A few days ago I received a call from my cousin. He’d been hearing some chatter from the family about something happening with a series of NEA articles that I’d written for Big Hollywood and wanted to find out from the horse’s mouth what was going on. His question was simple and concise.
“What did the White House do wrong?” he asked.
“The White House attempted to use federal agencies for political gain,” I blurted out.
President Obama with former NEA Communications Director Yosi Sergant
And that is The Big Truth in a nutshell. A moment of clarity hit me, and as with most eureka moments, a path of how to explain this big truth came into sight. The full story needed to be told – including possible collusion, the White House’s novel mode of operation, and the eventual cover-up – to fully understand and illuminate the government’s intention with their arts effort.
Up until now, I have not discussed Sergant’s former job in the White House Office of Public Engagement, where Buffy Wicks currently resides, because the story had to develop to understand the significance. I also haven’t discussed the email that I received from Michael Skolnik, the moderator of the call, immediately after the publication of the original conference call article – an email that attempted to revise history and the role of the NEA and the White House in the meeting. And what has yet to be discussed is the White House’s recent ability to set up an ArtistCorps, brought into existence with less than 20 words in the Serve America Act.
A deeper look into the build up to the August 10th meeting and the aftermath of the release of my article will be explored here. This is The Big Truth.
SETTING OUT TO POLITICIZE THE ART COMMUNITY
As many of you may know by now, my original article, entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?, discussed a conference call organized by the White House and two federal agencies, those being the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) & the Corporation for National and Community Service (The Corporation). In the original article and subsequent series I presented an irrefutable fact – that the federal government encouraged a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate.
To prove that the government set out to politicize a federal agency, it would take more than one federal employee acting inappropriately during the August 10th conference call. However, once a second federal employee is found acting with the same intentions as the first, by definition collusion is a possibility.
I think it can be shown that Yosi Sergant did not act alone, but namely, Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy prescribed to the very same behavior.
On September 24th, the former Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts, Yosi Sergant, resigned from his position at the NEA. In a statement issued two days earlier, the Chairman of the NEA, Rocco Landesman, outlined a list of facts regarding the conference call, including that “the former NEA Director of Communications helped organize and participated in an August 10th conference call to introduce members of the arts community to United We Serve” and that he “acted unilaterally and without the approval or authorization of then-Acting Chairman Patrice Walker Powell.”
Let’s assume for a second that no one at the NEA knew of Sergant’s efforts, which is what it appears Mr. Landesman is saying. We can give the agency that caveat for now. However, the assumption of ignorance must stop there. Why? Because we know from several sources that the White House and The Corporation, a federal agency that promotes volunteerism, also played a role in initiating, organizing, and planning the meeting.
The Corporation and White House Involved in Initiating and Planning Meeting
As reported by Foxnews.com, “Thomas Bates, vice president of civic engagement for Rock the Vote, confirmed he was on the call, saying he was invited by officials at United We Serve.” United We Serve is The Corporation. We know that Bates was one of the meeting presenters, which proves this federal agency was involved in the planning of the conference call. Who from United We Serve invited Thomas Bates? Possibly Nell Abernathy since she was the representative from United We Serve on the call, but that’s a question for Abernathy and/or Bates to answer.
Skolnik
As for the White House’s involvement in the initiation and planning of the conference call, we know that Michael Skolnik (the call moderator) stated during the call that he was “asked by folks in the White House and folks in the NEA” to bring together the independent artists community from around the country. He also tweeted about two meetings in July:
“Just met with Yosi Sargent at the NEA. What we can do with the arts in our country is so exciting. Yosi is a champion for our generation!” — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 8:56 AM Jul 15th
“On conference call right now w/ some amazing folks from the Obama team talking about United We Serve! Even during tough times we must serve.” — Michael Skolnik Tweet at 12:13 PM Jul 30th
These give at least two approximate times and dates that Skolnik met with the White House and the NEA to discuss the conference call. Who did he meet/teleconference with at the White House? Possibly Buffy Wicks given that she was the White House official on the call, but that is a question for Wicks and/or Skolnik to answer. At the very least these multiple statements by Skolnik makes the White House an initiator and co-planner of the August 10th conference call.
