HIRANO KEIKO’S OFFICIAL BLOG

Following chapters 18 and 19, I will continue with my appraisal of the review, tracing related records in chronological order.

—————————————————
(Mail-09)
■Email received on October 30 at 08:00
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

The email contained words of thanks for accepting the review request, and that I will be notified of the schedule after arrangements were made with the advisors.
—————————————————

After I accepted the request, while I was reading a news article related to the review on the internet, I discovered a few items regarding the upcoming hearing that had not been revealed in the email from the Organizing Committee. According to the news article: “It is possible to decline a hearing request and the review itself is non-binding—thus it is doubtful whether it is possible to get to the bottom of the matter; and yet it is unclear if any disciplinary action could be taken, even if the review were to uncover irregularities in the judging process” (October 29, 2015, Nikkan Sports News digital online edition). It also stated that a judge on the current emblem selection committee would be part of the review in the role of external advisor.

—————————————————
(Mail-10)
■Email sent on November 1 at 19:49
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

Today, I am writing to you with an important question.
When I received your request to take part in the review on the 29th (Thursday), I replied, “I will give my full cooperation” on the same day. However, on the same day of the review request I read an article on the internet regarding the review and learned about some things that I had not been told about from you—which I find worrying. I would appreciate it very much if you could respond to the questions I have listed hereunder.

(Question 1)
————————–
First of all, did you hold a news conference for the press? Were there any press release handouts given to the reporters? If there are any releases, is it possible for you to send me a copy?
————————–

(Question 2)
————————–
Regarding the description I found in the article“It is possible to decline a hearing request and the review itself is non-binding”, aren’t all persons concerned taking part in the hearing as a prerequisite? Is what is related in article correct? I await your response to clarify this matter. If, as the article says, the hearing review is to be conducted on a non-binding, voluntary basis without ensuring the participation of all parties, I would like to know the reason why you chose to take this approach.
————————–

(Question 3)
————————–
In the email I received, there is no specific information related to the advisors for the hearing. I would like to have more detailed information including their names, their roles and such.

I read an article that reported the “first meeting of the investigation team consisting of external advisors” was held, on the 29th (Thursday). I have found other information concerning this team of “external advisors” in past articles, too. I take issue with the expression “external advisors” which seem to contradict this piece of new information I found; “a judge on the current emblem selection committee will also take part” as an evaluator. Or does this mean that the “investigation team consisting of external advisors” include persons related to the organizing committee? I await your response on this matter.
————————–
The review request I received per email on the 20th (Thursday) did not provide specific information regarding the hearing. I assume it may have been a sounding-out email that did not include detailed information. But after reading the news reports, I began to feel some discomfort regarding the review. Therefore, though I once gave my acceptance and full cooperation, I would like to withdraw my consent for now.

As a first step, I would like you to please send me an official request in writing, including detailed information regarding the hearing review. I would like to withhold my reply regarding my cooperation until I have gone over the contents of the written request.

Thanking you for your time and consideration,

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-11)
■Email received on November 2 at 17:52
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

The email contained responses to my questions.

Regarding my Question 1, it said that information was released verbally at the monthly press briefing that was held last Thursday and that there had been no handouts. I was given information regarding the external advisors, including their names and job titles. Furthermore, as for the objective of the investigation: since it was revealed that requests to participate in the competition had been sent out to certain persons before the public invitation, it was deemed necessary to conduct an investigation by external advisors to assess whether or not the invite had any relevance to the actual judging.

As for Question 2, it said the committee had begun to seek cooperation for the hearing on October 28. The committee had no power to compel participation in the hearing and it was therefore, ultimately, a voluntary investigation.

As for Question 3, (it was stated that) the organizing committee considers all persons who are not organizing committee staff as external, thus members of the emblem selection committee would be deemed external.
—————————————————

I read and reread the part that said “all persons who are not organizing committee staff are considered external, thus members of the emblem selection committee would be deemed external”. The explanation still does not sit right with me. I cannot agree that members of the emblem selection committee are not part of the organizing committee, but in fact, external. If the term used was simply “advisors”—maybe it would fly. But when they are specifically called “external advisors”? I cannot help feeling something strange going on here. To me, the reasoning and explanation provided by the organizing committee sound like empty rhetoric.

