View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

CITIZENS COINAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TELEPHONIC PUBLIC MEETING

American Innovation $1 Coin Program

Tuesday, July 31, 2018
1:02 p.m.

Department of the Treasury
U.S. Mint
801 9th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Reported by:

Nate Riveness

20220

2
A P P E A R A N C E S

Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee:
Mary Lannin, Chair
Robert Hoge*
Erik Jansen*
Michael Moran*
Jeanne Stevens-Sollman*
Donald Scarinci*
Dennis Tucker*
Thomas J. Uram*
Heidi Wastweet*
Herman Viola*
U.S. Mint:
April Stafford, Chief of Office of Design
Management
Megan Sullivan, Office of Design Management
Vanessa Franck, Office of Design Management
Pam Borer, Office of Design Management
Betty Birdsong, Acting U.S. Mint Liaison to the
CCAC
Greg Weinman, Office of Chief Counsel

3
A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued)

U.S. Mint (Continued):
Sheila Barnett, Office of Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Young, Office of Chief Counsel
Ron Harrigal, Manager, Design & Engraving
Mike Gaudioso, Sculptor-Engraver
Joseph Menna, Sculptor-Engraver
Phebe Hemphill, Sculptor-Engraver
Press:
Paul Gilkes, Coin World
Mike Unser, CoinNews
Brandon Hall, Coin Update

*Appears via telephone.

4
P R O C E E D I N G S
CHAIR LANNIN:

It is 1:02 p.m., and I would

like to call to order this telephonic meeting of the
Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee for Tuesday, July
31st, 2018.
And before we begin, I would like to introduce
the members of the Committee.
when I call your name.

Please respond “Present"

Robert Hoge?

(No response.)
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. JANSEN:

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

Erik Jansen?

Michael Moran?

Here.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Jeanne Stevens-Sollman?

MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

Here.

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Donald Scarinci?

MR. SCARINCI:

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Dennis Tucker?

MR. TUCKER:

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:
yet?
(No response.)

Thomas Uram?

Tom, are you here

5
CHAIR LANNIN:

Not yet.

Heidi?

CHAIR LANNIN:

Heidi Wastweet?

MS. WASTWEET:

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Herman Viola?

Heidi

Wastweet?

MR. VIOLA:

Present.

Present.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Herman.

Okay.

I am

Mary Lannin, and I will chair today’s meeting.
We have a very abbreviated meeting today, and
we are going to consider only one item.

We are going

to review the candidate designs for the 2018 American
Innovation $1 Coin Program.
But before we begin the proceedings, are there
members of the press on the phone that we can take your
names?
MR. GILKES:

Paul Gilkes, Coin World.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. UNSER:

Hi, Mike.

Brandon Hall with Coin Update.

CHAIR LANNIN:
there any --

Hi, Paul.

Mike Unser, CoinNews.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HALL:

Okay.

Hello there.

Anyone else?

Are

6
MR. MORAN:

Mary?

Mary?

This is Mike?

Who

is there from the Mint?
CHAIR LANNIN:

I am just about to ask that,

Mike.
MR. MORAN:

Okay.

CHAIR LANNIN:

For the record, I would like to

acknowledge the following Mint staff that are
participating in today’s public meeting:

April

Stafford, Chief of Office of Design Management; program
managers from the office:

Pam Borer, Vanessa Franck,

Betty Birdsong, acting liaison to the CCAC; Greg
Weinman, senior counsel to the CCAC; Megan Sullivan,
lawyer extraordinaire, who is attached to the Office of
Design Management.

And who else?

MS. BARNETT:

Sheila Barnett, Office of Chief

CHAIR LANNIN:

Sheila, Sheila Barnett, Office

Counsel.

of Chief Counsel.
MS. YOUNG:

And Elizabeth Young, Office of

Chief Counsel.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Thank you.

And who do we have on the phone from

7
Philadelphia, please?
MR. HARRIGAL:

Ron Harrigal here, manager,

Design and Engraving.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Hi, Ron.

MR. GAUDIOSO:

Mike Gaudioso.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Hi, Mike.

MR. GAUDIOSO:

Hi.

MR. MENNA:

Anyone else?

Joe Menna.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Hi, Joe.

MS. HEMPHILL:

Phebe Hemphill.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Phebe.

Okay.

You guys had

better -MR. HOGE:

And Robert Hoge.

CHAIR LANNIN:
made it.

I am here.

Oh, hi, Robert.

Glad that you

Okay.
MR. HOGE:

I had trouble.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Are there any issues

that need to be addressed not relating necessarily to
this program or anything that the Mint would like to
have to say?
MR. TUCKER:

This is Dennis.

I have something

I would like to say about the legislation if that is

8
not inappropriate.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

When we get to that

point, Dennis, I will be sure and call on you.

How is

that?
MR. TUCKER:

Thank you.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you.

But before we have any

discussion of the legislation, I would like Betty
Birdsong to go through the story behind this and the
need for quickness on all of our parts.

So, Betty,

could you talk about it just a little bit, please?
MS. BIRDSONG:

Okay.

So, as everyone knows,

H.R. 77, the bill, actually passed on July 20th.

So

that condensed the timeline for the Mint to get this
design going.

We are looking at the 2018 coin today.

