Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24822444
label
Review Allegations of Misconduct or Wrongdoing on the Part of Certain Individuals Associated with the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Commission [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24822444
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Review Allegations of Misconduct or Wrongdoing on the Part of Certain Individuals Associated with the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Commission [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Nicole Rabner's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24822444
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763278-20121035S-016-002-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8c6fe67e5f8cc87e
ocrText
154
Mr. BALTES. Yes, it was. As I say, he had-this breakfast meeting
we had, when he was giving us the rules for this meeting, he ap-
parently had this written on a yellow sheet of paper. He would not
let us see the paper. We went back to this is office and he dictated
this document to Charlie Jaeger and typed it.
Mr. SAWYER. From the yellow sheet?
Mr. BALTES. From the yellow sheet of paper, yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Gonzalez testified before this subcommittee in
June that he had never seen this document, had no idea what it
represented, didn't know what the "M.G." at the top stood for.
To your knowledge, did Mr. Gonzalez see this document and
know about its contents?
Mr. BALTES. Well, yes. Yes, he did.
Yes, sir. There is a lot more that could be said about that. Yes, to
answer your question.
Mr. SAWYER. You testified that on April 10; John Goudie called
you and said, I am going to kill you.
Mr. BALTES. Yes, he did.
Mr. SAWYER. Can you tell us what his tone of voice was when he
made what I gather you take to have been a threat, and what
prompted it? Did you take it seriously?
Mr. BALTES. I took the it very seriously. There were other de-
scriptive terms used with that "kill" that got my attention right
away. But the whole conversation was a real agitated, excited,
"don't mess with me" type of conversation. He raised his voice. He
was screaming and hollering.
You're darn right, I took it seriously.
Mr. SAWYER. You took it literally and seriously?
Mr. BALTES. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Do you have any idea why he wanted Edgar Moon-
ey's documents from you?
Mr. BALTES. The ones concerning Texaco?
Mr. SAWYER. The whole range of requests?
Mr. BALTES. He did not ask-yes, I guess he did ask-initially he
started asking for Texaco contacts. Yet, Ed usually wrote up
memos after all these meetings. He wanted all of those.
I made them. We weren't going to give them to him. He said, We
will subpoena them, have the Justice Department-so I gave them
to him.
I heard-he and De Quesada told me on two or three occasions
the reason they wanted those documents was to find out if Gunter
Pfitzenmeier was doing anything behind their back with Texaco.
They suspected it.
That was the initial reason. They wanted to keep abreast of what
was happening.
Now later on, jeez-a short time after we-all of this was going
on-Goudie called me probably-Goudie called me one day, maybe
a dozen times in a 6- or 7-hour period and wanted to know whether
I had gotten a letter or gotten a fax or anybody at CCLG had
gotten a fax from Peter DeNiro of Texaco.
I didn't know what was happening. He said. You will see. you
will see. John Goudie said, It will show you how powerful I am.
We did, in the next day or so, get a fax that basically was a
letter from DeNiro to CCLG that I think was addressed to Manny
155
and Pfitzenmeier that said, We don't want to deal with you any-
more, and basically the premium contract or whatever we had with
them was over.
So I would say the answer to your question, Goudie was-wheth-
er his original intent was or not, my impression was that he used
those documents in some way in discussions with Texaco to have
them terminate the relationship with us.
Mr. SAWYER. I have only one final question. What I think we will
do is suspend and return to Mr. Moran's questioning.
Mr. MORAN. I will just make a short statement and ask a quick
question within the five minutes. We can then get over to vote.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me conclude with this final question, then.
Manny Gonzalez has denied any form of relationship with CCLG.
Taking your testimony as a whole, it appears that by contrast to
his characterization, that Manuel, Gonzalez had a very substantial
role in the Licensing Group and may well have benefited financial-
ly from the Group's contract with the Commission.
When he testified before the subcommittee under oath, he said
his only relationship with the Licensing Group was his effort to
secure a sublicensing agreement for T-shirts with Peter Dunev. He
denied any formal- relationship with the Licensing Group: He
denied knowing you were a stockholder in the Licensing Group. He
denied ever discussing Licensing Group activities with John
Goudie.
Given your whole testimony, can you characterize Mr. Gonzalez
description of his involvement in the activities of the Columbus
Commission and the Columbus Licensing Group?
Mr. BALTES. You want me to comment on what he said? It is in-
credibly untrue. That is just another-I don't think one thing that
you said there was-has any credence at all. He was involved from
the bottom up.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is such a terrible shame, disillusionment to have to listen to
this kind of testimony, to have to spend so much time looking into
what is obviously a criminal scam.
Here we have an event. the quincentennial, that should be inspi-
rational. educational, should have been something that the whole
Nation could have been very proud of and enjoyed the participa-
tion in.
Yet. it has been given over to people who are obviously crooks,
who have used it to conduct criminal activity, for purposes of just
pure greed, exploitation. no professional-never mind patriotic re-
sponsibility for their responsibility that they were given.
I guess the ultimate-ultimately what I want to know is why
President Reagan would appoint a crook to head such an important
national commission?
Your testimony is simply further evidence of the level of crimi-
nal activity that has taken place here, but it is clear that the ap-
pointment to a very important position of responsibility was made
for political reasons. There is an element of gross irresponsibility
on the part of the administration that-the Reagan administration
that made that appointment.
156
Again, we see rampant corruption involved in something because
decisions were made for the wrong reasons. This is sickening. I
kind of hope it does not become public because it is so disillusion-
ing, particularly to the school children who are learning about Co-
lumbus and all the good things that have come to this country over
the last 500 years.
Yet, here we have what is a reflection of the very worst of greed,
corruption, and politics.
We cannot get into any further specific questions right now. I ap-
plaud the committee for looking into this. I am sorry that my reac-
tion is to be so repulsed, but I am afraid that that is the only ap-
propriate action at this time.
We are sorry you have suffered such a loss. but that is not our
main concern. Our main concern is what has happened to a-what
should have been a very important element of the celebration next
year and instead reflects the very worst of our society.
Thank you, Mr. Baltes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Let me ask in quick conclusion, and then we will be able to
excuse y nu this afternoon, briefly, could you characterize your per-
sonal and financial consequences as a result of your involvement
with the Commission and Licensing Group?
Mr. BALTES. Well, if you are going to talk about that, I don't
want to get real personal here but you have to talk about the
$500,000 that we put in that. As I understand it now, the contract
is in the act of being terminated by the Commission so at best that
$500,000 investment is in limbo. At worst, we may never see any-
thing further from it again.
Mr. SAWYER. Is it vour view that the Licensing Group itself is in-
solvent at this point?
Mr. BALTES. It has been my view that they have been insolvent
for a long time just based on some of the things we have seen and
heard. Yes. they have been insolvent for quite sometime, perhaps
as early as March 1990.
Mr. SAWYER. Is there anything else you would like to share with
us today?
Mr. BALTES. Not particularly.
Again, going back to that statement, I said talking to folks
around the country, some of the licensees, some of the people were
interested in the quincentennial to make money; some just wanted
to be part of it. A lot of grass-roots folks out there.
What is amazing is when you talk to people out there about this,
you know. you expect to have some problems; people supporting it;
people not supporting it. It is almost 100 percent, across-the-board
negative feelings because of what has happened here.
You can talk about the money lost. Sure, we lost some. Whether
we get it back or not. there are other folks that lost some.
But the opportunity is the-I think the one feeling that if you
could surmise all the people I talked to out there, a broad spec-
trum, is that they got cheated somehow.
It is a damned shame that that happened.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much for your testimony today. It
has been a long time coming.
157
Thank you, sir.
We are going to suspend for a few minutes. We have to go and
vote. Then we will begin with the next witness when I get back.
[Recess.]
Mr. SAWYER. At this point, let me invite to the table Peter
Dunev.
Mr. Dunev, do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
Mr. DUNEV. I do.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. You may be seated.
Thank you for your testimony today. You may proceed as you
will.
TESTIMONY OF PETER DUNEV
Mr. DUNEV. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members: I am Peter
Dunev. I am here today at your request to discuss my efforts to
obtain a license to use the logo of the Christopher Columbus Quin-
centenary Commission on various articles of clothing.
I live in Florida, where I am engaged in various business ven-
tures. Prior to moving to Florida, I was an executive with a nation-
al stock brokerage firm, and in recent years I was responsible for
trading energy-related products.
