C'mon ANA, You're Going to Lose a Voluntary Resource!

I received the March 1, 2011 edition of Numismatic News in today’s mail. In a front page, top right article, NN reported that American Numismatic Association membership is down to 28,500 members. This is the low end of the 20 year average of 28,000 to 32,000. It was reported that Kim Kiik, ANA Senior Administration Manager, told the board that an aggressive membership campaigned will be announced shortly.

In the February 2011, ANA President Cliff Mishler wrote in The Numismatist that ANA Governor Wendell Wolka wants to make the ANA library and museum more accessible to ANA members. Wolka wants the library to wants to make it easier for members to reserve books from the library by making the process electronic. He also wants to have rare and popular books digitized so that they may be electronically accessed by members.

On May 21, 2010, when I posted a follow up to my post “ANA versus Technology: The ANA is Losing!,” I wrote that the ANA is doing very little to make the association accessible to the potential 20-something and 30-something members. Then, during my January discussion of electronic publication, I wrote:

Numismatics is dominated by many people over 50. If there is a second age group, it is younger than 18. Missing in the demographic are those from 18-50 who might have been a Young Numismatist but dropped out in college and did not return until after their children have grown. This situation is unacceptable if the hobby is to survive!

The ANA can offer better outreach to this connected demographic by the appropriate use of technology. This does not have to cost a lot of money. It takes a little imagination to figure out where these potential members congregate online and deliver new content.

Based on the reporting of NN and the reporting in the February 2011 edition of The Numismatist, the ANA Board of Governors, the majority who are older than 50, are sticking their proverbial toes in the technology waters where rest of the world has lapped them several times in the race for the attention of the ANA’s lost demographic.

Rather than try to be democratic about providing advice, I am going to be very specific in my recommendations:

1. While there is still time to plan, the open sessions at the World’s Fair of Money should be live streamed on a service like uStream. The ANA can start with Board Meetings and other open meetings involving the organization. How about broadcasting some of the Numismatic Theater talks on the Internet?


2. What about using something like GoToWebinar to broadcast Numismatic Theater presentations with electronic slides and audio available to anyone who wants to log in at the time of the event. The online portion can be saved so that members can view later on demand.


3. Borrow, lease, or buy any number of what is called “prosumer” video products that includes sound capture and tripod setup to record video, find a member with basic editing tools to add titles and do some minor editing, and upload the video to YouTube for anyone to watch. For a lesser expensive option, I have been very impressed with the Flip Ultra HD. For $199.99 (list price), with two hours of high definition video and other amenities, it is a fine camera to mount on a tripod in a room and create a video. Find someone with a Mac that has iLife preloaded (like your blog host, an ANA member), and you have the beginnings of a basic editing studio.


4. Going further into the electronic video publishing environment, uStream can be used to set up pay-per-view, on-demand video. While I would love to attend the Summer Seminar, I have found that my work schedule has not been flexible enough to take the time to attend. However, if some of the courses were available online, I would pay to watch the videos. This is the ultimate money maker that can be used to support the video production environment. Create the video from the Summer Seminar and offer it online after the World’s Fair of Money at a price for one-third of the on-site course. For the price, the watcher gets the information but does not have the ability to interact with the instructor and other students.


5. If you search Google Books, you can find some of the books that are in the ANA library in the electronic catalog. There are also a few copies of The Numismatist available. These are all books and journals that have been scanned by university libraries in conjunction with Google. Has someone contacted Google to scan books whose copyrights have expired or out of print books (available through their court settlement with authors and publishers that will allow them to scan “orphaned” books) making them available for the entire numismatic community? Google provides much of the resources to do this and may welcome a different source of content for their vast online library.

In order to convince the ANA Lost Demographic to maintaining their membership, the ANA should add more electronic resources and consider price breaks for this demographic. First, create a new tier what I will call the Lost Demographic. The Lost Demographic member would be potential member who older than 23 but not older than 32, was a registered YN member at any time prior to turning 23, applied for the ANA’s Basic Membership—it would not be available for Regular Membership. Lost Demographic Basic Membership dues would be half of the difference between a Regular and YN membership. For example, the Basic one-year membership for YN is $14 and Regular members $28. For the Lost Demographic Basic Membership would be $21 per year.