And the 2018 coin specifically says -- and it should
have been on that page, but it specifically says that a
representation of the Statue of Liberty -- and that is
a common obverse.

And the reverse is -- it has to also

feature the inscription the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,”
“AMERICAN INNOVATORS.”

And the reverse is a

representation of the signature of George Washington on
the first United States patent ever issued.

So those

9
are the conditions of this particular bill for the 2018
coin.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And, by the way, I was online looking at the patent,
and it was signed today, July 31st, 1790.

So that is

kind of cool that we are talking about it.
Okay.

Now, Dennis, would you like to make a

comment?
MR. TUCKER:

Yes.

I just wanted to bring up

some complaints that I heard within the hobby community
and my own observations on the legislation for this
particular coinage program.

And I know that we have

spoken with the Mint and folks in the Treasury
Department about this.

Putting the date and the Mint

mark on the edge of the coin, rather than on the
obverse and the reverse, where collectors can see them
easily, is problematic from a pneumatic standpoint.

So

I understand that this legislation has been written and
passed into law.

So the ship has sailed.

But it is

really something that the Congress should keep in mind
in the future.
Another thing I wanted to bring up is I think

10
there is a fundamental error with the wording of the
legislation of this coin program.

The program is

clearly titled “American Innovation,” but the wording
for the first coin is mandated to be “American
Innovators.”
weak.

And from an editorial viewpoint, it is

It is very problematic.

would be that error there.
“American Innovation.”

I don’t know why there

The program is called

The text is “American

Innovators.”
And it might seem minor, but it is an
important semantic strengthening because if a state or
territory innovated in some nonphysical way; for
example, if it is the first day to allow women to vote
or if they innovate in a religious freedom or some
other intangible sense, then “innovators” might not be
the right word.

“Innovation” continues to be a right

word.
I don’t know if it is too late to get that
changed, and I realize that all of these designs that
we are looking at do obey the mandated wording, but if
there is any way to changes that, I would recommend
that we change it to “American Innovation,” which is

11
probably a little bit -MS. BIRDSONG:

Dennis, if we would look at the

amended bill, section 1 says that the act should be
cited as “American innovation dollar coin.”
MR. TUCKER:

Okay.

MR. WEINMAN:

Maybe.

MS. BIRDSONG:
that way.

Yes, it may be cited.

So the Mint will look at it in

And thank you so much for those

observations.
MR. TUCKER:

Well, what I am saying is --

MR. WEINMAN:
MR. TUCKER:
Innovation,” right?

It is the way you want to do it.
-- they call it “American

But the --

CHAIR LANNIN:

Dennis, you are fading out.

don’t know if you have got a bad connection.
MR. TUCKER:

Yes?

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. TUCKER:

Dennis?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

You were fading out.

The distinction is that the

legislation -MS. BIRDSONG:
MR. TUCKER:
Right?

I

We need to hear the phone.

-- is “American Innovation.”

12
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. TUCKER:

Yes.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. TUCKER:

Yes.

Yes.

Please?

So the wording of the program is

“American Innovation.”
$1 Coin Act.

Can you hear me now?

Is that better?

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. TUCKER:

You are still fading out.

Right?

The American Innovation

So what I am getting at is the name of

the program is “Innovation,” but what was mandated to
be on the coin is “Innovator.”
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
Jeanne.

Excuse me.

This is

But if each coin has an innovator on it, as

George Washington is on this one, wouldn’t that be
correct?
MR. TUCKER:

Each coin might not necessarily

have a human innovator.

It might have something

symbolic or representative of an innovation.
not necessarily going to be a human form.

So it is

And the

example I gave was if a state was innovative in some
nonphysical way; for example, if it was the first day
to allow women to vote or if it was innovative in
religious freedom somehow, you see, those are more

13
intangible -MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
MR. TUCKER:

Right.

-- innovations that don’t

necessarily lend themselves to being represented by a
single person or group of people.

And then also but

the bigger thing is, just from an editorial viewpoint,
why not make it the same word?

I mean, it is the

American Innovation Coin Program or Dollar Program. Why
not have that wording on the first coin be “American
Innovation”?
MR. WEINMAN:

But, once again, you understand

that this is what the legislation requires.
MR. TUCKER:
MR. WEINMAN:
MR. TUCKER:
with that.

I do, yes.
Okay.
And I did preface my comments

I know that the ship has sailed.

MR. WEINMAN:

Right.

So this is your comments

for the record that the way the legislation is drafted
could be a bit ambiguous for the larger program as far
as what is featured, not to put words in your mouth?
MR. JANSEN:

I actually had the same comment.

I would further add I think we are going to be heading

14
into difficult territory in the next few years as this
first one features the innovators, yet -- and I don’t
have the bill in front of me, and I can’t recall it
exactly, but I think it specified that we can’t have
the bust or the visage on the reverse of any of these
coins.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. JANSEN:

That is correct.

And I think we are going to run

into trouble there.
MR. HOGE:

Hello.

like to comment here also.

This is Robert.

I would

It seems to me that the

inscription put on this proposed new coin is in
violation of the legislation.
MR. TUCKER:

No, no.

This is Dennis.

Robert,

there is an exception made within the legislation for
this first coin.

In fact, this first coin is the only

one that is mandated to have the words “American
Innovators” on it.

The others will not.