From these facts we can see that Sergant did not act alone in initiating, planning, and organizing the meeting. Both the White House and The Corporation were involved as well. – they were presenters on the call and knew the detailed structure of the meeting. Their involvement, however, doesn’t prove any wrong doing on its own. But when you combine their involvement in the planning of the meeting with the partisan nature of the audience and their encouragement of issue specific art, the intent of the government’s arts effort begins to come into focus.
The White House Politicizes the NEA and The Corporation
On September 22nd, The White House issued a memorandum to White House staff, as well as agency and department heads, to address the “appearance issues” of the conference call. The memorandum states that, “Some comments made in the call…have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.”
Here is one of many segments that the White House is claiming that I misunderstood as politicizing the NEA. The statement is made by Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement:
“I’m honored to be on the call, and I just, you know, it’s been a long road I know for a lot of us, and we’re really just beginning. I, first of all, want to thank everyone for being on the call and really just a deep, deep appreciation for all the work that you all put into the campaign for the two plus years that we all worked together. I was the field director in California so I hear my L.A. peeps out there, so it’s exciting to hear those voices. And, you know, we won and that’s exciting, and now we have to take all that energy and make it really meaningful.”
There is absolutely no misunderstanding. The NEA was politicized, as was The Corporation, by the White House.
As stated in an earlier post, every federal employee on the call understood that they were asking an extremely partisan, pro-Obama art group to address politically controversial issues. The praise ranged from thanking the group for their service on Obama’s 2008 campaign, to reflections on the hard work that each had put into his election. Additionally, the White House and both federal agencies allowed Skolnik, the person with which they planned the meeting, to tell the call participants on several occasions that the goal of the group was to support the President and to push him and his administration. Placing a “third party” moderator in a position to deliver a partisan message does not provide plausible deniability, it only acknowledges disreputable activity.
With these statements, each government official was complicit in bringing together a partisan, pro-Obama group to take some action supporting the President.
There was even a point in the call where Abernathy said that she would distribute partisan information to the call participants through Skolnik. How is delivering partisan information through a third party any different than delivering it directly to the audience?
All of this political activity, while on duty, may have been a violation of the Hatch Act as well as the authorizing statutes of the federal agencies.
As to the “specific asks” that were the ultimate goal of the conference call, it is more than just Sergant that is guilty of inappropriate behavior.
As part of Chairman Landesman’s September 22nd statement, he stated that, “some of the language by the former NEA Director of Communications was, “unfortunately, not appropriate and did not reflect the position of the NEA.”
Rocco Landesman
When asked by the Los Angeles Times to elaborate, an NEA spokeswoman sent the Times the following as the passage that Landesman considered inappropriate:
“I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment. There’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as areas of service. Then my ask would be to apply your artistic, creative community utilities. Bring them to the table.”
If these “asks” denote where Sergant crossed the line, then the other federal employees on the conference call also crossed the line. Both The Corporation and The White House Office of Public Engagement prescribed to those “asks” as well.
During the call, Nell Abernathy, a representative of the The Corporation, stated the following:
“And so that brings me to kind of our third major tactic we have been working on all summer, using the media and the story-telling on the campaign.”
“To a large degree, that’s how I saw the arts community to be so powerful in the campaign, helping us to tell the story, telling their own story whether it was the Hope poster which made…our whole mission instantly recognizable and relatable to people, or it was the will.i.am video that circulated on the Internet; but helping people to feel that they are part of a national movement…”
Abernathy then goes on to say:
“I think Yosi is on and is going to talk about some of the specific ways which we feel the art community is critical to this both what’s already going on and some opportunity for future partnership.”
Abernathy knew that Sergant would talk about the specific ways that the community could work on this project. If she knew to hand off this point to Sergant, they must have discussed the meeting beforehand as well as what he would be talking about. Let’s don’t forget that “ways” is plural, while “volunteerism” is singular. It couldn’t have just been volunteerism.