Finally, I am not one to sit on the sideline and throw stones by telling others what to do. Once again, I am willing to volunteer my services as an ANA member and a computing professional. Although I have offered my voluntary services to the ANA many times in the past, I am using my personal soap box to offer my services. However, continued frustration will reduce my desire to help. Act now before it is too late!

A 2011 Find in a New Place

Yesterday, I received one of those charity solicitations in the mail with a nickel attached to the form. After opening the envelope, I found a shiny, new 2011-P Jefferson Nickel. Usually, I send back the nickel with a donation. This time, I kept the nickel as my first 2011 nickel of the year. When I write the check I will add 5-cents to my donation instead.

I thought this was an unusual place for a coin find!

First 2011 Find

After a week that included surgery (I’m fine... just healing), there are two issues that dominated my Inbox: my commentary about the CCAC Blueprint Report and more on electronic publishing. I will discuss these at another time following research I am doing.

In the mean time, I am happy to report that I found 2011 coins in change. As I was searching my wife’s change looking for something interesting, I found three 2011 Lincoln Cents! These three very bright, red, well struck examples with Victor David Brenner’s portrait of Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, and the Union Shield designed by Lyndall Bass and engraved by Joseph Menna.

This is the first time in a few years that I have seen new coins this early in the year. What would really make this more exciting if these were Denver minted coins. Hopefully, we can find these in the D.C. area soon!

Review of CCAC Blueprint Report

Before commenting on the CCAC Blueprint Report, I would like to note that the report has not been formally published by the U.S. Mint. It appears that the report was sent via email to a number of people who requested a copy. When I received a copy, I posted it here for the public to see. It appears as if the U.S. Mint takes an arms-length approach to the CCAC with regard to its support which shows in the lack of public information disseminated about the CCAC. While I appreciate the U.S. Mint Public Affairs Office sending a copy of this report, they should be more proactive in providing information about the CCAC to the public.

Also, it is not known whether the CCAC is accepting comments about the report. Page iii indicates that this is a final report and was transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. This is a shame since the document should clearly have been reviewed by others before its transmittal. While they could reject comments, accepting reviews from another perspective may have been helpful to tighten their sound recommendations.

Since they have not indicated whether they are accepting public comment, I am providing my commentary in this blog post. I will be contacting those CCAC members whose email address I know and point them to this commentary. I ask that they share this with the other CCAC members. They are invited to provide commentary to this blog post or contact me privately for further clarification. I am willing to help in anyway I can.

As with all my blog posts, comments from my readers are always appreciated!

Introduction
In 2007, speaking before the delegates at the International Art Medal Federation (Fédération Internationale de la Médaille d'Art or FIDEM) in Colorado Springs, then U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy announced his vision “to spark a neo-renaissance for coin design and achieve a new level of design excellence.” But during design reviews by the United States Commission of Fine Arts and Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee during 2010, it was noted that the U.S. Mint was falling short of Director Moy’s goals.

In response, the CCAC formed the Subcommittee on Design Excellence to address the design quality issues. The subcommittee was chaired by CCAC Chairman and included CCAC members Roger W. Burdette, Mitch Sanders, Donald Scarinci, and Heidi Wastweet.

The subcommittee’s work is document in the report, A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals that was approved by the CCAC as their official position on January 19, 2011. This 62-page report, of which the first 22-pages is the report with the balanced supporting Appendices, describes the reason the CCAC felt it needed to write this report, their findings investigating the issues, and recommendations for improvement.

While reading the documented investigation into the process’s of the U.S. Mint, it reads like the U.S. Mint is a typical federal government agency whose entrenched processes created many years ago are continued today because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” The biggest flaw is that the Sales and Marketing Department is in charge of the coin design process. While this might have made sense many years ago, as the report points out, there is a conflict between the goals of the Sales and Marketing Department and the artistic nature of the coins produced by the U.S. Mint. Further complicating the situation is that the Sales and Marketing Department does not include someone with an artistic background overseeing the decisions.