So they won’t

even have that -MR. HOGE:

I understand, but this seems very

peculiar because this thing is really not honoring the
innovator, Samuel Hopkins, who had the first patent.

15
He is not involved at all in this except in background
knowledge.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Any other comments?

(No response.)
CHAIR LANNIN:

All right.

Understanding, of

course, that these are the eight designs that we must
work with today.

I would like to ask April to begin

talking about this program.
MS. STAFFORD:

All right.

Just to reiterate

the information Betty provided, the common obverse for
this 15-year program must feature a likeness of the
Statue of Liberty as well as the inscriptions “$1” and
“In God we Trust.”

As, I believe it was, Dennis Tucker

noted, as specified in the legislation, the year of
minting, the mint mark, and the inscription “E.
Pluribus Unum” will be incused on the edge of the
coins.
And as for the reverse, beginning in 2019,
four coins will be released every year, one for each
state, territory, and the District of Columbia.

To

start the program, the legislation allows for an
introductory coin, to be released in 2018, with the

16
reverse featuring George Washington’s signature on the
first United States patent as well as the inscriptions
“American Innovators” and “United States of America.”
We will, of course, be talking to this
Committee as well as the Commission of Fine Arts in the
future about the 2019 coins, but today we are looking
at the candidate designs for 2019.
There is a single candidate design for the
obverse.

It features a -CHAIR LANNIN:

Twenty-eighteen.

MS. STAFFORD:

Sorry.

Excuse me.

There is a single

candidate design for the obverse of the 2018 coin,
which will continue as a common obverse throughout the
program.

It features a rework of the iconic Statue of

Liberty design used on the reverse of the presidential
dollar coin.
I know we will come back to a discussion on
that, but, just moving ahead, the legislation for the
2018 dollar coins must feature the inscription “United
States of America” as well as “American Innovators” and
a representation of the signature of George Washington
on the first United States patent issued.

17
And we have eight designs for you, which I
know the Committee members have in front of them.

So

Madam Chair?
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you very much, April.

Robert, would you like to begin our
discussion?
MR. HOGE:

Okay.

Fine.

I am afraid that

these designs are really pretty insipid, and I am kind
of disappointed.

I would prefer one like number 1 or

number 2 or number 7 or number 8 that has George
Washington’s signature plainly written right across the
center of the thing, rather than having it floating.
I think that showing individual feathers is
not a very good idea because they don’t necessarily
translate as the pens, for which they are probably
intended.
And, number two, I don’t like seeing the
disembodied hand.

It reminds me too much of the Addams

Family’s Thing.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:

It.

Seeing the 13 stars on number 5 is

attractive, but I don’t think it really adds to it

18
particularly.
Number 6 has too much empty space.

And having

the name of Washington on the scroll I think is really
not too great because the scroll is not explained.
The little ink pot on number 4 looks too much
like a teacup to me.

You think of how tiny this is

going to be.
The great seal is not going to be a great
seal.

It is going to be a very tiny seal if it appears

as number 3.
My favorite of these probably would have to be
number 8, although I can’t really justify it very much.
Sorry.
Thank you.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you very much, Robert.

Erik?
MR. JANSEN:

Yes.

Good afternoon.

pretty much like Robert does.

I feel

Given the magnitude of a

new series here, even though the 2018 design is
described pretty explicitly, I think we are missing the
entire message here, which is that there is a system
called the patent system, which is designed to

19
essentially -- I dare use the word “reward” -- maybe
incentivize is the better approach -- innovation in the
form of granting the innovator a monopoly for
commercialization.

We call that the patent system.

And I feel like it is totally being missed here and all
we have done is glorify George Washington’s signature,
calling that art.

And I don’t think it is any of those

things.
I think there is just an enormous creative gap
here.

And so, as a result, I am probably not going to

support any of these.

And I would encourage the rest

of the Committee to vote their conscience in that sense
and potentially withhold a recommendation on that
basis.
Forced to choose something here -- and I use
the word “forced” as in if the Committee is to rubberstamp something here, I think we have to pay attention
to the context here, which is a legal document, a legal
system called the patent system.

And in that sense, I

think a number of the symbols in these eight designs
that we have are inappropriate.

Certainly a cap, as in

design number 2, a hat is probably inappropriate.

I

20
think design number 1 lacks any creative content
whatsoever.

It is graphical layout only.

Design 3 at least has the implication of a
sovereign endorsement with the eagle symbol and a
written script of feathers or the written product of a
feather.
Design number 4, the symbols are wrong.
Design number 5 is just an amalgam of things.
Design number 6 at least carries the concept
of there is a legal document or some form of human
writing involved.
And 7 and 8, it is kind of a cute design with
a sunrise, but I am not quite sure why that is
appropriate here.
I am not impressed.

I am, quite frankly, not

happy that the Committee is being asked to rubber-stamp
a process here under the mandate of deadline, deadline,
deadline.
Thank you.
CHAIR LANNIN:
Erik.
Mr. Moran?

Thank you for your thoughts,

21
MR. MORAN:

Thank you, Mary.

First of all, I want to point out that while
this is basically a one-off coin for 2018, the obverse
is not.

It is going to be with us for 14 years.

To

begin with only one, which is a retread, to me in terms
of what to choose from is unacceptable.