Abernathy may claim that she thought Sergant was just going to encourage the broad concept of volunteerism. But any denial of Abernathy’s part in encouraging the group to create issue specific art is neutralized by her agency’s invitation of Thomas Bates.
You may recall that Bates stated to Foxnews.com that he was invited by officials at Abernathy’s agency to attend the conference call. Bates was more than just a participant – he was part of the presentation. And as a presenter Bates stated during the call, “We just wanted to give you one quick tangible example of things that can be done.” Bates then went on to explain how Rock the Vote was considering having an artist create an art installation from urban waste to engage young people “on the issue of a new environmental movement.”
The example given by Bates is a clear indication of what the government wanted of these artists and art professionals – and that was not some vague notion of volunteerism as the White House claims, but rather to create art on politically controversial issues. Bates was invited by Abernathy’s federal agency to help deliver that message.
If Mr. Sergant is guilty of asking the art community to create art on controversial issues, so is Ms. Abernathy. And with the addition of one more federal employee to the list of officials requesting the creation of political art, the possibility of collusion becomes much firmer.
Now before going on, an important fact should be pointed out here that has not been made to date. The Corporation also provides grants.
On May 7, 2009, the President released his detailed fiscal year 2010 budget request. In the request, a budget of $1.149 billion was requested for The Corporation and its programs, which marks a 29 percent increase over President Bush’s fiscal year 2009 level. Per The Corporation’s website (emphasis added), “This budget strengthens existing programs and invests in new initiatives authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.” This Act includes a provision that allows funding by The Corporation to the arts, and more specifically to organizations that carryout activities such as “providing skilled musicians and artists to promote greater community unity through the use of music and arts education and engagement through work in low-income communities, and education, health care, and therapeutic settings, and other work in the public domain…”
This one line of text in the act attempts to define art as service and creates an “ArtistCorp” and “MusicianCorps”, akin to the PeaceCorp. With new art grant responsibilities given to The Corporation, the encouragement of a pro-Obama group to create art on politically controversial issues is another conflict of interest.
Were Sergant and Abernathy really working alone on this effort? Did Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, actually have no idea that the goal of the conference call was to encourage artists to create art on politically controversial issues?
The Political Intentions of The White House Office of Public Engagement
Through Wicks’ own words during the conference call, she acknowledges the group was a pro-Obama collective and thanks them for their efforts. She also states (emphasis added), “we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here. But we know that you guys are ready for it and eager to participate.”
Buffy Wicks
She later discusses the key issues that she wanted the group to address, with health care, energy and the environment at the top of the list. When referencing health care she stated, “health care. Obviously, that’s a big issue.”
Now it could be argued that she was referencing volunteerism in these issues. But she then goes on to say, “we need your guys’s help to promote this. We know that you all have channels and ability to get message out far greater than we do here…”
Promotion and “ability to get message out” are not a request for general volunteerism, and directly contradicts the White House’s statement on the purpose of the meeting.
Buffy Wicks is far too intelligent to think that asking a pro-Obama group to address vehemently debated issues, at a time when the health care debate had gone nuclear, would lead to anything but policy advocating. The recent discovery of a meeting between another pro-Obama arts group, the White House, Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement shows that the concept of using the arts to address issues was entrenched throughout the administration months before the August 10th conference call.
That fact dates back to when Sergant actually worked in the White House Office of Public Engagement with Buffy Wicks.
USING ART TO PUSH POLICY – THE CONCEPT STARTED AT THE WHITE HOUSE
“Just got a call from the white house. I start work monday. Uhhhhhh.” — Yosi Sergant Tweet at 3:01 PM on January 30, 2009
“We unveiled the HOPE posters for the first time on Super Bowl Sunday. The same day, one year later, I head to DC. Trip out.” —Yosi Sergant Tweet at 9:09 PM on January 30, 2009
Yosi Sergant
On Monday February 2, 2009, Yosi Sergant began his stint working for the government as an associate in the White House Office of Public Engagement (at that time called Office of Public Liaison). Known throughout the administration as the man behind the Obama campaign’s unofficial art movement, he was influential in helping initiate and promote the now famous Shepard Fairey Hope poster as well as the Moveon.org Manifest Hope Gallery, which was a collection of art celebrating Obama’s candidacy.