In July 1990. my colleague, Luis Uriarte, and I obtained an ex-
clusive license from the Christopher Columbus Licensing Group to
use the Commission logo on knit tops, such as T-shirts, polo shirts,
and sweat shirts to be sold during the celebration of the quincen-
tenary of the discovery of America in 1492 by Christopher Colum-
bus.
I met John Goudie, the Commission's former Chairman, through
my wife, who used to take my son to a pre-school that was operated
by Mr. Goudie's wife, Connie. On May 5, 1990 my wife and I went
to a Shakespeare festival in Coral. Gables and by chance happened
to meet Mr. and Mrs. Goudie. During the course of the conversa-
tion, Mr. Goudie told me about the Commission's plans and activi-
ties. I was enthusiastic and told him what a fabulous cultural event
this would be. For the rest of the evening, Mr. Goudie told my wife
and me all about the grandiose plans he had for the celebration.
At the end of the evening, I mentioned that he should let my
company-I had a company that manufactured sports clothing at
the time-make his T-shirts. He said that they already had some-
body doing that out of New York.
A few days later Mr. Goudie called me and told me that if I was
still interested in doing the T-shirts, he might be able to do some-
thing about it. He said that he would much rather work with me
because we understood each other. I speak Spanish fluently be-
cause I was born in Spain while my father was working for the
U.S. Foreign Service.
He also said that if I could match the deal from the people in
New York, he would see that I got the deal. We then got together
at my house and discussed the celebration and who was involved
with it.
55-308 o 92 - 6
158
He then told me about CCLG. Mr. Goudie said it was composed
of three people: Manny Gonzalez, his best friend who lives in
Miami; a German by the name of Gunter Pfitzenmeier; and his
friend Dominic Primato, both from New York. He said Mr. Gonza-
lez really runs the operation out of Miami.
Mr. Goudie stated that it would be no problem getting me the
contract because he actually controlled CCLG. One of the ways he
did this was that he had to personally approve any and all con-
tracts that CCLG got. He did not want to approve the T-shirt con-
tract with the people in New York. He said the people in New
York were a big headache and ne did not like them.
During may and June 1990, Mr. Goudie and I met a number of
times to discuss the license and what the Commission was planning
to do to help market the event. It was during the latter part of
May that my associate, Mr. Luis Uriarte met Mr. Goudie. Mr.
Goudie told us he had met Mr. Gunter Pfitzenmeier on an airplane
returning from Europe.
Mr. Pfitzenmeier had told Mr. Goudie he was involved with real
estate and wanted to do things in Florida. Mr. Goudie then ar-
ranged to have Mr. Pfitzenmeier meet his friend Mr. Gonzalez who
was also involved in real estate in Florida.
Mr. Goudie said that soon after, Mr. Pfitzenmeier and Mr. Gon-
zalez called Mr. Goudie with a proposal to get the master license
for the logo of the event. Mr. Goudie said that advance royalties of
$300,000 would have to be paid. Mr. Pfitzenmeier agreed and the
Group got the license.
Later, when I asked Mr. Gonzalez how much money he put into
the deal, he said, "Nothing, I didn't put in any money because I
put the deal together.
I asked Mr. Goudie if he saw a problem with having Manny Gon-
zalez, his best friend, associated with CCLG and having the poten-
tial to make a fortune. Mr. Goudie responded that since the Com-
mission was not getting a lot of money from the Government, they
had to raise private funds. Since Mr. Gonzalez' group was the only
one to put up any cash, he saw no conflict of interest.
I then told him that if everybody was happy and made money, it
would probably be okay, but if there was a problem, it was going to
be scrutinized very, very closely. He said e had it all under con-
trol.
Mr. Uriarte, Mr. Goudie and I met one Friday afternoon in late
May to further discuss the celebration. At this meeting he told us
he couldn't make us members of the national Commission as the
members could not profit from the event. Instead, he said, I will be
very happy to immediately get you into the Miami commission
which does not have that restriction. He said that all he had to do
was make a phone call to the Miami commission and it was as good
as done.
He said that by Monday we would be commissioners in the
Miami organization because he controlled that organization as
well. This, of course, never happened. Four or five times we re-
minded him and he said he would do it right away.
When at the end Mr. Uriarte met with the Miami group, they
laughed at the idea that Mr. Goudie controlled them. In fact. they
said that if the caravels didn't arrive on time, they would miss the
159
event and Mr. Goudie would have to organize something totally by
himself. That the idea that they were going to have to pay $2 mil-
lion for the visit of the caravels was ludicrous since they didn't
have that kind of money and the Commission needed Miami more
than they needed the Commission.
Mr. Goudie told us the group from New York had signed a $1
million contract with a $100,000 advance royalty payment. Mr.
Goudie said there was no way that he could give us the deal for
less as it would look like favoritism. I had to match the New York
offer.
We had at least a dozen meetings in various locations: Mr. Gou-
die's home, my home. my boat and various restaurants to discuss
the contract. During these meetings, Mr. Goudie talked about the
potential of the celebration. The whole event centered around the
replicas of a three-ship caravel tour that Columbus sailed to the
New World. Mr. Goudie proudly showed us the pictures of himself
with prominent people. This appeared to be a way of establishing
his credibility.
The three-ship caravel tour was being built by the Spanish. The
ships were going to cruise to 52 port cities over a 2-year period
starting in August 1991 and ending in October 1993. Mr. Goudie
said he was charging up to $2 million per city for the right to have
the ships come to each port. After this, the caravel would be going
to Japan and we could sell our shirts there as well. as Mr. Goudie
said he had some very powerful contacts there.
Mr. Goudie gave me an itinerary for the ships. After looking it
over, I noticed that the dates he told me the caravel would be here.
they were scheduled to be in Europe as well. When I queried him.
he told me that they were building two sets of caravels. One to sail
here and one to stay in Europe:
Mr. Goudie compared the Columbus celebration to the Statue of
Liberty celebration. the Bicentennial, and Superbowl weekends. He
told me that for the 1990 Superbowl Sunday event, 8 million T-
shirts were sold. He also pointed out a story in the Miami Herald
that worldwide sales of licensed products for the World Soccer Cup
could reach $1 billion.
Mr. Goudie stated that at least 40 percent of the products sold at
these events-are T-shirts. Mr. Goudie also told us that he felt sales
would conservatively reach $500 million. He told us that we would
have the only T-shirts there, that anybody connected or in any way
involved with the celebration could only buy their T-shirts from us.
That included Texaco, a corporate sponsor of the caravels that was
planning a very visible campaign and would need many shirts as
giveaways at gas stations around the country and at all the port
cities. He said that he had spoken to Texaco about this, and they
told him that they were going to need many T-shirts for their pub-
licity.
Mr. Goudie told us that Texaco had put up $5 million to be one
of the corporate sponsers. and that he was presently talking to
Chrysler and Pepsi Cola and some others that he expected to reach
agreement with very soon.
One day Mr. Goudie asked me to come to his home to talk about
this project and he showed me a video that Texaco had made for
160
airing in Boston when the caravels arrived there. I then called Mr.
Uriarte and asked him to come over to look at the video.
At that time Mr. Goudie told us we would be able to sell T-shirts
in Europe right away and he would put us in touch with his friends
that were running the Spanish sites. He also told us we could start
selling on Spanish home shopping cable immediately as the owner
was his good friend.
During one of the meetings to discuss the contract, I pointed out
that I did not like the personal guarantee or bank guarantee for $1
million that the contract required prior to the completion of the
caravel tour. The potential of a storm sinking the caravels con-
cerned me. Mr. Goudie said not to worry about the guarantee, he
would see to it that the contract. would be approved by the Group
without it. When I hesitated, he told me that he could rescind
CCLG's contract if the Group gave him any trouble.
He also said the Italian Government had donated the use of one
of those large ships that are used to transport smaller ships inside
them. This smaller ship was to follow the caravels in case of
threatening storms and to take them from coast to coast. He said
that this was an insurance requirement for them.
During early July 1990, Mr. Uriarte met with Mr. Gonzalez to
propose an installment plan for the payment of the $100,000 ad-
vance royalty. However, Mr. Gonzalez rejected it.
I then spoke to Mr. Goudie and we worked out a plan whereby
my company, Theta Marketing Corp. would pay four equal monthly
installments of $25,000 each beginning in July 1990. The balance of
the guaranteed royalties of $900,000 would be paid in $75,000 incre-
ments beginning at the end of 1992 after the caravels had arrived
and the event had started.