This was

simply unacceptable.
I mean nothing in the way of disrespect on Don
Everhart’s work, though I think it is a slam against
the Mint that we can’t come up with a new rendition of
the Statue of Liberty.
Now, then, as to the reverses, I think if they
conform to the letter of the act in terms of the
specific quadness of the reverse, that they are far
from the spirit of the law itself.

This goes back to

what Erik said about the fact that it involves the
patent.

Why couldn’t we do more on the reverse theme

that includes both Washington’s signature, which is
required, and the Patent Office?

The Patent Office was

and I think should be an important aspect that fosters
our American innovation by protecting the people who do
the innovation so that they can be rewarded and

22
compensated for their time and effort.

It is an issue

that is just as valid today as it was in 1790, as you
can see from the issues we have in China.
As to the reverse designs, I would throw them
all out.

They are terrible in terms of what I would

want them to see.

They could have at least put a seal

from the Patent Office on there, anything.

But what we

did was just go through the motions.
And I go back to the law itself.

And the

exact wording as to why we are doing 2018 is that the
secretary may, not shall, issue a coin for 2018.

In

fact, it goes exactly like this, “If the secretary
finds that it is feasible and cost-effective, the
secretary may mint and issue a $1 coin in 2018 to
introduce the series of coins described in this
subsection.”
Well, first of all, it is obvious from the
quality of these designs that it is not feasible.
Secondly, if you think that you are going to make some
money on this in the collecting market, you have got
something else coming.
I am sick looking at this.

It makes me sick

23
because it shows the man in a very poor light.
Somebody has decided to force this thing through, and
it is a big mistake.

And I, for one, am going to

decline to review this.

I will not submit any ratings

on any of these designs whatsoever.

It is just

unacceptable.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:

Thank you.

Excuse me.

This is Robert.

I

would like to second what Mike just said.
CHAIR LANNIN:

All right.

Thank you very

much, Mike.
Dennis?
MR. TUCKER:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with Mike.

I think it is unfortunate

that we don’t have choices for the obverse, and I agree
with Mike.

The work of Don Everhart is excellent, but

it would be nice to have a portfolio to review, rather
than just one design, especially since this will be
part of a 14-year program.
When it comes to Erik’s and Mike’s comments on
the U.S. Patent Office, I would again just mention that
American innovation is not necessarily about invention,

24
physical, tangible invention, or patents, you know.
And, again, we have got many years ahead of us and many
states and territories that will be defining innovation
in their own terms.

We could have philosophical or

religious innovation, cultural, artistic, linguistic,
social, creative, lots of different kinds of innovation
in America, not just the invention of tangible products
or scientific achievement even.

So that is something

to keep in mind.
In terms of the reverse designs that we have
been given, again I have to protest the wording
“American Innovators.”
American Innovation.

The name of the program is

But looking at these simply as,

you know, the portfolio that we have to review, if I
had to decide on one, it would be either 7A or 7B.
These are the only ones that really made any sort of
creative use of the title of the program, American
Innovators in this case, and that this first coin is
the only coin that will have that wording.

So I would

like to see it in a more creative typographical view
that we see in 7A or 7B.

Of the two, I am assuming

that 7A is a -- these are different forms of relief.

25
One is incused, and the other one is raised.
7A is raised.

I assume

That would be my preference.

I guess that concludes my comments.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Dennis.

Donald, would you like to have a word?
MR. SCARINCI:

Well, there are two good things

I could say.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Stop the presses.

MR. SCARINCI:

Well, first, you didn’t drag me

to D.C. to look at this crap.
that.

So I am happy about

Okay?
(Laughter.)
MR. SCARINCI:

I would have been miserable if

I had come all of this way -UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
MR. SCARINCI:

Uh, too.

-- just to do this, right?

The second good thing, you know, to be
positive, is that there is no dead president portrait.
So the only dead thing we have, you know -- and as much
as it is a great piece of heart that Don Everhart did.
Been there, done that.
design.

It is a retread.

It is a great

It was a great design when he did it the first

26
time.

But we don’t really need to do it again, and we

certainly don’t need to make it the common obverse on a
series that is going to last God knows how long.
So, you know, all I can really say here is,
you know, it is time for Americans to boycott U.S. Mint
products.
series.

This is the time.

I would not buy this

I would not want the Mint to package these

designs, these coins with any other product that I do
want to buy.

This is something where America has to

vote with its pockets and vote no.

And until America

votes no, this stuff that we get, you know, and that we
get blamed for, you know, this is the kind of thing,
this is the kind of thing, that has to stop.
And it is unfortunate that, you know, the
vision of a great, new Mint director that we finally
have that is here to change things, do things better,
do things differently and he is going to be saddled by
something that, even though he had nothing to do with
because he didn’t vote for it -- he is not in Congress
-- we are all stuck with it.

Right?

And all I could say to you at the Mint is, you
know, I understand, you know, the timeframe of this,

27
but we have done short timeframes before.

And you

can’t tell me that it is impossible because you did a
Congressional Gold Medal in 30 days.
in the country could do that.

No private mint

You did it.

want to do it, you could do it.

So when you

And we didn’t have to

be stuck with a common obverse that is a retread
design.

