HIRANO KEIKO’S OFFICIAL BLOG

Following chapter 18, I will continue to focus and reflect on matters related to the review.

As a way of discussion, I will trace the events in a chronological order, and also draw on emails sent from myself to organizing committee members, adding notes where necessary. Basically, I will refrain from quoting the replies received from the organizing committee, but will show brief summaries.

I will start by backtracking to September 18, two and a half months ago.
—————————————————
■September 18
The Organizing Committee held its first meeting of the “preliminary committee” that would initiate an emblems selection committee for the Tokyo 2020 Games. After the meeting, Ryohei Miyata, chair of the preliminary committee, told the press that (…) he felt that there was “no need for” and was “not considering” a hearing for the creator of the previous emblem or members of the selection committee.  (September 19, 2015, The Asahi Shimbun, digital online edition)

■On September 18, Ryohei Miyata, chair of the preliminary committee (…) said that the committee is ready to examine issues related to the selection and ultimate withdrawal of the previous Games emblems. However, according to Miyata, the committee would not be conducting a hearing for Kenjiro Sano, or other members of the selection committee including Kazumasa Nagai. He said, “We will certainly evaluate past events, so that it can be used as building blocks for new things,” maintaining that the committee would not be pursuing the responsibility issue.
(September 19, 2015, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, digital online edition)
—————————————————

—————————————————
■September 24
I learned from an entrant that the Organizing Committee had sent out notifications by email to participants of the competition that the committee would like to return their submitted works. —————————————————

On September 24, 2015, an entrant who took part in the competition told me of receiving an email from the Organizing Committee—it was a first time communication since submitting the entry. According to the letter that was attached to the email, the entrant learned that the Organizing Committee had launched “a preliminary committee that would initiate an Emblems Selection Committee for the Tokyo 2020 Games” and that the Organizing Committee was ready to return all submissions. This entrant had not even be told about the unveiling of the first place winner, which was held on July 24; had spent ten months without hearing a word from the Organizing Committee; and now, the first piece of communication received was a curt notification that the entrant’s work would be returned. It was a terrible discourtesy. It pained me to think about the entrants’ feelings. In my role as a judge on the selection committee, I believed it was necessary to reexamine the submitted works as a way to make sure the judging was undertaken in a completely fair manner. Thus the returning of the submitted works was something that I could note let pass. I sent an email (Mail-01) to Mr. A, the person who had signed the letter notifying the return of the works, on October 3.

—————————————————
■September 28
A press conference was held to report on issues related to the Tokyo 2020 Games emblems. Tokyo Organizing Committee Chief Executive Officer Toshiro Muto expressed his views that it was necessary to conduct an investigation regarding guest artists. —————————————————

—————————————————
■September 29
The first meeting of the “Tokyo 2020 Emblems Selection Committee” was held in Tokyo during which time attendants traded opinions regarding the concept, qualifications and requirements for participating in the competition. (…) Regarding a hearing for “the creator of the previous emblem and selection committee judges”, Ryohei Miyata, chairperson of the Selection Committee commented that he felt “there was no need and there are no plans.”
(The Asahi Shimbun, digital online edition) —————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-01)
Email sent on October 3 at 16:55
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. A, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Attention: Mr. A

Please let me introduce myself. I am Keiko Hirano, Executive Director of Communication Design Laboratory, and I served on the selection committee of the 2020 Olympic Games Tokyo emblems. 

Ever since problems regarding the emblems surfaced I have been unable to receive responses to my emails from Mr. B (with cc to Mr. C). I am writing to you today, to this email address I got from one of the entrants to the competition. During my communications with Mr. B, I have expressed my intentions to cooperate with review, but to this day I have not heard back from Mr. B. I learned that Mr. Muto has voiced the necessity to conduct an investigation. As one of the judges on the selection committee I would like to fully cooperate with the investigation. I would like to hereby reconfirm my intentions to cooperate. 

Furthermore, I heard from an entrant that submissions are going to be returned. It is my feeling that if an investigation is imminent, returning the works may be a hasty decision. My reasons are, that in hindsight, there were a few designs that I found questionable. If the matter is going to be investigated, I think this is something that should be looked into. Therefore I request that the returning of the works be held back until the investigation is fully completed.