We structured it like this to address my concern about the viabil-
ity of the caravels doing their tour. The contract states that if any
material part of this tour does not take place. the contract will be
null and void.
When we met again with Mr. Gonzalez, he had no problems with
our proposed payment schedule. The agreement called for CCLG to
receive 10 percent of Theta's gross sales.
Mr. Goudie put pressure on us to close right away because he
told us that he was going to Santo Domingo with some children for
the Columbus Scholarship Fund and he needed T-shirts to take
with him. He said he was leaving around the 20th of July and had
to sign either us or the Group from New York immediately. When
I asked for the name of the New York group. he would not give it
to us.
The contract was signed on July 12. 1990. After signing, we made
about six dozen T-shirts with the logo for him to take to Santo Do-
mingo. Mr. Gonzalez came to the office on July 25 to pick up the T-
shirts.
In a conversation I had with Mr. Gonzalez at that time, he told
me that CCLG was going to "make out like a bandit,' because the
Group only had to pay the Commission 15 percent of its gross reve-
nues according to their contract.
Mr. SAWYER. Is that 50 or 15?
Mr. DUNEV. Fifteen, one, five.
161
Since Theta was obligated to pay to the Group only 10 percent of
our gross sales, this amounted to only 1.5 percent of our gross sales
going to the Commission. It did not seem like much, and when I
pointed this out to Mr. Goudie he told me again about CCLG being
the only party that was willing to put up any front capital. He had
spoken to various other licensing groups and none of them had
been willing to put up any front money. Mr. Goudie said there
would be a lot of money available once the celebration began, but
he needed cash up front.
Mr. Gonzalez was in a hurry to get the contract signed so he
came to our office to pick it up and also to pick up the $25,000
check. He said he was going to hand deliver it to Mr. Pfitzenmeier
who was in Boca Raton at the time.
He told us that Mr. Pfitzenmeier was in fact the president and
would be signing the contract, and that he would return with a
signed copy the following day
In an earlier meeting Mr. Goudie implied that Mr. Gonzalez was
the president and we wrote letters to Mr. Gonzalez addressed as
president of CCLG.
Mr. SAWYER. Let us make it clear. We are not talking about
President Bush here?
Mr. DUNEV. No, sir.
He never corrected our impression. The next day Mr. Gonzalez
rushed the signed contract with Mr. Pfitzenmeier's name on it.
After the contract was signed, we attempted many times to get
from Mr. Goudie the names of the contact people at the various
groups that were involved with the project, such as Texaco, Pepsi
Cola and the different cities, so we could introduce ourselves and
get started: He had earlier told us that he would give us all the
names and personally make many of the introductions.
We wanted to meet with Texaco as we thought they would be
key players, but Mr. Goudie kept evading us on that issue.
After we made the first installment payment, Mr. Goudie
became progressively harder to reach. We then asked Mr. Gonzalez
who would be doing the selling on the port sites. He said they had
not decided. When I asked Mr. Goudie the same question, he told
me a group from Ohio would be doing this.
I then had Mr. Uriarte go back to Mr. Gonzalez and ask him who
was the group from Ohio. He said they were minority shareholders
of CCLG but not very involved and not to worry about them. Mr.
Gonzalez said he would entertain any offers of ours to run the
events at the ports.
When queried further, Mr. Gonzalez told us that CCLG had four
shareholders each owning 25 percent: Mr. Pfitzenmeier. Mr. Pri-
mato, the Ohio group. and Mr. Gonzalez. When I called Mr. Goudie
to clarify this. he told me there were only three shareholders, with
Mr. Gonzalez having 33 percent of the stock. I was never able to
get this clarified and red flags started to go up.
I then asked Mr. Gonzalez for the CCLG corporate documents.
and eventually, in mid-August 1990, received only a permit show-
ing that CCLG could do business in Florida and a copy of an
amended. corporate resolution for a Florida bank account.
One day at a meeting in Mr. Goudie's office he suggested to us
that I should buy CCLG. He told us that he was having problems
162
with Mr. Pfitzenmeier and Mr. Primato because they would not
fire somebody that Mr. Goudie did not like. I found out later it was
Edgar Mooney.
Mr. Goudie showed us a letter where he threatened to terminate
CCLG because of this. I asked him how much was needed to buy
CCLG. Mr. Goudie told me it could be bought for about $1.5- to $2
million, but that Mr. Gonzalez would stay as part of the new group
with 25 percent of the stock.
Later, Mr. Uriarte asked Mr. Gonzalez and he told him that it
would cost $5 million to buy CCLG.
Mr. Goudie brought up the issue of my buying out CCLG on a
number of indications. In one case, about 12:00 noon on July 26,
1990, Mr. Gonzalez called Mr. Uriarte and told him that Mr.
Goudie wanted to have lunch with Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Uriarte and
myself in 1 hour at the Malaga Restaurant located at 740 South-
west Eighth Street in Miami where we had previously had lunch
together.
The four of us discussed the progress of the event and, when Mr.
Gonzalez went to the bathroom, Mr. Goudie asked me again to buy
out the CCLG. I declined, saying that I did not have the money
available at the present.
The luncheon adjourned without anything else being covered.
Mr. Uruarte and I thought it odd that nothing else had been
brought up and that Mr. Goudie had waited for Mr. Gonzalez to
leave the table before he brought up the subject of the buy-out.
We called a number of State, city and local Columbus Commis-
sions and found they either had little interest in the Commission
and its projects or they had their own logo and were planning to
market it on their own. In some cases, they had already had run-
ins with Mr. Goudie and the Commission.
Mr. Goudie had assured us that the coordinators of the large
events that were taking place during celebrations, such as Ameri-
flora, and the Smithsonian Quincentenary programs, would work
with us. When we contacted them and introduced ourselves, they
did not know that they were required to buy shirts only from us.
They had their own plans already. We asked Mr. Goudie about
this inconsistency and explained our concern about differences, in
the magnitude of the celebration that he had portrayed earlier.
Mr. Goudie told us not to worry. He said we would sell our T-
shirts at all the events because everybody would want the official
logo of the Commission and all the others would not be as valuable,
since the corporate sponsors would be advertising only the official
logo.
We asked Mr. Gonzalez for a list of the sublicensees and he
would not provide it. We then went to Mr. Goudie and asked for
the same list, and he begged off. saying he was having a problem
with Texaco, but not to worry because our items would be sold at
all events.
The second $25,000 installment was also given to Mr. Gonzalez-
but both checks were endorsed by Mr. Pfitzenmeier. A situation
connected with the second payment occurred that made me think I
had made a serious mistake.
For 2 or 3 days before the second payment was due, on August
13, 1990, I tried to get in contact with Mr. Goudie to clear up some
163
areas of concern. I was told that he was out of the country by his
staff in Washington. On the day the payment was due, the 13th,
Mr. Gonzalez came to my office to pick up the check. I reluctantly
signed the check and left the office, leaving Mr. Gonzalez and Mr.
Uriarte talking in the office.
After leaving the office, I stopped by a cafeteria that was at the
end of the street around the corner from the office. Because of the
way the street runs, it is very difficult for anybody who does not
work on that little street to know about the cafeteria or to find it.
When I walked in, I found Mr. Goudie sitting at the counter talk-
ing on a portable phone. I sat next to him. He pretended not to see
me for a minute or two, and then finally put the phone down. I
said to him, "John, you were supposed to be in Santo Domingo, I
have been trying to reach you all week."
He said, "I am going now, Manny is going to take me to the air-
port." By the way, we were three blocks from the airport. I told
him I just left Mr. Gonzalez at my office, and he said, yes, I am
waiting for him here to take me to the airport.
I then said I would talk to him when he returned, and I left. I
immediately called the office and told Mr. Uriarte the story and
asked him not to give Mr. Gonzalez the check, but he told me Mr.
Gonzalez had already left with it. We then met at my house to try
to understand what was happening and got in touch with both Mr.
Goudie and Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez said that he thought it
would look bad if Mr. Goudie was there to pick up the check.
I asked him why Mr. Goudie did not wait in the car. I wondered
what they were trying to hide; after all, we had met numerous
times together, and this really looked odd to me. What were they
trying to hide?
After this. we scutinized the project very closely. We knew we
had 30 days before the next payment was due, and perhaps the sit-
uation would clarify itself by then. When the September payment
date came due, we had even more concerns, and were trying to
decide if we wanted to be associated in any way with this venture.