Brilliant retread design, by the way but a

retread design.
So I have to say, you know, this is -- you
know, being stuck with, you know, the George Washington
signature, which could have been done more creatively,
by the way -- you could have done something -- you
know, you could have used the signature.

There was

wiggle room in the statute here to do something with
the signature.
right?

It just said we needed the signature,

It didn’t say the signature had to be the only

thing on the coin.
Who is going to buy this?

I mean, you

absolutely have to be out of your mind to buy this.

So

I am not voting for any of these designs, and I am not
going to dignify any of these designs with comments.
They don’t deserve comments.

The series if this is the

28
way it is going to start is only going downhill.

So

maybe if nobody buys it, maybe it will just end and
just die unceremoniously and be relegated to a half a
page in Dennis’ red book.

And it would be a sad half a

page, which maybe should be done in black as if it is a
-- you know, to mourn how bad designs could be that
come from the United States Mint.
I thought we saw bad designs.
horrible.

This is

This is beyond horrible.
So I am glad I didn’t come.

didn’t take the trip.

I am glad I

And I am glad this is on the

phone because these are the only saving graces to this
program.
I am not voting for any of this.
Mike.

I agree with

You know, Dennis, you shouldn’t have even

discussed.

I mean, how could you?

How could we?

What

is there to say, you know, that these last two bad
designs are better than the other bad designs?
are all bad designs.

They

And what we are really being

stuck with here is the obverse, which is going to be
the design for the whole program.
CHAIR LANNIN:

No.

29
MR. SCARINCI:

So this reminds me of what

happened in 2004 when we sat there looking at the
“Hurry up.

Hurry up.

We have got to vote for this”

presidential dollar program.
know, wouldn’t consider it.

And we at the CCAC, you
We wouldn’t consider

redoing the old, traditional portraits, which, of
course, we are now going to redo in silver as medals,
and we are going to pretend they are medals, which is
silver bullion.

So we are still going to do what we

want to do, but this is a disservice to -- it is really
not just even a disservice to collectors.
disservice.

It is a

It is a disservice to the greatest country

in the world, who is stuck with designs like this.
What is the message we are sending out?

We

can’t do art, that we are bad at art, that we are so
bad?

I mean, it is a terrible message.

terrible coin.
it.

This is a

I don’t want my name associated with

I am not voting for it.

And all I can do is urge

Americans to boycott the program.
I am done.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Donald.

MR. SCARINCI:

Thank you.

30
CHAIR LANNIN:
Coast.

Heidi?

A voice from the West

What would you like to say?

Heidi?

Heidi, are

you there?
MS. WASTWEET:
with my MUTE button.

Oh.

Sorry.

I have trouble

Can you hear me?

CHAIR LANNIN:

Yes, now we can hear you.

MS. WASTWEET:

Okay.

to follow.

Well, that is a hard act

First of all, the obverse design, this

redoing of the Statue of Liberty, it was a reverse
before and now we are designating it as an obverse?

Am

I understanding that correctly?
CHAIR LANNIN:

I believe that is correct.

MS. WASTWEET:

We have had conversations on

this Committee before about making distinctive choices
about obverses being easily separated from reverses.
And this just confuses that issue even more by taking
an obverse design and now making it -- or taking a
reverse design and making an obverse design.
And I agree with what everyone else has said
about we should just have a fresh, new design anyway,
even though this is a nice design.

But beyond that,

the confusion of obverse/reverse I think is a really

31
bad idea.
As far as the other designs here, you know,
this series is supposed to be about innovation.

These

are the least innovative designs I have seen in my
eight years on this Committee.

And nothing in there

says anything about innovation.

The symbolism of a

quill pen, which has been used for thousands of years
or a roll of parchment that speaks more about ancient
Greece than about America, none of this says
innovation.
And I would like to point out in the
legislation, this is an optional coin.
to release this.

We don’t have

And, looking at these designs, that

is my opinion that we are better off not putting out
anything, rather than putting out something so dull and
so non-innovative.

It really puts a bad mark on the

face of the Mint to even have this out there.
rather just we do nothing instead.

I would

If the timeline is

an issue, if you can’t come up with better designs than
this, than I say we just don’t do anything at all.
That is all I have.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thanks, Heidi.

32
Jeanne?
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

Thank you, Mary.

When I first opened this package, I was kind
of overwhelmed with disappointment truly.
agree with all of my colleagues.

The only thing that I

would like to ask is the obverse design.
of saving the Liberty program?

You know, I

Is this a way

And do I understand it

correctly that this is a one-time first coin to use
this particular Liberty image and that in the future,
we would be choosing other Liberties for the obverse?
Can someone from the Mint answer that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

The legislation does

require that this introductory coin obverse would be
the common obverse for the rest of the series.
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

For the rest of the

series?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
CHAIR LANNIN:

That is right.

There is no wiggle room in

that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

No.

They both point to

the same subparagraph, 2A, introductory coin and then
the subsequent.

33
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

So the subsequent years

issued would be this same image?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
much.

Right.
Okay.

Thank you very

I appreciate that.
Now, for the reverse designs, you know, I have

to agree with what everyone has said.
weak designs.

These are very

There is just no power behind them.

There is no guts behind them.

And we have to always

think about this is the art in your pocket.

If this is

a dollar coin, this is what you are going to be
exchanging with the public for 15 years.