Another part of the U.S. Mint bureaucracy is the Design Working Group (DWG) whose function was to coordinate manufacturing time tables and interface with stakeholder groups. Since the creation of the Artistic Infusion Program (AIP), the DWG has managed those artists and coordinating with the U.S. Mint Sculptor-Engravers. However, the report notes that the DWG does not include anyone with an artistic background.

CCAC’s Recommendation #1
The CCAC’s first recommendation is to remove the Sales and Marketing Department from the design process and abolish the DWG. Rather than these groups controlling the artistic design process, the report recommends that the U.S. Mint forms an Coin and Medal Design Department (CMDD) whose Division Chief has an artistic and management background. The CMDD would include all artists and include the management of AIP artists, management of stakeholder relations, and management of the die creating functions (Dies, Tools and Digital Control). While some may see this as the proverbial “shuffling of deck chairs,” it makes sense for the U.S. Mint to combine these functions under one manager and eliminate potential interdepartmental issues that occur within government agencies.

Although this is a sound recommendation, it appears that the recommendation continues to promote a bureaucratic approach for this new organization by creating three Associate Division Chiefs (ADC) to manage each of the major functions. While the ADC of Designing and Engraving should be the “Chief Engraver of the United States Mint” and the ADC of Dies, Tools and Digital Control should be a technical oriented person, it is questionable that the ADC for Stakeholder Relations is necessary. All the report says about the current stakeholder relations is that it is part of the Sales and Marketing Department without describing the basic job function and the level of effort to perform that job. Unless the CCAC and U.S. Mint can justify that the level of effort would require a full-time ADC, it would seem that the external contact and the person best suited to for this function would be the CMDD Division Chief. In fact, it should be recommended that this function be taken on by the CMDD Division Chief until such time as the level of effort is too great for this person to handle.

The report recommends that the DWC be replace by an interdisciplinary group to coordinate artistic and manufacturing schedules, a group referred to as the Timetable Task Force (TTF). According to the report, the TTP would be made up of representatives of Office of Chief Counsel, Sales and Marketing Department, and the Manufacturing Department and “should perform the scheduling function and advise the Art Director on historical, legal and technical matters.” This is absolutely the wrong approach to “fixing” what is wrong with the design issues. The design process already has too many inputs into the process. In order to provide more artistic freedom for the artists to create good designs, it is highly advisable to remove as many obstacles as possible. All design decisions including consulting with outside stakeholders (including the Office of Chief Counsel) should remain within the CMDD and managed by the Division Chief and Chief Engraver. The TTF should only concern itself with the timetable necessary to that will take the law passed by congress and have it manufactured, marketed, and sold to the public. The TTF should be limited to one representative of each department with the authority to speak for that department. Having worked in a federal government environment, having a large group of stakeholders meet is unwieldily and leads to a bad decision making process.

CCAC’s Recommendation #2
The CCAC’s recommendation to provide more artistic freedom for the U.S. Mint Sculpture-Engravers and improve the requests for proposals (RFP, the “call for artists”) for the Artistic Infusion Program is a necessary change the U.S. Mint needs to implement. The report rightly calls for the end of the practice U.S. Mint artists call “trace and bake” where artists are given materials to reproduce rather than rely on the artists talents.

It was surprising to learn that the U.S. Mint artists are not offered addition professional training, the opportunity to attend seminars or workshops, and are not allowed to attend artistic exhibits of coin and medallic art. The CCAC recommends that this change to allow U.S. Mint artists to advance themselves and promote their fine work. Funding must be set aside to support continuing education and promotion of the U.S. Mint’s talented artists. However, the recommendation does not include members of the AIP. Although the AIP artists are technically contract workers to the U.S. Mint, they should be afforded some opportunities to attend seminars and workshops that would benefit their work as part of the Artistic Infusion Program. While these opportunities would be offered on a lower scale than those offered to the full-time Sculpture-Engravers, it would benefit the U.S. Mint for these artists to be able to participate.