We decided to try to stay in and either get our money back or
see that the problems wère resolved. I had discussed with Mr.
Goudie earlier the possibility of reselling our license or sublicens-
ing it. He told us that it would be worth much more after the
launching of the caravels in August 1990. He was planning a large
media campaign starting in Spain in August.
He said he was planning to take 35 or 40 journalists to Spain for
the launching. That never happened. Now. in the new light, we re-
alized our contract was not worth the $1 million, and we would
never be able to get out. We also knew that CCLG was broke. What
I did not want to do was put in more good money after bad. We
now know we had been taken.
On September 14, 1990, 2 days after the third installment pay-
ment was due, I called Mr. Gonzalez to have him meet in our office
in an effort to resolve our concerns. He arrived shortly thereafter.
While I was trying to explain to him the problem, his portable
phone rang, and he said, "No, he hasn't given it to me yet. He
seems to think there is a problem. No. I don't think so."
Then he turned to me and said. "John wants to talk to you," and
handed me the phone. When I picked up the phone, Mr. Goudie
164
said to me, "What is going on?" I told Mr. Goudie that we seemed
to have a problem in communication, and that some of the things
that he told us were not appearing to be true.
He said to me that I had the problem, not him, and that if I was
going to be a player, I had to put up another $25,000 or get out. I
told him that the problem was with things that he had told us. He
then told me that if I caused any problems, he would see to it that
I got into trouble.
He said, "I am the Justice Department, and I could have you
ruined." He ranted and raved for a few minutes, and I quietly
hung up the phone. Mr. Gonzalez said that Mr. Goudie was having
a very bad day, had had a very difficult meeting, and he was sorry
and that he was sure Mr. Goudie would call me over the weekend
to apologize. I said we would talk on Monday, and Mr. Gonzalez
left without the $25,000 payment.
On September 17, 1990, I got a letter. from Mr. Pfitzenmeier
saying that since the September payment was not made, we were
in default. I asked Mr. Uriarte, who had a fairly good relationship
with Mr. Gonzalez, to call him and see if we could extend our dead-
line for payment, to try to work out a way to stay in without
paying any more up front.
On October 10, we received a letter on CCLG stationery signed
by Mr. Gonzalez stating that, on advice of counsel. they would not
extend our deadline.
Later that same day, we received a fax from Mr. Pfitzenmeier
stating that our contract was terminated. I then had a lawyer
write them a letter stating that I did not consider the matter
closed and felt that there was a breach of contract on their part.
and still considered that we had the license until this matter was
resolved pending further investigation.
Later in the course of my inquiries, I called Texaco and attempt-
ed to talk to the person in charge of the project. to determine if
anything that Mr. Goudie said was true. I was told that the person
in charge would be out for 2 weeks.
I left a message that I was having a blem with something
that Mr. Goudie had told me about Texaco, and would like to talk
to somebody about their involvement in the celebration.
Ten or 15 minutes later, I received a call from a woman. She
first told me she was with Texaco and wanted to know what prob-
lems I had. I started to tell her. when I realized that she was not
with Texaco. She told me she had her own firm and was a coordi-
nator between Texaco and the Commission. She did tell me. howev-
er. that Texaco would be doing its promotion through its gas sta-
tions. and did not have any intention of buying T-shirts. I thanked
her and hung up.
A few minutes later, Mr. Goudie called. He sounded hysterical.
He again told me that he was the Justice Department and he could
have me arrested for obstructing Government business. He said
that in a day or two the agents would be in Miami to "take care
of" me. He then ranted for a few minutes about his importance.
That was the last time I spoke to Mr. Goudie. The next day. Mr.
Goudie called Mr. Uriarte and complained to him about me. telling
him of his being the Justice Department and going to have me ar-
rested for obstruction of Government business.
165
Nothing, however, happened as a result of Mr. Goudie's threats.
In November, I mentioned our situation to an FBI Agent I knew in
the FBI in Miami, and he had me meet the Agent in charge of this
type of activity. I told them what I have stated here today, and
they said they would look into it.
My partner and I felt that time was of the essence, and in order
to still have a good celebration, we had to resolve the problems
right away. We had been talking to various reporters and exchang-
ing information with them. One reporter had been following the
story for 2 years. The New York Times broke the story nationally
and Mr. Goudie resigned in December 1990.
I met Mr. Tony Baltes from Toledo. OH in late September 1990,
and we started to compare notes. I realized that mine was not an
isolated incident. We asked for and got a meeting with the new
Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Frank Donatelli. Mr. Baltes, and
his lawyer, other related parties, and I went to meet with Mr. Don-
atelli and his assistant, Jim Kuhn, in Alexandria. and we told
them our stories. They said they would look into it and get back to
us.
It appears obvious to me that very little, if anything, has been
done to change the way that CCLG does business. The celebration,
if it takes place, has been reduced to a very small part of the origi-
nal plan that I had been led to believe by the former Chairman of
the Commission, John Goudie.
This concludes my prepared statement. I am available to respond
to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Peter Dunev follows:]
166
STATEMENT
OF
PETER DUNEV
CONCERNING EFFORTS
TO ACQUIRE A LICENCE FROM THE
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS LICENSING GROUP
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CENSUS AND POPULATION
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 20, 1991
167
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am hear today, at your request, to discuss my efforts to obtain
a license to use the logo of the Christopher Columbus
Quincentenary Jubilee Commission (the Commission) on various
articles of clothing. I live in Florida, where I am engaged in
various business ventures. Prior to moving to Florida, I was, an
executive with a national stock brokerage firm, and in recent
years I was responsible for trading energy related products.
In July of 1990, my colleague, Luis Uriarte, and I obtained an
exclusive license from the Christopher Columbus Licensing Group
(CCLG) to use the Commission Logo on knit tops, such as tee-
shirts, polo shirts, and sweat shirts, to be sold during the
celebration of the quincentenary of the discovery of America in
1492 by Christopher Columbus.
I met John Goudie, the Commission's former Chairman, through my
wife, who used to take my son to a pre-school that was operated
by Mr. Goudie's wife, Connie. On May 5th, 1990, my wife and I
went to a Shakespearean Festival in Coral Gables and by chance
happened to meet Mr. and Mrs. Goudie. During the course of the
conversation, Mr. Goudie told me about the Commission's plans and
activities. I was enthusiastic and told him what a fabulous
cultural event this would be. For the rest af the evening, Mr.
Goudie told my wife and me all about the grandiose plans he had
1,
168
for the celebration. At the end of the evening, I mentioned that
he should let my company--I had a company that manufactured
sports clothing--make his tee-shirts. He said that they had
somebody already doing that out of New York.
A few days later, Mr Goudie called me and told me that if I was
still interested "in doing the tee-shirts" he might be able to do
something. He said that he would much rather work with me
because we understood each other. I speak Spanish fluently, and
I was born in Spain while my father was in the U.S. Foreign
Service. He also said that if I could match the offer from the
people in New York he would see that I got the deal. We then got
together at my house and discussed the celebration and who was
involved with it. He then told me about CCLG. Mr. Goudie said
it was composed of three people, Manny Gonzalez, his best friend
who lives in Miami; a German by the name of Gunther Pfitzenmeier,
and Mr. Pfitzenmeier's friend Dominic Primato, both from New
York. He said that Mr. Gonzalez "really runs the operation out
of Miami." Mr. Goudie stated that it would be no problem getting
me the contract because he controlled CCLG. One of the ways he
did this was that he had to personally approve any and all
contracts that CCLG got, and he did not want to approve the tee-
shirt contract with the people in New York. He said the people
in New York were "a big headache" and he did not like them.
2
169
During May and June 1990, Mr. Goudie and I met a number of times
to discuss the license and what the Commission was planning to do
to help market the event. It was during the latter part of May,
1990 that my associate, Mr. Luis Uriarte, met Mr. Goudie. Mr.
Goudie told us he had met Mr. Gunther Pfitzenmeier on an
airplane returning from Europe. Mr. Pfitzenmeier had told Mr.
Goudie he was involved with real estate and wanted to do things
in Florida. Mr. Goudie then arranged to have Mr. Pfitzenmeier
meet his friend Mr. Gonzalez who was also involved in real
estate in Florida. Mr. Goudie said that soon after, Mr.
Pfitzenmeier and Mr. Gonzalez called Mr. Goudie with a proposal
to get the master license for the logo of the event. Mr. Goudie
said that advance royalties of $300,000 would have to be paid.