And to do, I

don’t think that this is a very wonderful piece of art
to do that.
Now, I have heard from collectors.
Mike has insisted that this is not good.

You know,

And as an

artist, as a designer, I can’t see where this has any
merit at all.

And I am sorry to say this for the Mint

artists that probably worked very hard on this, but,
then again, they didn’t have a whole lot of time.

So I

am probably also not going to support these designs.
Thank you.

34
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Jeanne.

Herman, are you on the phone?
MR. VIOLA:

Oh, I am here, and it is a very

interesting conversation.
with everyone here.

I would have to say I agree

When I looked at these designs, I

thought, is this the best we can do for innovation,
creativity in this country?

I mean, I share the

feeling that we should put better art out there for
people to watch, to look in their pocket.
Now, you know, with Dennis, if we are forced
to take these designs, I would say 7A is the one that
was the least objectionable, but if there is a way we
can just say no to this whole effort, I am with that
idea.
Thank you.
CHAIR LANNIN:
Okay.

Thank you, Herman.

I would like to clarify something.

Some of us seem to feel that 2018 American Innovation
$1 coin is optional.

I do not believe that it is.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

It is.

MS. BIRDSONG:

It is.

CHAIR LANNIN:

It is optional?

35
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

It is.

It is

definitely within the secretary’s discretion to do the
2018 -MR. MORAN:

Mary, I read the exact wording

from the act out for you.
CHAIR LANNIN:

So I don’t know where I read

something where he had decided that yes, we were going
to do that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

I am not aware that he

has made that decision.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

So this still does

remain optional?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Yes.
That is good to know.

All right.
MR. SCARINCI:

Mary, can you tell us when it

is appropriate to make a motion to reject all designs?
CHAIR LANNIN:

Can I --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Hey, Don, tell them

right.
MR. MORAN:

Can I do it first?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

Whoever wants to do it.

36
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. URAM:

First of all --

Tom here.

CHAIR LANNIN:

I will do it.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

We need

to have Tom Uram give his thoughts, and then I as chair
would like to give my thoughts.

Thank you.

Tom, would you like to go next?
MR. URAM:

Just real quick.

And for the

record, I got on just before Erik spoke, about 10
after.

I was late from an appointment.
But, anyhow, I think we finally have a series

that will be worse than the Susan B. Anthony dollar.
You know?

So Mike and I and a few others have talked

about this.

And we have all gotten some

correspondence.

But I would be in favor of what

everyone has said.

And I am ready for Don’s or Mike’s

motion at any time.
That is pretty much it.
CHAIR LANNIN:
right.

Okay.

Thank you, Tom.

All

Now I would like to say something.
Perhaps I was misunderstanding the fact that I

thought we had to do the 2018.
look at these designs.

And so I was trying to

I, too, am not happy with what

37
we were presented in a very short period of time.

I

thank the artists at the Mint for working under the
time constraints to try to put something together.
I had a thought about something for the
reverse design number 1 that could possibly be
considered because we are required to use Washington’s
signature.

If the background could be textured

somewhat to resemble parchment, that might provide just
a little something.
And then I was thinking of taking Washington’s
signature and going from the bottom sort of left, let’s
say, at the 8:00 o’clock position up to the 2:00
o’clock position, and have it go toward a vanishing
point so that the G would be slightly larger and then
the Washington would extend onto infinity as just sort
of symbolic of just the beginning of innovation.

That

was about the only comment that I could make on these.
I listened to what Dennis said on 7 and 7A.
They are way far down on the list as far as I am
concerned.

The sun reminds me -- I didn’t know why I

am thinking Sunkist raisins or something.
the sun, and that just struck me.

I look at

38
But those are my thoughts.

If we were

required, if we had to come up with something, I was
trying to alter design number 1 with both texture and a
vanishing point for George Washington’s signature.
MR. JANSEN:

Mary, this is Erik.

Can I say

something?
CHAIR LANNIN:

Sure.

MR. SCARINCI:

Is it a motion, Erik?

MR. JANSEN:

For you, Donald, yes.

I don’t think anyone on the Committee here is
really complaining about the existence of the program.
So I think it would be inappropriate for anyone to
interpret what appears so far to be pretty much
unanimous of those present that we have a program here.
We respect that.

But we don’t have the creativity yet.

We haven’t had the time to do that.

Mary, you're your

comments were what would be more appropriate in your
brainstorming process with this and not reengineering
an artist’s work.
I hear the Committee complaining about the
art, about the timeline, about the urgency, and not the
program, per se.

And I think it is important that the

39
Committee respects what Congress has passed.
think any of us are questioning that.

I don’t

We are

questioning the implementation of the program, trying
to preserve the reputation of the Mint and, quite
frankly, the integrity of what is a decade-plus-long
series.
Thank you.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Erik.

Would anybody else like to say anything?
MR. MORAN:

Well, Mary, this is Mike.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

Yes, Mike?

I really think that the best

course of action for the Mint is to can the entire 2018
effort and go with a 2019 and do it right.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

this.

Make a motion.

I am going to make another motion.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

Make a motion.

And that is just an observation.

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

Okay.

As far --

All right.

I have one of two ways to go on

We can either reject all of the designs or we

can decline to review.

To get things started, I will

40
make a motion that the Committee declines to review
this body of art.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. WEINMAN:
MR. MORAN:

Discuss.