Although left out of the Summary section (Section 5), the recommendation for changes in working conditions in Section 4.3 is a key issue for artistic creativity. While the U.S. Mint should provide better working conditions by removing the cubicle farm and creating a studio-like design, the CCAC should have recommended that artists be given the opportunity to participate in a telework program. Missing from the report’s recommendation is how the U.S. Mint would implement “Telework Enhancement Act of 2010” (Public Law 111-292; 124 STAT. 3165) the could help improve the working environment of the U.S. Mint’s artists. Signed by President Obama on December 9, 2010—prior to the publishing of this report—the law calls for agency to “establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may be authorized to telework” within 180 days of enactment. The CCAC’s report should recommend that the U.S. Mint Sculptor-Engravers be allowed to telework in their own studios away from their current office at the Philadelphia Mint with a requirement to work at the Philadelphia facility for a certain amount of time to ensure appropriate collaboration. Not only would this provide the artists an opportunity to work comfortably, but it would help the U.S. Mint comply with the new law and begin compliance with the Presidential Memorandum “Accountable Government Initiative” of September 14, 2010.

CCAC’s Recommendation #3
The CCAC recommends that they and the CFA be more integral in the design and review process. After commenting on reducing the bureaucracy in Recommendation #1 (above), this recommendation by the CCAC will only increase it in the name of alleged oversight. First, the CCAC does not say how it will change its process in order to work within the schedule the U.S. Mint might require. Instead, the CCAC recommends that “[production] timelines should be designed to recognize the role of these groups.” Unfortunately, the CCAC does not recognize the will of congress that could force a change in normal scheduling practices by passing a coin-related bill the same year as the coin is produced. While this situation does not effect current production, it has happened in the past and is not recognized by the CCAC.

Routinely, the CCAC decries the U.S. Mint’s scheduling and how designs are thrusted upon them for their approval in order to meet production requirements. What the CCAC has not considered is that their own schedule of monthly meetings that may not fit an active manufacturing process. While all the employees are working daily to manufacture the coins and medals, the CCAC meets once per month in a scheduled three-hour morning session to conduct its business. Waiting for the CCAC to meet in order to gain their concurrence has to wreak havoc with production scheduling. It places the CCAC on the schedule’s critical path of the U.S. Mint’s design and manufacturing process. The CCAC should not be on the critical path. If the report is to hold the U.S. Mint accountable for improving its process, the CCAC must consider their own process improvement to support the changes. As part of these reforms, the CCAC should support Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 and consider holding virtual meetings as necessary to aid the U.S. Mint in its production process. In fact, as a public committee, the CCAC should extend their use of this technology to make the meetings and discussions more accessible to the public rather than requiring interested parties to travel the the U.S. Mint’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Further, the CCAC does not include verification from the CFA that they would be willing to participate in this process or has the flexibility to work within the U.S. Mint’s schedule for manufacturing the coin or medal. It should not the CCAC’s place to volunteer the CFA’s time and effort without their concurrence.

Second, the CCAC recommendation asserts itself too far into the design process. For most of the commemorative and bullion designs, the narrative is provided in the law passed by congress. Thus, there is no reason for the CCAC or CFA to be involved in those discussion. Where a narrative is necessary, it should be held with the stakeholders are previously recommended. Inserting the CCAC and CFA will add to bureaucratic process. Once the narrative is created, having the designs reviewed by the CCAC and CFA should remain part of the process. Reviews should be in the form of recommendations and not mandates. Artists should have the ability to reject recommendations for artistic (fitting the narrative) or technical reasons (ability to strike the coin properly) remembering that the law says the final decision rests with the Secretary of the Treasury—and by extension the Director of the U.S. Mint. However, as it was stated above, the CCAC and CFA must become more flexible in their scheduling so as to support the timeline requirements of the U.S. Mint.

The goal of this recommendation is to reduce the bureaucracy giving the artists freedom to be creative and not change the bureaucratic structure.

Additional Recommendation
It is unfortunate the the CCAC report does not properly address the bureaucratic nature of the design process and seek to reduce it or its impact on coin designs. While the above commentary attempts to reduce the bureaucracy there is one aspect of the coin design process that the CCAC does not discuss: why does it require two external committees to review coin and metal designs?