I am well aware of your busy schedule, but I would appreciate it very much if you could respond to the above given two items. 

Thanking you in advance for you time and consideration,
Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
There was no response to my email sent to Mr. A (Mail-01).
—————————————————

—————————————————
■Telephone call received on October 6 at 13:02
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

I received a phone call from a Mr. D, who I presume, was making the call on behalf of Mr. A. Unfortunately I was not at my desk at the time and could not respond. My associate asked the caller to contact me by email rather than phone.
—————————————————

—————————————————
■There was no email communication from Mr. D, so I sent an email to Mr. D. (Mail-02)
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-02)
■Email sent on October 6 at 21:44
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Attention: Mr. D

I was waiting to hear back from you by email, but have decided to write to you instead. I sent the following two requests to Mr. A, as follows, and have been waiting for a response:
“During my communication with Mr. B, I have expressed my intentions to cooperate with review, but to this day I have not heard back from Mr. B. I learned that Mr. Muto has voiced the necessity to conduct an investigation. As one of the judges on the selection committee I would like to fully cooperate with the investigation. I would like to hereby reconfirm my intentions to cooperate. Furthermore, I heard submissions are going to be returned. It is my feeling that if an investigation is imminent, returning the works may be a hasty decision. My reasons are, that in hindsight, there were a few designs that I found questionable. If the matter is going to be investigated, I think this is something that should be looked into. Therefore I request that the returning of the works be held back until the investigation is fully completed.”

Today I am contacting you with an additional request. Regarding the guest artist(s) and the works created by the guest artist(s), there is a piece that I have qualms about, regarding its contents. Therefore, I would like to review the works of the guest artist(s) and the 14 designs that made it through to the final review, as soon as possible, before the submissions are returned. If that is possible, I am available, even tomorrow to visit you. I will be awaiting your response. If there is a reason that prohibits a judge on the selection committee from viewing a piece of work that he or she has already seen, please let me know.
I definitely want to fulfill my responsibilities regarding this situation—prompting me to make this request.
I look forward to hearing from you.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————


—————————————————
(Mail-03)
■Email received on October 7 at 17:21
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

The email included no specific answers to my questions or requests. It was a general notice that a council of advisors will be summoned soon, and asked me to be patient.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-04)
■Email sent on October 7 at 21:43
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Marketing
Attention: Mr. D

I apologize for my lack of comprehension, but when you say “please be patient”, does that mean, in the meantime, while I am waiting patiently, you will not be returning the submitted works? I hope my interpretation is not incorrect. I would appreciate a reconfirmation on this matter, whether or not the works will be returned or not, just to make sure.
Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-05)

■Email received on October 9 at 15:26
From Mr. D, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

There were no specific answers to my questions or requests; again, I was told about the council of advisors which would be soon summoned and a further note that the returning of the submitted works would probably left to the discretion of the council, pursuant to its investigations and findings.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-06)
■Email sent on October 10 at 20:41
Keiko Hirano to Mr. D, Organizing Committee 

The Tokyo Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games
Marketing
Attention: Mr. D

I read your response.
I understand that this means—what happens remains undecided.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

I despaired in the limitations of trading such emails with the organizing committee; which seemed to lead to nowhere.
Thus I started my personal Blog on October 10; the day actually coincided with the first day of the Olympic Games which was hosted by Tokyo in 1964.

—————————————————
■October 10
I started “HIRANO KEIKO’S OFFICIAL BLOG” through which I called for a thorough investigation on the issue in a public platform and expressed my intentions of full cooperation.
—————————————————

—————————————————
■October 20
A competition entrant informed me of receiving an email notice from the Organizing Committee stating that they were revising their former position of returning submitted works; the returning of the works would be postponed for a review by external advisors.
—————————————————

—————————————————
■October 29
It was officially announced that an investigation committee made up of external adviors was set up, and that the first meeting was held on the same day.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-07)
■Email received on October 29 at 08:45
From Mr. E to Keiko Hirano

I received an email request to take part in a review conducted by external advisors.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-08)
■Email sent on October 29 at 19:58
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Please feel assured, as a judge who was on the panel for selecting the Olympic emblem during the previous round, I am ready to give my full cooperation.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————