Discuss.

We need a second.

MR. WEINMAN:
MR. URAM:

All in favor of Mike’s motion?

We need a second at this point.

And I think perhaps some discussion

first.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Yes.

Who said, “Second”?

I

couldn’t hear.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
MR. MORAN:

It sounded like everybody.

MR. WEINMAN:
CHAIR LANNIN:

We need an actual second.
I need a name.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
CHAIR LANNIN:
Tom seconded it.

Tom.

Tom?

Tom, you are on.

So Mike made the motion, and

And your motion is to decline --

MR. WEINMAN:
CHAIR LANNIN:

To review.
-- the review of the eight

designs that the CCAC has been presented with for the
2018 American Innovation $1 Coin Program.
correct?

Is that

41
MR. MORAN:

Yes.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Any discussion?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

I think it would be

probably less than effective to have such a vanilla
motion.

By that, I mean, I would add some reasons so

that someone who has not been privy or had the
opportunity to review what has been said on this
Committee can understand it quickly and simply as to
why we are doing this.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Well, I believe we need to vote

on Mike’s motion first.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

I think we are having

discussion, with all due respect, here.
CHAIR LANNIN:

All right.

MS. WASTWEET:

This is Heidi.

I would like to

make a comment.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

MS. WASTWEET:

Instead of a motion to refuse

to review, I suggest maybe we can say we consider
recommending that the coin not be made at all, but
before we make that decision, I would like to hear
comments from the Mint staff on what they feel they

42
have on the comments they have heard from us so far.
MR. WEINMAN:

What do you mean?

MS. WASTWEET:

Would the Mint --

MR. SCARINCI:

Well, the comments were

universally bad.

I mean, look, I think what we don’t

want to do -- I think it was you, Mike, who said this
or maybe you, Erik.

You know, obviously we respect and

will do whatever we are directed to do by Congress.
All right?

And it is the implementation of this

program with bad designs that we are all objecting to.
MS. WASTWEET:

Right.

MR. SCARINCI:

So I think refusing to review I

think Mike’s motion accomplishes that in a very polite
way.

I don’t know that the CFA is going to be more

polite than that.

But I think what we don’t want to

suggest and what none of us are suggesting, you know,
is that the program approved by our elected officials
is not worthy of implementation.

It is.

It is this

set of designs that is the problem.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:
--

Thank you for clarifying.

This is Robert.

I would actually

43
(Simultaneous conversation.)
MR. WEINMAN:
MR. HOGE:

Excuse me.

I think this was a very --

MR. WEINMAN:
MR. HOGE:

Excuse me.

-- poorly thought out and

implemented program.
MR. WEINMAN:

Excuse me, Robert.

reminder that this is being transcribed.

Please,

Please speak

one at a time, and please identify yourself for the
record.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:

Okay.

Okay.

MS. WASTWEET:

This is Robert.

Hello?

Robert, I wasn’t quite

finished.
MR. HOGE:

Hello?

MR. WEINMAN:

Wait until the chair recognizes

you.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:
exception to that.

Robert, please speak.

Hello?

I would like to take

I don’t think this was a properly

thought-out program to be presented in Congress.
don’t think they gave it enough thought as to the

I

44
wording or the idea of what the coins would end up
looking like.

I think it is a bad idea to have the

date and the Mint mark and the inscription around the
edge.
Some of you may have seen the commentary in
the most recent issue of Coin World about how this is
not something that the public wants.

And it is being

forced to do something that collectors could buy simply
to provide some revenue.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

Thank you.

Heidi, I believe you wanted to speak next?
MS. WASTWEET:

Yes.

The question I was trying

to ask the Mint is would they want the second chance to
redesign or would they want to take the option of not
producing this first coin in the series, as allowed in
legislation?
MR. WEINMAN:

I don’t think the Mint is going

to have an opinion at this point without discussing
this.
MS. STAFFORD:

Could you repeat that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
CHAIR LANNIN:

Oh, it is a classic.

Could you repeat that, please,

45
Heidi?
MS. WASTWEET:

Is the deadline an issue?

that why we are scrambling to get these done?

Is

Is that

a problem?
CHAIR LANNIN:

This is a very tight deadline

if that is what you are asking, yes.
MS. WASTWEET:

Okay.

So if they don’t have

time to redo these deadlines properly, then maybe the
Mint would prefer to take the option to not produce the
coin at all?
MR. WEINMAN:

I don’t think -- I am not sure

the Mint is going to speak to a course of action at
this point.

This is the CCAC’s opportunity to review

and provide feedback.

And the Mint, as always, will

take that under advisement.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

MS. WASTWEET:

Okay.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Any further discussion before

we vote on the motion, which is still open I think?
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
is Jeanne.

I have a question.

This

If we refuse to review the design, I think

that wording is a little strange because we have

46
already reviewed these designs.
MR. MORAN:

Jeanne, this is Mike.

MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
MR. MORAN:

Yes?

I think until we have had opinions

on these designs -MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
MR. MORAN:

Okay.

-- but until we actually vote, we

don’t review.
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.
MR. MORAN:

Okay.

CHAIR LANNIN:

So, Mike, would you like to

state your motion again?
MR. MORAN:

We, the Committee, decline to

review these designs.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. URAM:

And it was seconded by Tom?