Mr. Pfitzenmeier agreed and the group got the license. Later,
when I asked Mr. Gonzalez how much money he put into the deal, he
said "nothing, I didn't put in any money because I put the deal
together."
I asked Mr. Goudie if he saw a problem with having Manny
Gonzalez, his best friend associated with CCLG and having the
potential to make a fortune. Mr. Goudie responded that since the
Commission was not getting a lot of money from the Government,
they had to raise private funds. Since Mr. Gonzalez's group was
the only one to put up any cash, he saw no conflict of interest.
I then told him that if everybody was happy and made money it
3
170
would probably be okay, but if there was a problem, it was going
to be scrutinized very, very closely. He said he had it all
under control.
Mr. Uriarte, Mr. Goudie, and I met one Friday afternoon in late.
May to further discuss the celebration. At this meeting, he told
us he couldn't make us members of the "National Commission," as
the members could not profit from the event. Instead, he said,
I will be very happy to immediately get you into the Miami
Commission which does not have that restriction. He said all he
had to do was make a phone call to the Miami Commission and it
was as good as done. He said that by Monday, we would be
Commissioners in the Miami Organization, because he controlled
that Organization as well. This of course never happened. Four
or five times we reminded him, and he said he would do it right
away. When at the end, Mr. Uriarte met with the Miami group,
they laughed at the idea that Mr. Goudie controlled them. In
fact, they said that if the caravels didn't arrive on time, they
would miss the event and Mr. Goudie would have to totally
reorganize the celebration by himself. That the idea that they
were going to have to pay $2,000,000 for the visit of the
caravels was ludicrous, since they didn't have that kind of money
and the Commission needed Miami more than they needed the
Commission.
4
171
Mr. Goudie told us that the group from New York had signed a
$1,000,000 contract with a $100,000 advance royalty payment.
Mr. Goudie said there was no way that he could give us the deal
for less as it would look like favoritism. I had to match the
New York offer.
We had at least a dozen meetings in various locations--Mr.
Goudie's home, my home, my boat, and various restaurants to
discuss the contract. During these meetings, Mr. Goudie talked
about the potential of the celebration. The whole event centered
around the replicas of a three-ship caravel that Columbus sailed
to the new world. Mr. Goudie proudly showed us the pictures of
himself with prominent people. This appeared to be a way of
establishing his credibility.
The three-ship caravel was being built by the Spanish. The ships
were going to cruise to 52 port cities over a two-year period,
starting in August of 1991 and ending in October of 1993. Mr.
Goudie said he was charging up to two million dollars per city
for the right to have the ships come to each port. After this,
the caravel would be going to Japan and wescould sell our shirts
there as well as Mr. Goudie said he had some very powerful
contacts there. Mr. Goudie gave me an itinerary for the ships.
After looking it over, I noticed that the dates he told me the
5
172
caravel would be here, they were scheduled to be in Europe as
well. When I queried him, he told me that they were building two
sets of caravels. One to sail here and one to stay in Europe.
Mr. Goudie compared the Columbus celebration to the Statue of
Liberty celebration, the Bi-Centennial, and Superbowl weekends.
He told me that for the 1990 Superbowl Sunday event, 8 million
tee-shirts were sold. He also pointed out a story in the
Miami Herald, that worldwide sales of licensed products for
the Soccer World Cup held in the summer of 1990 could reach
$1 billion. Mr. Goudie stated that at least 40% of the products
sold at these events are tee-shirts. Mr. Goudie told us that he
thought sales could conservatively reach $500 million. He told
us that we would have the only tee-shirt there, and that anybody
connected, or in any way involved with the celebration could only
buy their tee-shirts from us. That included Texaco, a corporate
sponsor of the caravels, who was planning to have a very visible
campaign and would need many shirts as give-aways at gas stations
around the country and at all the port cities. He said that he
had spoken to Texaco about this and they told him that they were
going to need many tee-shirts for their publicity. Mr. Goudie
told us that Texaco had put up $5 million to be one of the
corporate sponsors, and that he was presently talking to Chrysler
and Pepsi Cola and some others that he expected to reach
agreement with very soon.
6
173
One day Mr. Goudie asked me to come to his house to talk about
this project and he showed me a video that Texaco had made for
airing in Boston when the caravels arrived there. I then called
Mr. Uriarte and asked him to come over to look at the video. At
that time Mr. Goudie told us we would be able to sell tee-shirts
in Europe right away and he would put us in touch with his
friends that were running the Spanish sites. He also told us
that we could start to sell on Spanish home shopping cable
television networks immediately as the owner was his good friend.
During one of the meetings to discuss the contract, I pointed out
that I did not like the personal guarantee or bank guarantee for
$1 million that the contract required prior to the completion of
the caravel tour. The potential of a storm sinking the caravels
concerned me. Mr. Goudie said not to worry about the guarantee,
he would see to it that the contract would be approved by the
Group without it. When I hesitated, he told me that he could
rescind CCLG's contract if the Group gave him any trouble. He
also said that the Italian Government had donated the use of one
of those large ships used to transport smaller ships inside them.
This large ship was to follow the caravels in case of threatening
storms, and to take them from coast to coast. He said that this
was an insurance requirement.
7
174
During early July 1990, Mr. Uriarte met with Mr. Gonzalez to
propose an installment plan for payment of the 100,000 advance
royalty. However, Mr. Gonzalez rejected it. I then spoke to
Mr. Goudie and we worked out a plan whereby my company, Theta
Marketing Corp, would pay 4 equal monthly installments of
$25,000 each beginning in July 1990. The balance of the
guaranteed royalties ($900,000) would be paid in $75,000
increments beginning at the end of 1992 after the Caravels had
arrived and the event had started. We structured it like this to
address my concern about the viability of the carávels doing
their tour. The contract states that if any material part of the
tour does not take place, the contract would be null and void.
When we again met with Mr. Gonzalez he had no problem with our
proposed payment schedule. The agreement called for CCLG to
receive 10% of Theta's gross sales.
Mr. Goudie put pressure on us to close right away because he told
us that he was going to Santo Domingo with some children for the
Columbus Scholarship Fund and he needed some tee-shirts to take
with him. He said. that he was leaving around the 20th of July
and he had to sign either us or the group from New York
immediately. When I asked him for the name of the New York
group, he would not give it to us. The contract was eventually
signed on July 12th 1990. After signing, we made about six dozen
8
175
tee-shirts with the logo for him to take to Santo Domingo.
Mr. Gonzalez came to the office on July 25 to pick up the
tee-shirts.
In a conversation I had with Mr. Gonzalez at that time he told me
that CCLG was going to "make out like a bandit" because the Group
only had to pay the Commission 15% of its gross revenues
according to their contract. Since Theta was obligated to pay
to the Group only 10% of our gross sales, this amounted to only
1.5% of our gross sales going to the Commission. It did not seem
like much and when I pointed this out to Mr. Goudie he told me
again about CCLG being the only party that was willing to put up
any front capital. He had spoken to various other licensing
groups and none of them had been willing to put up any front
money. Mr. Goudie said there would be a lot of money available
once the celebration began, but he needed cash up front.
Mr. Gonzalez was in a hurry to get the contract signed so he came
to our office to pick it up and also to pick up the $25,000
check. He said he was going to hand deliver it to Mr.
Pfitzenmeier who was in Boca Raton at the time. He told us that
Mr. Pfitzenmeier was in fact the President and would be signing
the contract and that he would return the signed copy the
following day. In an earlier meeting, Mr. Goudie implied that
Mr. Gonzalez was the President and we wrote letters to Mr.
Gonzalez addressed as President of CCLG. He never corrected our
9
176
impression. The next day Mr. Gonzalez returned the signed
contract with Mr. Pfitzenmeier's name on it.
After the contract was signed, we attempted many times to get
from Mr. Goudie the names of the contact people at the various
groups that were involved with the project, such as Texaco, Pepsi
Cola, and the different cities, so we could introduce ourselves
and get started. He had earlier told us that he would give us
all the names and personally make many of the introductions. We
wanted to meet with Texaco as we thought that they would be key
players, but Mr. Goudie kept evading us on that issue.
After we made the first installment payment, Mr. Goudie became
progressively harder to reach. We then asked Mr. Gonzalez who
would be doing the selling on the port sites, and he said that
they had not decided. When I asked Mr. Goudie the same question,
he told me a group from Ohio would be doing it. I then had Mr.