The CFA was established in 1910 to give expert advice to the “Federal and District of Columbia governments on matters of design and aesthetics, as they affect the Federal interest and preserve the dignity of the nation’s capital.” Their work consists of monitoring architectural development to historic buildings, statues, monuments, memorials, and other artwork in the public spaces in and around Washington, D.C. They also provide “advice to the U.S. Mint on the design of coins and medals.” In fact, their review of the coin and medal design is their only review that does not include physical development in Washington, D.C.

The CCAC was established in 2003 to provide a dedicated committee review all coin and medal designs replacing the Citizens Commemorative Coinage Advisory Committee, which only reviewed commemorative coins.

It seems that if both committees are doing the same work, it makes sense to consolidate the work into one committee. Since the CCAC is dedicated to advising the Secretary of the Treasury on coin and medal design and is only a part of what the CFA does, it makes sense to eliminate the review of coin and medal design from the CFA’s jurisdiction. This consolidation would also comply with the president’s Accountable Government Initiative.

Eliminating the CFA’s role in coin and medal design should not require an act of congress. The law that governs the CFA (40 U.S.C. §§ 9101–9104) does not mention coin and medal design as part of its jurisdiction. However, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) does include coin and medal design under the section for Statutory and Executive Order Authority (45 C.F.R. § 2101.1(d)). Since coin and medal design review is not a statutory requirement for the CFA, it should be recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury request that the President issue an Executive Order to remove this requirement from the CFR as part of the Accountable Government Initiative and reduce the bureaucracy.

A Final Thought
I have never hidden the fact that my professional experiences involve working with the federal government. Although I have never worked with the U.S. Mint, I am familiar with the bureaucracy of other bureaus within the Department of the Treasury. Using my understanding of the bureaucratic nature of these agencies and my background in public policy, I hope the CCAC will consider my recommendations to help improve the subcommittee’s report so that they reach their goal of improving coin and medal design at the U.S. Mint.

Coin Toss

Super Bowl XLV is now history. The Champion Green Bay Packers are taking to Lambeau Field for a celebration with their fans. But as a numismatist, I was left with questions: Who made the “coin” used for the coin toss and what happens to it after the game?

Finding out who made the coin was easy. The Highland Mint of Melbourne, Florida designed and struck the official coin. This is the 20th consecutive Super Bowl that has used a coin specially produced by The Highland Mint. Of course The Highland Mint is selling numbered replicas of the coin with Certificates of Authenticity. In fact, the following video shows them making the coin including the gentleman near the end punching the numbers into the metal:

But where does the coin that newly elected Hall of Fame player Dieon Sanders tossed before the game go after the game? According to the NFL, the coin is taken to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. They have the coins used to open every Super Bowl.

Download the CCAC Blueprint Report Here

Following my post asking if the U.S. Mint was hiding the CCAC subcommittee report, I contacted their Public Affairs Office. After two days, a representative sent a copy of the report to me via email. I thank the U.S. Mint for their assistance.

The document has been uploaded on Scribd, an electronic document delivery service. Scribd allows you to read the report online, download it to your computer, allow you to directly print it to your printer (remember, it is 62 pages long), and share with others. In fact, you should share it with as many people as you think would be interested! Just click here to read the document on Scribd or use the reader, below.

I have not read the report as I write this. I will read it and report on my impressions shortly.

A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals

John Mercanti Retires from the U.S. Mint

In a subtle way, the U.S. Mint announced the retirement of Chief Engraver John M. Mercanti after 36 years with the U.S. Mint.

The announcement was made in a tribute video to Mercanti as the U.S. Mint’s first post to their YouTube Channel. The video includes former U.S. Mint Director Ed Moy, and Sculpture and Engravers Don Everhart, Joe Menna, the back and side of Charles Vickers.

When asked what he will do in retirement, Mercanti said he will write a book, represent or consult with other mints and similar organizations, and he wants to be involved with educating young numismatists. “I think there’s a history in coins,” Mercanti said, “and I want to put that out there and I want to work with a lot of young people to get that history out there and inspire them to collect. I think that’s important.”