Yes.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Is there any further discussion

before we vote on this motion?
MR. JANSEN:

This is Erik.

I would merely say

I think to an outsider, this is not very informative.
CHAIR LANNIN:

That it is not very what?

47
MR. JANSEN:
not clear.

Informative.

Our rationale is

Are we obstinate or do we have a reason?

MR. MORAN:
MR. JANSEN:

This is -I would ask that the motion

originator might truly consider adding some rationale
to the refusal.
MR. MORAN:
what to add to it.

Erik, I am a bit at a loss as to

For one thing, I think all of us

feel like better designs could be submitted if the Mint
would do that.

We recognize that there is a tight

timeline getting even tighter.
I think all of us also question the need for
the issue of a 2018 coin.

We have not gotten an answer

on that one either as to whether it could be killed.
I think all of us have, at least indirectly,
alluded to the fact that this is going to be a
commercial failure, this coin.
There are so many reasons.
on down the list.

We could just go

I think keep it plain and simple.

We either decline to review and let the press dissect
it -- Lord knows they have gotten an earful today.
There are plenty --

48
MS. WASTWEET:
MR. JANSEN:

Mike?

Mike, with all due respect --

MS. WASTWEET:

Mike, you could say --

CHAIR LANNIN:

One at a time, please.

I

believe Jeanne started first, Erik.
MR. JANSEN:

Okay.

Okay.

MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:
CHAIR LANNIN:

Yes?

I thought, did you say

something?
MS. STEVENS-SOLLMAN:

It was Heidi.

It was

Heidi.
CHAIR LANNIN:
you go first?

I am sorry, Heidi.

Why don’t

And then Erik can go.

MS. WASTWEET:

Mike, you could simply add the

wording “refuse to review due to quality.”
MR. MORAN:

I am open to amendments.

If you

want to make that amendment, I will support it, Heidi.
It is good.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. JANSEN:

Erik?

I would also potentially like to

see an amendment, Mike, stating the poor quality under
an unreasonable deadline and inappropriately so.

49
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. JANSEN:
MR. HOGE:

And inappropriate?

And inappropriately so.

Madam Chair?

CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. JANSEN:

Yes?

If I were being harsh, I would

merely say, “We refuse to rubber-stamp a poor, poor
quality done under an unreasonable deadline.”
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. HOGE:

Okay.

Madam Chair?

MR. MORAN:

How about if we just say, “Due to

quality and the pressure of a deadline”?
MR. JANSEN:
better.

I am for that.

I would like that

Oh, excuse me.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

So, Mike, your motion is

the Committee refuses to review the designs due to
quality and -MR. MORAN:

Due to quality of the designs and

the pressures from a tight deadline.
CHAIR LANNIN:
MR. MORAN:

And pressures from deadline.

Yes.

CHAIR LANNIN:

Okay.

I think we had better

before we keep adding to this -- all in favor of Mike’s

50
motion?
MR. MORAN:

As amended by me.

(Chorus of “Ayes.”)
CHAIR LANNIN:

Are there any nays?

(No response.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
CHAIR LANNIN:

How did you vote, Mary?

I am asking if there are any

nays because nobody said what their names were before
they said, “Aye.”

So I am just trying to get a count.

MR. URAM:

Uram.

CHAIR LANNIN:
motion as well.
right.

Aye.

Okay.

And I vote for the

And so the motion passes 10:0. All

Thank you.
MR. MORAN:

Well, I want to apologize to the

people at the Mint who are there.

This was not the way

I wanted to see this turn out.
MR. JANSEN:

I would second that apology.

Sorry that the deadline has been put upon us.

And I

would hope, quite frankly, that the Mint would, the
Mint staff and this Committee would, take a big breath
and truly assess the opportunity to take another 30 to
60 days to design some better art and then accelerate

51
the execution issues if they can be done.
CHAIR LANNIN:

Thank you, Erik.

And I would

like to say that, under Mr. Ryder’s tenure, I think we
are going to have great designs coming out.

And we can

look forward to working cooperatively with the Mint in
getting better designs and having agreeable meetings.
So thank you all for calling in today.

If

there is no business, other business, to come before
the Committee, I would like to move to adjourn.

Is

there a second?
MR. HOGE:

Second.

CHAIR LANNIN:

This is Robert.

Okay.

Robert seconds.

favor of adjourning, say aye.
(Chorus of “Ayes.”)
CHAIR LANNIN:

Those opposed?

(No response.)
CHAIR LANNIN:
adjourned.

Okay.

The meeting is

It is 1:55. Thank you.

All in

52
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, NATE RIVENESS, the officer before whom the
foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby certify that
the proceedings were recorded by me and thereafter
reduced to typewriting under my direction; that said
proceedings are a true and accurate record to the best
of my knowledge, skills, and ability; that I am neither
counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the
parties to the action in which this was taken; and,
further, that I am not a relative or employee of any
counsel or attorney employed by the parties hereto, nor
financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of
this action.

NATE RIVENESS
Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia

53
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
I, SARAH VEACH, do hereby certify that this
transcript was prepared from audio to the best of my
ability.

I am neither counsel for, related to, nor
employed by any of the parties to this action, nor
financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of
this action.

August 3, 2018
DATE

SARAH VEACH