Uriarte go back to Mr. Gonzalez and ask him who was the group
from Ohio and he said that they were minority shareholders of
CCLG, but were not very involved and not to worry about them.
Mr. Gonzalez said he would entertain any offers to run the events
at the ports.
When queried further, Mr. Gonzalez told us that CCLG had four
shareholders each owning 25%, Mr. Pfitzenmeier, Mr. Primato, the
Ohio group, and Mr. Gonzalez. When I called Mr. Goudie to
10
177
clarify, he told me that there were only three shareholders, with
Mr. Gonzalez having 33% of the stock. I was never able to get
this clarified and red flags started to go up. I then asked Mr.
Gonzalez for the CCLG corporate documents and eventually in mid.
August of 1990 received only a permit showing that CCLG could do
business in Florida and a copy of an amended Corporate Resolution
for a Florida bank account.
One day at a meeting in Mr. Goudie's office he suggested to us
that I should buy CCLG. He told us that he was having problems
with Mr. Pfitzenmeier and Mr. Primato because they would not fire
somebody that Mr. Goudie didn't like. I found out later it was
Edgar Mooney. Mr. Goudie showed us a letter where he threatened
to terminate CCLG because of this. I asked him how much was
needed to buy CCLG. Mr. Goudie told me that it could be bought
for about $1.5 to $2 million but that Mr. Gonzalez would stay as
part of the new group with 25% of the stock. Later, Mr. Uriarte
asked Mr. Gonzalez and he told him that it would cost $5 million
to buy CCLG. Mr. Goudie brought up the issue of my buying out
CCLG on a number of occasions. In one case, about 12 noon on
July 26, 1990, Mr. Gonzalez called Mr. Uriarte and told him that
Mr. Goudie wanted to have lunch with Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Uriarte
and myself in one hour at the Malaga Restaurant, located at 740
SW 8th Street in Miami, where we had previously had lunch
together. The four of us discussed the progress of the event and,
when Mr. Gonzalez went to the bathroom, Mr. Goudie asked me again
11
178
to buy out the CCLG. I declined, saying that I did not have the
money available at the present. The luncheon adjourned without
anything else being covered. Mr. Uriarte and I thought it odd
that nothing else had been brought up and that Mr. Goudie had
waited for Mr. Gonzalez to leave the table before he brought up
the subject of the buy-out.
We called a number of State, City and Local Columbus Commissions
and found they either had little interest in th: Commission and
it's projects or they had their own logo and were planning to
market it on their own. In some cases they had already had run-
ins with Mr. Goudie and the Commission. Mr. Goudie had assured
us that the coordinators of the large events that were taking
place during elebrations, such as Ameriflora, and The
Smithsonian Quincentenary Programs, would work with us. When we
contacted them and introduced ourselves, they did not know that
they were required to buy shirts only from us. They had their
own plans already. We asked Mr. Goudie about this inconsistency
and explained our concern about differences in the magnitude of
the celebration that he had portrayed earlier. Mr. Goudie told
us not to worry. He said we would sell our tee-shirts at all the
events because everybody would want the official logo of the
Commission and all the others would not be as valuable, since the
corporate sponsors would be advertising only the official logo.
12
179
We asked Mr. Gonzalez for a list of the sub-licensees and he
would not provide it. We then went to Mr. Goudie and asked for
the same list and he begged off saying that he was having a
problem with Texaco, but not to worry because our items would be
sold at all events.
The second $25,000 installment was also given to Mr. Gonzalez--
but both checks were endorsed by Mr. Pfitzenmeier. A situation
connected with the second payment occurred that made me think I
had made a serious mistake.
For two or three days before the second payment was due, on
August 13, 1990, I tried to get in contact with Mr. Goudie to
clear up some areas of concern. I was told that he was out of
the country by his staff in Washington. On the day the payment
was due, the 13th, Mr. Gonzalez came to my office to pick up the
check. I reluctantly signed the check and left the office,
leaving Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Uriarte talking in the office.
After leaving the office, I stopped by a cafeteria that was at:
the end of the street around the corner. from the office. Because
of the way the street runs, it is very difficult for anybody who
does not work on that little street to know about the cafeteria
or to find it. When I walked in, I found Mr. Goudie sitting at
the counter talking on a portable phone. I sat next to him. He
13
180
pretended not to see me for a minute or two and then finally put
the phone down. I said to him "John, you were supposed to be in
Santo Domingo, I've been trying to reach you all week.' He said,
"I am going now, Manny is going to take me to the airport." By
the way, we were three blocks form the airport. I told him I
just left Mr. Gonzalez at my office and he said, yes I'm waiting
for him here to take me to the airport. I then said I would talk
to him when he returned and I left. I immediately called the
office and told Mr. Uriarte the story and asked him not to give
Mr. Gonzalez the check but he told me Mr. Gonzalez had already
left with it. We then met at my house to try to understand what
was happening and got in touch with both Mr. Goudie and Mr.
Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez said that he thought it would look bad if
Mr. Goudie was there to pick up the check. I asked him why Mr.
Goudie did not wait in the car? I wondered what they were trying
to hide, after all, we had net numercus times together and this
really looked odd to ne. What were they trying to hide?
After this we scrutinized the project very closely. We knew we
had 30 days before the next payment was due, and perhaps the
situation would clarify itself by then. When the September
payment date came due, we had even more concerns, and were trying
to decide if we wanted to be associated in any way with this
venture. We decided to try to stay in and either get our mcney
back or see that the problems were resolved. I had discussed
with Mr. Goudie earlier the possibility of reselling our license
14
181
or sublicensing it. He told us that it would be worth much more
after the launching of the caravels in August of 1990. He was
planning a large media campaign starting in Spain in August. He
said he was planning to take 35 or 40 journalists to Spain for
the launching. That never happened. Now in the new light we
realized our contract was not worth the $1,000,000, and we would
never be able to get out. We also knew that CCLG was broke.
What I did not want to do, was put in more good money after bad.
We now knew we had been taken.
On September 14, 1990, two days after the 3rd installment payment
was due, I called Mr. Gorzalez to have him meet in our office in
an effort to resolve our concerns. He arrived shortly
thereafter. While I was trying to explain to him the problem,
his portable phone rang and he said, "No, he hasn't given it to
me, yet He seems to think there is a problem no, I don't
think so " Then he turned to, me and said, "John wants to talk
to you" and handed me the phone. When I picked up the phone, Mr.
Goudie said to me, "what's going on?" I told Mr. Goudie that we
seemed to have a problem in communication and that some of the
things that he told us were not appearing to be true. He said to
me that I had the problem, not him, and that if I was going to be
a player, I had to put up another $25,000 or get out. I told him
that the problem was with things that he had told us. He then
told me that if I caused any problems he would see to it that I
got into trouble. He said "I am the Justice Department" and I
15
182
could have you ruined. He ranted and raved for a few minutes and
I quietly hung up the phone. Mr. Gonzalez said that Mr. Goudie
was having a very bad day, had had a very difficult meeting and
he was sorry and that he was sure Mr. Goudie would call me over
the weekend to apologize. I said we would talk on Monday and Mr.
Gonzalez left without the $25,000 payment.
On September 17, 1990, I got a letter from Mr. Pfitzenmeier
saying that since the September payment was not made, we were in
default. I asked Mr. Uriarte who had a fairly good relationship
with Mr. Gonzalez to call him and see if we could extend our
deadline for payment to try to work out a way to stay in without
paying any more up front. On October 10th we received a letter
on CCLG stationary signed by Mr. Gonzalez stating that on advice
of counsel they would not extend our deadline. Later that same
day we received a fax from Mr. Pfitzenmeier stating that our
contract was terminated. I then had a lawyer write them a letter
stating that I did not consider the matter closed and felt that
there was a breach of contract on their part and still
considered that we had the license until this matter was resolved
pending further investigation.
Later in the course of my inquiries I called Texaco and attempted
to talk to the person in charge of the project to determine if
anything that Mr. Goudie said was true. I was told that the
person in charge would be out for two weeks. I left a message
16
183
that I was having a problem with something that Mr. Goudie had
told me about Texaco, and would like to talk to somebody about
their involvement in the celebration. Ten or fifteen minutes
later I received a call from a woman. She first told me she was
with Texaco and wanted to know what problems I had. I started to
tell her when I realized that she was not with Texaco. She told
me she had her own firm and was a coordinator between Texaco and
the Commission. She did tell me, however, that Texaco would be
doing its promotion through its gas stations and did not have any
intention of buying tee-shirts. I thanked her and hung up.