The White House Office of Public Engagement’s approach of using art to push policy makes an appearance as earlier as May 2009.
From a briefing report, first reported by The Washington Times, we see that the creation of issue related art was weaved throughout the very fabric of the White House Office of Public Engagement.
The briefing, held on May12th, included 60 artists, creative organizers, and the White House. Michael Strautmanis, Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement, was documented as saying to this arts group that people were “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.”
Per the briefing report Strautmanis recognized Sergant, who was instrumental in bringing the meeting together, and his efforts in making the Obama campaign “soar” with artwork. He acknowledged that Sergant’s presence “represents the commitment to bring in people not traditionally part of the political process to share their talents and skills. With Yosi…in place, he explained, people very close to the President are involved in the effort.” Sergant was placed at the NEA on May 11th, the day before this meeting.
So the White House places Sergant, a political activist that has a history of using art as a means to distribute messages, at the NEA as the Communications Director. What were their intentions if not to politicize the NEA?
Buffy Wicks also attended this May 12th White House briefing. Per the briefing report (emphasis added), “She asked briefing participants to think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” The brief continues, “She explained that the President and the First Lady will be engaging all of the resources of the White House to think through how the arts can be a space where Americans can engage in service…”
This is where “defining the creation of art as service” makes its first known appearance outside the cryptic line in the Serve America Act. It’s a timely concept given that the White House will be launching a national service initiative within a month. And the idea is delivered by Buffy Wicks.
The desire to “expand what it means to serve” and that “art by definition is service” was discussed during the August 10th conference call. It is made very clear through their own words that Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement view the creation of art as a form of service. Wicks cannot claim that she suppressed that idea for the August 10th conference call when so many others on the call were advocating that very concept.
It takes a huge leap of faith to think Wicks and the White House Office of Public Engagement were not complicit in the same infringement as Sergant and Abernathy – that being to encourage a pro-Obama art group to create art on politically controversial issues.
THE WHITE HOUSE’S POLITICAL ART PLAN IN ACTION
To date we know of three government art efforts – the May 12th White House meeting, the August 10th conference call, and the August 27th conference call. Taken together we see the White House’s attempt to effect the discussion of policy through the arts.
The meetings show a pattern of bringing together pro-Obama arts groups, providing the group political issues to tackle, then letting the groups organically come up with ideas – with the only possible results leading to partisan messaging.
The May 12th meeting is where the beginning of this mode of operation first appears.
The meeting consisted of three parts: 1) a meeting between the 60 artists and creative organizers to prepare for the briefing, 2) the two-hour White House briefing, and 3) a post-briefing meeting to interpret and respond to what the group had learned as well as to engage in small-group strategy sessions.
The briefing report contains similar qualities as the August 10th conference call. The White House hosts acknowledged the partisan nature of the group by thanking the participants “for their roles in amplifying the administration’s messages in their communities.” The participants in the meeting were in contact with Sergant, who was in the Office of Public Engagement during the planning, and he’s noted in the report as being “instrumental in arranging the briefing.”
As with the August 10th conference call, the NEA was in the room with grantees and potential grantees. The meeting was called on the preface of bringing together “community cultural development practitioners and thinkers to talk about how the remarkable mobilizing power of community arts can be used by the Obama administration as a tool and a pathway for national recovery.”
The goal of the May 12th meeting cannot get more concise than that statement – to discuss how the Obama Administration can use the power of arts as a tool.
At the meeting, this pro-Obama arts group was asked by Buffy Wicks to “think through how their networks and organizations can participate in areas such as the arts in education, healthcare and preventative care, energy and environment, or economic opportunity.” And the Chief of Staff for the Office of Public Engagement talked of how some people are “motivated by issues and by expressing themselves through the arts.” Both of these statements show the clear intention of the White House office of Public Engagement to use the arts to tackle issues.
It wasn’t until the third segment of the meeting that you could see how a meeting of this nature could generate politicized art.