—————————————————
(Mail-12)
■Email sent on November 3 at 07:30
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

Thank you for your email, which I read carefully. I think it is very disappointing that the investigation is not mandatory. At this point, as there is hardly any information regarding the contents of the investigation or the methods employed to go on, I am unable to respond with a definite answer regarding my cooperation. Could I have some more time to think it over?

(In this email, I posed a question regarding Mr. Kenya Hara and his design that came in second place. Mr. Hara disclosed his entry design on his company’s website on November 2. I asked whether disclosure of information regarding an entry at this timing, right before the investigation, would not affect the investigation itself; though Mr. Hara would not be submitting the work he disclosed for the next competition, would the action not affect the upcoming competition? )
Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

The judging of the emblem was conducted in this manner: judges viewed entry design boards that were laid out on desk surfaces. When I looked at the design disclosed on (Mr. Hara’s) website on a monitor display, I got a distinctly different impression from the work I viewed during the judging session, in a different environment. Considering the outrageous fact that the image of the design itself was leaked without permission, reproduced in a degraded fashion on the pages of news magazines, I can feel nothing but compassion for the designer to take action and reveal his work. And yes, if he had done so after the outcome of the next competition was decided, the action would not have affected the investigation or the next competition. But I had second thoughts about information disclosure taking place at this sensitive time, right before the hearing review. As a former judge on the selection committee, I wanted to hear the opinion of the organizing committee and that is why I asked this question.

—————————————————
(Mail-13)
■Email sent on November 3 at 08:41
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

I discovered a misunderstanding on my part in my sent email (Mail-12) so I corrected the mistake and resent the same question.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-14)
■Email received on November 3 at 14:32
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

I could not receive an answer on behalf of the organizing committee regarding my question. There was something related to the request to cooperate with the review.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-15)
■Email sent on November 5 at 15:15
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

In regards to my cooperation with the survey, I would like to review the works submitted to the competition once again. The reason for my request is because I feel that if there is anything that I can bring to this review, it is my expertise in the field to check whether or not there was any significant difference between the works submitted by certain creators and those submitted by general participants, and present my opinion. I will await your response regarding my request.

Again, I would like to ask you to prepare a formal request document in regards to my cooperation in the review process including detailed information defining the contents of the review. Thanking you in advance,

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-16)
■Email received on November 6 at 21:52
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

I received documents including a request form related to the review and a list of questions. When I reconfirmed the issue of images of the entries, I was told that copyrights of the submitted works had already been returned to the respective entrants; there was a note, “care should be given to the disclosure of visual images.” In the questions that were provided, I found a commentary that said there would be no question items that would require the viewing of individual images. There was a request that the committee would like to proceed with arrangements to come up with a hearing schedule.
—————————————————

The committee was not willing to show me the works that had been submitted as entries, and gave the reason as, “care should be given to the disclosure of visual images” but I never asked them to “provide visual information”. When trading emails related to the review, the messages were always sent with “cc”s to four other organizing committee staff members. So the information was being shared by five people from the organizing committee; the transaction was never a person to person interaction. I find it surprising that no one seems to have noticed this slip. I am sure it was unintentional, but my request, “I would like to come and look at the entries” was turned into “please provide visual information” somewhere along the way.

—————————————————
(Mail-17)
■Email sent on November 7 at 18:04
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I received the request form regarding cooperation with the review and related documents as to the questions that would be involved.
Because of the weekend, I could not meet with my legal advisor to seek advice; I will be responding to you by email Monday on.
I am sending this email to acknowledge receipt of the documents.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-18)
■Email sent on November 13 at 20:22
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I had our corporate lawyer go over the contents of the email that I you sent to me last Saturday, from a lawyer’s point of view, and then I needed some time to think things over.

Once again, regarding my request to reexamine the works that were entered in the competition, and the subsequent reply received from you reflecting the opinion of yourself and the organizing committee, I would like to respond as follows, based on points confirmed with our lawyer.