A few minutes later, Mr. Goudie called. He sounded hysterical.
He again told me that he was the Justice Department and he could
have me arrested for obstructing Government business. He said
that in a day or two the agents would be in Miami to "take care
of me." He then ranted for a few minutes about his importance.
That was the last time I spoke to Mr. Goudie. The next day Mr.
Goudie called Mr. Uriarte and complained to him about me,
telling him of his being the Justice Department and going to
have me arrested for obstruction of Government business.
Nothing however happened as a result of Mr. Goudie's threats. In
November, I mentioned our situation to an FBI agent I knew in
the FBI in Miami, and he had me meet the agent in charge of this
type of activity. I told them what I have stated here today and
they said they would look into it.
17
184
My partner and I felt that time was of the essence and in order
to still have a good celebration we had to resolve the problems
right away. We had been talking to various reporters and
exchanging information with them. One reporter had been
following the story for two years. The New York Times broke the
story nationally and Mr. Goudie resigned in December 1990.
I met Mr. Tony Baltes from Toledo, Ohio in late September 1990
and we started to compare notes. I realized that mine was not an
isolated incident. We asked for and got a meeting with the new
Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Frank Donnatelli. Mr. Baltes,
and his lawyer, other related parties, and I went to meet with
Mr. Donnatelli and his assistant, Jim Kuhn in Alexandria, and we
told them our stories. They said they would look into it and get
back to us.
It appears obvious to me that very little if anything has been
done to change the way that CCLG does business. The celebration,
if it takes place, has been reduced to a very small part of the
original plan that I had been led to believe by the former
Chairman of the Commission, John Goudie.
This concludes my prepared statement. I am available to respond
to any questions.
18
185
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunev.
John Goudie told you that Manny Gonzalez was one of the three
people who comprised the Christopher Columbus Licensing Group:
He told you that Mr. Gonzalez ran the operation out of Miami.
Mr. Gonzalez testified before this subcommittee that he was not
a representative, a stockholder, an office-holder, an agent of the Li-
censing Group except for his stated contract finder's fee.
Let me engage in a little understatement. Clearly. your under-
standing of Mr. Gonzalez' role conflicts with his testimony.
Mr. DUNEV. Quite correct, sir. yes.
Mr. SAWYER: Are you certain it was John Goudie that told you
Mr. Gonzalez was an integral part of the Licensing Group?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAWYER. Are you sure he told you Mr. Pfitzenmeier and Mr.
Gonzalez put together the Licensing Group?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. It was your understanding Mr. Gonzalez was the
President of the Licensing Group?
Mr. DUNEV. At the beginning, yes. sir.
Mr. SAWYER: You wrote letters addressed to him using that term
of address?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAWYER: You testified that he never did anything to correct
that impression?
Mr. DUNEV. Correct.
Mr. SAWYER. Was it Mr. Gonzalez who told you he owned 25 per-
cent of the Licensing Group?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAWYER. Did Mr. Goudie confirm that Mr. Gonzalez owned
stock in the Licensing Group?
Mr. DUNEV: Yes, sir. He confirmed he owned stock. He did say.
however, that he owned 33 percent.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Gonzalez testified before this committee that he
had lunch 1 day in July 1990 with you and Mr. Uriarte and Mr.
Goudie in a Miami restaurant; and that his testimony under oath
was that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss real estate busi-
ness and no activities relating to the Licensing Group or the T-
shirt proposal was discussed,
Tell us about this discussion about real estate büsiness.
Mr. DUNEV. I was in the clothing business at the time, and they
were in the licensing business. We had nothing to do with real
estate.
The purpose of this meeting-and I recall when he called the
office to set up the meeting, he spoke with my secretary and told
her what we wanted to talk about. and it was not real estate.
Mr. SAWYER. It is your exact recollection that you discussed Li-
censing Group activities and the T-shirt sublicense on that occa-
sion?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes. Also what the Commission's success was at the
time in trying to raise other sponsors, and things of that nature.
Mr. SAWYER. Is it also your recollection that Mr. Gonzalez in fact
has never discussed real estate in association with Mr. Pfitzen-
meier-ever discussed that with you?
186
Mr. DUNEV. No, Mr. Gonzalez has never: However, when Mr.
Goudie told me about Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Pfitzenmeier's propos-
al and how they had met on the 1st day, he stated Mr. Pfitzen-
meier said he was in the real estate business, and wanted to do
things in Florida, and he should meet my friend Manny Gonzalez,
who is also in real estate.
That is theoretically how they met.
Mr. SAWYER. In theory, it was discussed but it was never a topic
of discussion?
Mr. DUNEV. Not with me.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Gonzalez testified before this subcommittee
that he never discussed your proposal for a T-shirt sublicense with
John Goudie. Is it your opinion that statement by Mr. Gonzalez is
true or false?
Mr. DUNEV. He said he never did discuss this with John Goudie?
Mr. SAWYER. That is correct. That was the substance of his testi-
mony.
Mr. DUNEV. The first time we met Mr. Gonzalez, it was with Mr.
Goudie. And we all sat around and discussed this. That was the
purpose of the meeting.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me go to another topic. When you initially had
your conversations with Mr. Goudie about the potential for all this
help for someone who is in the T-shirt business, he was already
under contract with alcompany in New York, and in fact had a $1
million exclusive contract to make clothing articles; is that correct?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Just to clarify your previous statement, did Mr.
Goudie tell you that this company had already signed the contract
for an exclusive T-shirt sublicense and had paid $100,000 advance
royalty?
Mr. DUNEV. Yes, and no. He said he had the contract signed, but
he didn't tell me he had received the funds. It was my understand-
ing John Goudie had to approve the contract, and upon the approv-
al of the contract, they would pay him $100,000. and he did not
want to approve the contract.
Mr. SAWYER. You testified that by September of last year. you
knew the Licensing Group was broke. On what basis did you draw
that conclusion?
Mr. DUNEV. A number of things: First of all. the way they had
been approaching us for the money with the urgency caused us to
believe they were in serious need for money.
Then. about that same time, I talked to Mr. Tony Baltes from
Ohio. We started comparing notes. Oncé I saw this. I realized we
were in trouble.
Mr. SAWYER. You testified that John Goudie toid you several
times that he was associated with the Justice Department-I think
your phrase was he was the Justice Department.
Mr. DUNEV. Yes, sir.
Mr. SAWYER. And that he could ruin you. Did he ever say specifi-
cally what his connection was with the Justice Department?
Mr. DUNEV. No, sir. he did not. He was the Justice Department.
Mr. SAWYER. Can you tell us whether or not you took those
threats seriously?
187
Mr. DUNEV. The first time I did. I called my lawyer and my
lawyer made me relax a little bit. But after that, I realized it was
just ranting and raying more than anything.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me tell you that the story you have told, not
unlike several of the others that we have heard today, is very, very
disheartening.
Can you give us any sense of how much you m.ay have lost-per-
sonal loss in all of this?
Mr. DUNEV. We have two types of loss. We have monetary loss
and other types of loss. Monetary, probably lost about $70,000. But
it is the sense of betrayal and all the other types of loss, and the
fear this put into us.
As Mr. Baltes said, talking to people who had been hurt by this
celebration, that made us want to pursue this and get this thing
clarified.
I also appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to rectify all
this.
I thought I-so you gentlemen know what we are talking about,
this is one of the T-shirts I made and presented to Mr. Goudie, and
present it to the subcommittee.
Mr. SAWYER. I want you to know there are no expectations in
return for the gift of the T-shirts. Is there anything else you would
like to add at this point?
For my own part, I would like to tell you how much this subcom-
mittee appreciates your willingness to come forward.
Frankly, it can't be easy to come forward and talk about the
kind of transactions that took place and the mounting evidence
that you face this kind of loss.
It is with real gratitude I tell you that we appreciate your will-
ingness to do that.
Mr. DUNEV. One of the things. if I may say, as we started looking
into there, and we started seeing red flags pop up. had this not
been a Presidential appointment. and with the significance it had,
it would have been scrutinized very closely. and it would never be
done.
Mr. SAWYER. It would be your impression that certainly there
would have been scrutiny brought to that kind of appointment?
Mr. DUNEV. The point I was at. i said obviously. this has been
taken care of. This man is legitimate. He was given the benefit of
the doubt repeatedly until the point. one day, we said we can no
longer give the benefit of the doubt. There is something major
wrong here.