In this final segment the group formed small strategy session teams. One such group tackled the issue of healthcare reform. The group, headed by Michelle Miller of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), discussed the multiple roles that artists can play to support healthcare reform. Some of these roles were to “join with policy makers to help create a narrative about the current health care system. There is an ongoing need for stories from inside the health care system…” The session notes continue, “These stories serve to highlight the need for health care reform…”
And to show an even clearer example of how these meetings can produce partisan messaging, the strategy group highlighted that the artists role should be to “create a counter narrative to the Luntz memo/Republican talking points designed to destroy health care reform.”
The following video shows this plan in action. It is a panel, sponsored by the SEIU, the same union that was the lead in the strategy session, and includes stories from inside the health care system that help to create a narrative for the need for reform – just as discussed during the strategy session. I found this video posted by a participant in the May 12th briefing. The narrative that is developed in the first one minute and thirty-eight seconds is pretty shocking to say the least:
—
Or this health care song uploaded by a participant on the conference call (caution: explicit lyrics):
—
The results of these strategy sessions show how assuredly the White House can count on a pro-administration arts group to produce policy friendly messaging. As Mario Garcia Durham, Director of Presenting at the National Endowment for the Arts, was quoted as saying in the May 12th briefing, “Government and its policies should be shaped by participants’ voices in connection with the NEA.”
I hope this group got the new White House “guidelines” memorandum. It looks like they also have some “appearance” issues.
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT’S MODE OF OPERATION
As you can see, The White House Office of Public Engagement’s mode of operation is novel. Bring together pro-Obama arts groups, give the group controversial political issues to tackle, and then let the groups “organically” come up with ideas. Given the make up of the groups, the only possible results will lead to pro-administration messaging that is extremely partisan.
In both the May 12th and August 10th meetings, you see this plan in action. Two days after the August 10th call, Americans for the Arts, an NEA grantee and participant on the call, issued a press release with a coalition of 20 national arts organizations urging Congress to pass legislation that “guaranteed universal health insurance coverage.” Three days after the call Shepard Fairey, who had a representative on the call, released a new poster entitled Power Up, promoting the adoption of windmill power. Eleven days after the call Rock the Vote, a presenter on the call, announced a health care design competition. The contest announcement read, “We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system…We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care now.” These may all be a coincidence, but the timing is suspect.
This is how the administration is attempting to create an environment friendly to their policies – by having pro-Obama arts groups create partisan messages.
COVER UPS & HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
Cover-ups speak volumes to the intentions of those trying to cover up. Government officials never cover up flattering stories, only unflattering ones. Case in point is the laundry list of cover-ups and historical revisionism that happened after the first article broke August 25th on Big Hollywood.
In the original article I stated that the NEA initiated the conference call. Within minutes of the article going live, I received an email from Michael Skolnik, the call moderator, refuting that detail. Skolnik wrote:
“I was surprised to read your blog post today, and I hope that you consider updating it with the proper facts. The call was not initiated by the NEA, nor is the group a function of the NEA. It was initiated by me, and I initiated it because I thought artists around the country could come together and be involved in the United We Serve campaign — service…I hope you re-think what you wrote, and include the proper facts, so there is no mis-information given to the world.”
This statement directly contradicted his statement in the conference call, a fact that was made clear in the release of the transcripts. By having a “third party” be the initiator of the call, the government has plausible deniability to any of the results or intentions of the meeting. But once it is shown that all federal employees played a part in planning the meeting, plausible deniability evaporates.
The NEA Cover Up
On August 27th, the Washington Times reported that Sergant claimed the NEA was only a participant on the call and didn’t have the invite. That was shown as a dishonest response because the invitation that I received came from Sergant himself.
On September 10th, the NEA issued an unattributed statement claiming to have “participated” in the August 10th conference call. On September 22nd, after we released the full transcript, the NEA issued a statement claiming that “the former Communications Director helped organize and participated in” the conference call. This changed the NEA’s role again and placed all of the blame on the former Communications Director.
The Corporation Cover Up
During the August 27th Washington Times interview, Sergant stated that The Corporation “set up the conference call.” Foxnews.com, however, reported the next day that The Corporation claimed that the call was organized by an “individual interested” in the group – presumably pointing the finger at Michael Skolnik. However, one of the presenters, Thomas Bates, told Foxnews.com that he was invited to join the call by officials at The Corporation, showing that The Corporation was involved in organizing the call.