Note to the American Numismatic Association: it would be in the organization’s best interest to contact Mercanti to get him involved with his educational desires. Mercanti wool be an asset to the ANA in areas like the Summer Seminar or at the conventions. In fact, with the new fall National Money Show that will be held in Pittsburgh, why not invite Mercanti to cross the state to be a featured instructor during the show. It would be a real incentive for me to make the 5 hour drive from the D.C. area to attend the show!

Here is the tribute video from the U.S. Mint:

Is the U.S. Mint Hiding the CCAC Coin Design Report?

While watching the live coverage of the situation in Cairo, Egypt, I was marveling how we can see history being made while it was happening. Earlier this year we watched a populist uprising in Tunisia that forced a change in the government broadcast around the world. A few weeks ago when a gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the news was so fluid that watching the news on Twitter became the best way to keep up with the developments. Technology has brought a new world of instant communication to anyone who wants the content. News junkies, like myself, are thrilled!

Unfortunately, this type of communication has been lost on the U.S. Mint. On Wednesday, February 2, it will be two weeks since the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee introduced and adopted as its recommendation the report “A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals.” As of the time of this writing, the report has not been made available on either the CCAC’s website or the website for the U.S. Mint.

It must be emphasized that this is the fault of the U.S. Mint. According to CCAC member Donald Scarinci on Twitter, they were “told that it will be posted on the ccac website.” It was confirmed that after the meeting, CCAC Chairman Gary Marks urged the U.S. Mint to have the report posted online immediately.

According to Presidential memo, “Transparency and Open Government,” government should be transparent, participatory, and collaborative. Keeping it off line is not transparent, does not allow participation by the citizens, and does not allow for the collaboration between a government mandated committee (the CCAC) and the “citizens” it is to represent. In short, the U.S. Mint is not doing its job.

I know the weather around the Washington-area has not been the best, but we are not talking about snowmageddon-like conditions we had last year. But according the Office of Personnel Management the government is open. This means that the business of the government must go on including observing the President’s Memo regarding transparency and open government.

I urge the U.S. Mint to post the CCAC subcommittee report immediately!

Copper Prices Rising

The base metals market woke up this morning trumpeting record high futures prices for copper, nickel, and aluminum on the London Metals Exchange (LME) and COMEX Metals Exchange (New York). Analysts credit this rise in price to low supplies and higher demand, specifically in China.

Copper closed at $4.5135 per pound in New York and $9,878 per metric ton in London on Monday, January 31, 2011.

For numismatists watching production at the U.S. Mint, this means that the material costs to produce U.S. coins will increase. With the exception of the cent, the predominant metal used in the manufacture of U.S. coins being copper—the Lincoln cent is 97.5-percent zinc with a coating using a 2.5-percent copper coating. Since most coins are composed of an average 88-percent copper and the nickel containing 75-percent copper, the rise in the cost of materials will reduce the seigniorage (profit) collected by the U.S. Mint.

Second most used metal used in U.S. coinage is nickel. While nickel has been up for the last six month and approaching its one-year high, it is down from its previous high reached in 2007 when it the U.S. Mint said the cost of manufacturing the nickel was nearly double its face value. If we use the average production costs from the last three years of 21-percent of face value (as reported in the U.S. Mint Annual Reports), it costs approximately 8.16-cents per coin to manufacture (metals cost 7.06-cents and approximately 1.1 cents to manufacture).

As for the Lincoln Cent, it has fared better in its materials cost. The price of Zinc has also dropped from its five-year high and is trading around $1.09 per pound. Zinc is also in ample supply to meet market demands meaning that the price should not be that volatile. This means that the materials cost to make the Lincoln Cent is 0.644-cents. Using the average cost to manufacture the cent at 35-percent of face value (as reported in the U.S. Mint Annual Reports), the overall cost to manufacture the cent should be on par with its face value.

However, the FY2009 U.S. Mint Annual Report showed a marked rise in manufacturing costs (I have not analyzed the FY2010 Annual Report as of this post) wondering if the production costs estimates are too low. However, if copper continues to rise, then the costs to manufacture all U.S. coins will rise and reduce the profit collected by the U.S. Mint.