the endorsement. I heard nothing further. I finally wrote
last week an asked for an explanation as to why we’ve heard
nothing. To date I’ve received no response. Military colleges
are not subject to the JER.
I made a call last week to
the Department Adjutant for the NC chapter of a very large
veteran’s organization.
Keep in mind a portfolio presentation and inspection of the new
tribute takes ten to thirty minutes depending on any questions
asked. I couldn’t get an initial review scheduled for over
a month. If that person approved the project then we might be
able to make a presentation at the state level sometime in June.
After that, if we received a favorable response, how long might
it take to reach the national level? Should we spend all this
valuable time for a simple endorsement? I didn’t think
the time was worth the effort. It proves one thing; these large
organizations are unwieldy and not capable, even on the state
level, to making rapid decisions. I thought this memorial would
have been more important to this organization.
I sent endorsement letters
to fifteen private, high profile military support organizations.
I thought we might
be able to obtain written support from some of them. I received
no responses from any of these groups. I have my own theories
on that given I’ve been involved in the non-profit sector
dealing with endangered animals, specifically tigers, for over
twenty years. It all has to do with the perception of stealing
their thunder, so to speak, or potentially drawing people away
from their donor base. It’s all political, in one form
or another, when distilled down to the least common denominator.
So, is the statement by Larry
Diamond correct? The endorsements we have to date seem to support
his theory.
Of course we’ve not received a lot of Website traffic
because we’re still, as planned, under the radar since
no articles have been done on this project. Before attempting
to attract the media we had hoped to receive sought after endorsements.
That didn’t happen, so we’re now going to focus our
attention on promoting the project. It’s still our hope
to attract endorsements from a broad cross section of people
who have the courage to formally support this memorial.
One other thing worth mentioning
is the fact that other major memorial sites do not have endorsement
links. Maybe
they ran into the same situations we have. We’re going
to keep ours active and hope for more participation.
In conclusion,
we now make personal Web presentations to very select people
and organizations. The
other methodology, e-mail and printed packages, proved unsuccessful
and extremely time consuming. Every organization maintains its
own personal agendas and timetables, so we’re now going
to call selected organizations and invite them to review our
Website when it’s convenient for them. All pertinent information
about the project is available there for review. If they decide
to make a presentation to their board or personally endorse this
project, we surely welcome their support. I’m always available
to answer any questions. In addition, we will be directing our
efforts toward promotion and presentations to upper level corporate
and private sponsors.
Personal presentations
were made to:
General Virgil L. Packett II – Fort
Bragg, NC
General Al Aycock – Fort Bragg, NC
Deputy Garrison Commander Gary Knight - Fort Bragg, NC
Mayor Anthony G. Chavonne – Fayetteville, NC
Major General William E. Ingram, Jr. – Adjutant General - NC National
Guard
LTC Jeff Brotherton – Director – Civil Military Affairs – NC
National Guard
Major Matt Handley – State Public Affairs Officer – NC National
Guard
U.S. Congressman Bob Etheridge
Russ Swindell – District Director – U.S. Congressman Bob Etheridge
Navy Seal Nicholas A. Rocha, CEO of the United Warrior Survivors Foundation
(UWSF). Featured on the NBC Nightly News
Wesley Meredith – Fayetteville City Council member.
Jimmy Teal – Chief Planning Officer – Fayetteville, NC
Bruce J. Daws – Fayetteville Historic Resources Commission
SFC Jose Quinones – Fort Bragg, NC
John S. Duvall – Airborne & Special Operations Museum – Fayetteville,
NC
Brigadier General Hugh B. Tant, III – Introduced new Iraqi currency.
David Burnette – Executive Director – Patriots Point Authority,
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Senator Glenn McConnell – Charleston, SC
Dawn Cash – Widow of fallen warrior – Greenville, NC
Marvin H. Sineath, D.A.V. – Charleston, SC
Correspondence with
to date:
Senator Bob Dole
Mayor Joseph P. Riley – Charleston, SC
Dr. Mike Davis - Assistant Vice Chancellor - North Carolina State University – Liaison
to General Henry Hugh Shelton
Ellen Dressler Moryl - Director of Cultural Affairs – Charleston, SC
David Hays – Assistant to General Henry Hugh Shelton
Arjun Mody - Legislative Assistant - Office of Senator Elizabeth Dole
Mr. David Levy - National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
Mr. Michael G. Conley - American Battle Monuments Commission
William A. McIntosh – President - National D-Day Memorial Foundation
- Bedford, VA
Major General Harry M. Wyatt III - Adjutant General - Oklahoma National Guard
Michael E. Gonzales – Curator – 45th Division Infantry Museum – Oklahoma
City, OK
Estimated Cost & Funding:
I knew that campaign budgets were huge and out
of control, but Ted Koppel drove the point home this morning
on Meet the Press when he said the top two presidential candidates
will end up spending $500 million each
trying to get elected. One candidate will spend almost twice
as many dollars as it cost to build the five memorials
listed below. That’s not to mention the other vast amounts
being spent by all the other hopefuls. And where does this money
come from? The people, in one way or another. My question is,
will the people be as motivated to make a donation for a memorial
to our fallen heroes? Here are some other interesting figures.