The White House’s Attempt at Historical Revisionism
On September 1st the White House issued a statement to the Boston Globe stating that the “call was a briefing on public service.” The Globe reported that the White House thought, “Courrielche misconstrued the purpose of the phone call.” Three weeks later, after the transcripts were released, the White House changed its position conceding that there may be some “appearance issues” that troubled some participants.
Within days they issued guidelines to their staff to address a problem that they earlier stated didn’t exist.
The guidelines itself are an exercise in historical revisionism. The White House Memorandum states, “Some comments made in the call, however have been misunderstood as seeking to inappropriately politicize activities of the NEA.” This copy should have been crosschecked with the transcript and the NEA statement. The NEA itself categorized the comments as “unfortunately, not appropriate.” Any reasonable person would see that there is no misunderstanding. The call comments did inappropriately politicize the NEA as well as The Corporation. And isn’t it peculiar that comments during the conference call led to the White House issuing guidelines to ensure proper conduct, while declaring in those same guidelines that the conduct wasn’t improper. My head is spinning.
These cover-ups, frantic finger pointing, and exercises in revising history have been an attempt to hide the implications associated with the government’s role in setting up such a partisan effort. Each statement has been an attempt to make this story a non-story – an attempt that at times has been successful. For example, I recently did an interview with CBS for Katie Couric’s Evening News, but the interview has yet to air. You would think that with both the National Endowment for the Arts and the White House admitting to inappropriate behavior and “appearance” issues that someone from the mainstream news networks would smell something fishy and broadcast a story. But to date, the mainstream TV nets have been silent.
***
As I have stated from the beginning, the federal government did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable. It has been shown throughout this article that Sergant did not act alone in requesting the arts group to create art on politically controversial issues. Both Buffy Wicks and Nell Abernathy also prescribed to that encouragement.
It has also been shown that the concept of using the arts to tackle political issues dates back to the May 12th meeting between another pro-Obama arts collective, creative organizers, and the White House. Through my previous articles, and excellent reporting by the Washington Times, it has also been shown that NEA grantees have been involved in all of these politicized efforts.
The White House has attempted, through the efforts of the Office of Public Engagement, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, to use federal agencies for political gain. All of the evidence from the May 12th and August 10th meetings point to that conclusion.
Even more revealing was the fact that a similar conference call was to happen on August 27th, two days after my article went live. The call was to include the NEA and the White House Office of Public Engagement. However the NEA backed out of participating in that call.
***
At times I’ve found myself caught in the grips of The Big Truth.
Many have heard the expression The Big Lie. It’s a phrase that describes a propaganda technique that employs a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously,” as described by the villain that coined the phrase. The resultant effect being that the masses believe the colossal lie.
Well The Big Truth is an opposite of sorts. It’s a truth that is so clearly documented, and with such immense implications, that it is almost too big a truth to be taken seriously.
I experienced this phenomenon when I first spoke about my article just a few weeks ago.
When I described to a journalist some of the unreleased information gathered in the August 10th conference call, I was told that the story sounded too big to be true.
Well the circumstances that led up to the call, the content of the call itself, and the resulting attempt to cover up the government’s role are the pieces of The Big Truth puzzle that reveal the government’s intentions with the arts. And those intentions are to create an environment friendly for the administration’s policies.
Art is no longer just a painted canvas hanging on a wall or a film that takes an enormous amount of effort to be distributed. Art is now media – and can go viral with the click of a mouse. Government should not encourage artists to address specific issues, especially not those that are politically controversial. We need a separation of art and state – otherwise we head farther down the road to serfdom.
Through the publication of this article I am requesting that members of Congress add to their NEA inquiry, any violations of the authorizing statutes that pertain to the Corporation for National and Community Service, as well as extend their inquiry into the possible politicization of these agencies by the White House Office of Public Engagement. Additionally, Congress should look into the actions of NEA grantees involved in each of these arts efforts.