First of all, I want to make clear that I am not asking you to submit and share image information. I made the request to allow me to visit you and have another look at the actual works that had been submitted. This is something I want to reconfirm. If I were allowed to visit the committee and view the actual works or view the images of the works—that in itself would not be an infringement of the individual copyrights and therefore should not serve as a reason why I cannot look at the works.

Obviously a piece of work cannot be reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder. However, as I have been informing you from the very beginning, for me, a judge on the selection committee, to visit the site to view the works that had been submitted to the organizing committee, the works which I already saw during the judging session, should not be a cause of infringement of copyrights, as I am not making any copies and such.

Furthermore, obviously, a piece of work may not be offered to the general public without obtaining the consent of the copyright holder. However, these are works that have been submitted to a competition and the entrants have made their submissions on the premise that their works would be shown to the organizing committee and the judges. Though the original judging has ended, in order to cooperate with an investigation that seeks to examine the problems that existed in the judging, if the works were shown once again in relation to the initial judging process, or as part of the judging process, that act would not infringe existing copyrights. Therefore I don’t think there are any reasons that prevent me from viewing the works once again.

Is there any other reason beside the copyright issue that forbids the showing of the works? If there is, I would like to know the specific reason. I would like to hear from you regarding this matter. I would like to visit you at the earliest possible time to reexamine the submitted works.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-19)
■Email received on November 16 at 11:57
From Mr. E, Organizing Committee to Keiko Hirano

Once again, I received documents regarding questions related to the review and my consent to participate.
It said that after discussing my request to re-examine the works that had been submitted, the matter of reviewing visual images was discussed with the advisors once again; my request was denied. The reason given was; the new competition to choose emblem designs was to begin next week, and there were going to be entrants who plan to resubmit their former works—thus the increased need to handle the submitted works with care. I was told that the hearing review at this time would be limited to the attached question items, which could be answered without having to look at the individual entries; if I should find difficulties with submitting to an actual hearing session, it was possible for me to respond to the attached questionnaire items via email.
—————————————————

—————————————————
(Mail-20)
■Email sent on November 17 at 17:31
From Keiko Hirano to Mr. E, Organizing Committee

Dear Mr. E,

I am grateful for your finding time during your busy schedule to consider my question. Thank you very much.
I understand that you are concerned about the upcoming competition and are taking extra care about the handling of the submitted works. Then I think there should be no problem for me to look at the works after the closing of the competition, which is at 12 noon on December 7. May I ask you to consider another way then? Would it be possible for me to visit you on the afternoon of December 7 for a viewing?

If my request is still denied, I will have to think that the reason you gave me—that the works cannot be shown “in consideration of the new competition” is not the true reason behind all this.

I understand the hearing will take pace with a proposed time line, by the end of November. I feel there is no pressing significance to stick to this schedule, and if we are to emphasize the importance of the review itself, there should be no problem with extending it for another week. That said, it is possible to stick to the schedule and finish the review after a half-hearted investigation. The crux of the matter is whether or not you want to get to the bottom or not. If certain designers were given some kind of advantage, an edge, I think it is possible to detect a distinctive characteristic embedded in the works, which will become apparent in comparison with other general entries. I think the subtle properties could only be detected by careful examination, by casting a specially trained eye.

By choosing not to examine the entries that would mean, hanging on to stuff that could become physical evidence, yet ignoring them while conducting an investigation. If the committee chooses to do so, it is natural to assume that there is some kind of reason and it serves a better purpose to do so.

If responding to questions that can be answered without looking at each work—which the committee claims is sufficient and serves as expert opinion—that signifies a reluctance to conduct a full-fledged review, or at least a stance that shies away from a review which may uncover an unwelcome fact: the work created by a certain designer affected the fairness of the judging (for example, the creator may have been in receipt of special information different from that given to other entrants, which was possibly used to an advantage in his work). Am I right in assuming that this is the agenda behind this investigation?

Once again, let me reiterate. If you are willing to correct my inference, please present a clear, legitimate reason in denying my request to reexamine the submitted works.

Keiko Hirano
—————————————————