I know the committee will try to avoid this thing happening in
the future. I think that has happened to a lot of people. Because it
was John Goudie. the Chairman of the Commission. and because
CLLG was the official licensee of a government entity, they would
have been scrutinized as well. That is what was surprising to us.
That is probably why it went as far as it did.
Mr. SAWYER. If there was any concession in this that I would like
to have had. would be the red flag concession because they certain-
Iv appear to be everywhere.
Thank you very much for your testimonv today.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me finally call Robert Coy to come forward:
Thank you for being with us today. Mr. Coy.
188
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Cor. I do.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. Feel free to proceed as you will.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT COY
Mr. Cor. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Robert Coy,
and I am here at your request today to tell you about my experi-
ences with Mr. John Goudie, former Chairman of the Christopher
Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Commission.
I have already provided details of my experience to members of
your staff. as well as the staff of the Office of Special Investiga-
tions, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the circumstances
at this public proceeding today.
I presently reside in south Florida. and am engaged in the pro-
duction and sale of silk screen printing on articles of clothing, par-
ticularly T-shirts.
As a result of business contacts. I met a man named Randy
Heiman during the latter part of 1988. [ produced a large number
of concert tour T-shirts that Mr. Heiman marketed around the
country.
Mr. Heiman and I have remained friends and associates to this
day. During the late summer of 1990, Mr. Heiman told me of an
opportunity to secure a license for the Christopher Columbus 500th
anniversary. He had the marketing skill, I had the screen printing
production skill, but a source of capital investment was missing.
Mr. Heiman contacted Mr. Peter Santiago and learned of an op-
portunity to purchase exclusive rights to the merchandising of tex-
tile products: Hats. banners, shorts. T-shirts and so on, bearing the
official Columbus celebration. logo. As Mr. Heiman explained it to
me. he was given the name of Peter Santiago by his employers.
Gloria and Emilo Estavan.
When Mr. Heiman contacted me. he asked whether I would be
interested and whether I had any contacts for a source of capital. I
contacted a person named Mr. Jeffrey Stern. who I had worked for
in the past. For several years. he sublicensed to me the production
of several designs that were imprinted on the T-shirts that he had
manufactured in textile factories in Miami, Jamaica, and Guatema-
la City. I knew Mr. Stern as a businessman capable of investing the
several hundreds of thousand dollars that Mr. Heiman indicated
was needed for the quincentenary deal.
After several telephone conversations among Mr. Heiman, Mr.
Stern, and myself. we agreed to meet Mr. Santiago in order to
obtain a detailed presentation of the celebration. the licensing deal.
and the potential for marketing products with the quincentenary
logo.
We agreed to meet with Mr. Santiago at his place in Coconut
Grove, FL. early in November 1990. Mr. Stern and I arrived togeth-
er and met Mr. Heiman at the location. The located turned out to
be the apartment of Peter Santiago. located at a complex called
Grove Isle. We drove through a security gate. parked Mr. Stern's
Mercedes vehicle and entered the lobby of the building, where we
were greeted by the doorman. Mr. Stern provided his name. The
meeting had been called for 7 p.m., and we arrived fashionably
189
late, toward 8 p.m. We took the elevator to the appropriate floor.
We were let in to an apartment which I believe was Mr. Santiago's
residence.
I recall meeting Mr. Santiago, a husky, dark-haired man, and an-
other distinguished-looking gentleman with very light hair. He was
introduced as John Goudie. As the evening wore on, it became
clear that Mr. Goudie was the Chairman of the Quincentenary. We
all viewed a videotape that showed the Texaco Co. as a sponsor of
certain festivities. There were scenes of Mr. Goudie with Spanish
royalty also on the tape.
We were shown blueprints of a flotilla concept I believe drafted
by a company from North Carolina. Mr. Goudie talked about 28
cities, I believe, that were to be visited by a flotilla of barges. I
recall, for example, that New Orleans was to be visited during
Mardi Gras celebrations. I recall also that New York, San Francis-
co, and Miami were also mentioned.
Mr. Santiago said he had purchased for the amounts of $300,000
the rights to license the Columbus logo on clothing items sold at
festivity sites. Mr. Santiago never actually indicated he had paid
Mr. Goudie the money for the licensing agreement. However, Mr.
Goudie did indicate that as head of the Commission, he had full
power to contract the licensing and that the Commission had
indeed sold the licensing rights to Peter Santiago. Mr. Goudie defi-
nitely said that a license was sold to Peter Santiago, that Mr. San-
tiago bought the license, and Mr. Santiago was in full control of all
possible sales in this regard.
In fact, they showed us a document of 8 to 10 pages that was a
licensing agreement. I read the document to make sure that no one
else would be allowed to sell shirts bearing the symbols with the
Christopher Columbus 500th anniversary.
I was also concerned about other vendors selling unlicensed
goods. I believe that Peter Santiago's name was at the end of the
contract, along with someone else's name.
Mr. SAWYER. I am sorry. I simply couldn't hear you. You were
speaking faster than I could hear.
Mr. Cor. Where did I lose lose you?
Mr. SAWYER. A couple sentences.
Mr. Cor. I will start back at the top of the paragraph.
In fact; they showed us a document of 8 to 10 pages that was a
licensing agreement. I read the document to make sure that no one
else would be allowed to sell shirts bearing the symbols with the
Christopher Columbus 500th anniversary.
I was also concerned about other vendors selling unlicensed
goods. I believe that Peter Santiago's name was at the end of the
contract. along with someone else's name.
The other name was more of a scribble than a name. The reason
we were reading the document was because they were going to give
us a contract similar to that one, like a changeover contract from
Mr: Santiago to us.
Mr. Santiago. in John Goudie's presence. wanted us to buy the
exclusive rights to license the logo on the textile goods: that is. all
articles of ciothing, in both North and South America. In fact. we
would also be able to sublicense for a fee any of the types of cloth-
ing that we did not make or have access to. like hats or jackets.
55-308 O 92 - 7
190
Mr. Santiago did almost all of the talking regarding the price we
were to pay. But we felt uncomfortable about being pressed to
make a rapid decision-to basically come up with $300,000 in 48
hours.
I want to emphasize that Mr. Goudie did state that Mr. Santiago
bought the original exclusive license; that Mr. Santiago was the
sole owner of it; and that we could buy it from Mr. Santiago. But I
specifically recall that Mr. Goudie had every opportunity to deny
and to correct Mr. Santiago's representations.
But Mr. Goudie did no such thing. In fact, Mr. Goudie's presence
added credibility and authority to the things being said by Mr. San-
tiago to Mr. Heiman, Mr. Stern and myself.
I want to mention an ironic incident regarding our seeing the
quincentenary logo that evening. A gentleman named Jose Diaz
from Miami came to me and asked me to reproduce the logo as a
screen print for T-shirts. I produced about 30 or 40 dozen shirts
that I believed were used for promotional activities going on in
South America. We all discussed the incident, and had a laugh
about the coincidence.
Mr. Goudie and Peter Santiago immediately recognized the name
Jose Diaz when I mentioned it; they replied that Mr. Diaz had gone
out of business, and that was why he no longer carried the license.
What also struck me as odd was that in our negotiations about
the $300,000 as well as the percentage split, Mr. Santiago did not
appear to be really concerned about the $300,000, as though it was
not really his to be concerned about. It struck me that Mr. San-
tiago was just a front man.
Mr. Santiago originally insisted that we would be joint licensees
with him. and therefore split the net 50-50. We countered back and
forth on the split. The indication that this thing was a scam was
how quickly he was able to change. Mr. Santiago and Mr. Goudie
were talking about sales being in the millions of dollars in net prof-
its; somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million net. I asked Mr.
Santiago what made him believe that we wanted to give him $10
million for doing absolutely nothing but signing this piece of paper
over to us. He replied something about desiring to make money.
I asked him if $1 million was enough money for him. He said he
thought so. I pointed out that $1 million was only 5 percent of his
projected net sales.
I asked him whether he had doubts about his projections. We
went back and forth like that, and he agreed that probably a $1
million cap would be sufficient. We were somewhere between 5 and
20 percent for Mr. Santiago. after the payment of $300,000. assum-
ing the sales were at the projected figures.
The thing that was most disturbing was the hustle they put on
us for our response. They referred to a woman who had the license
for the Statue of Liberty's 200th anniversary. Both Mr. Santiago
and Mr. Goudie said she really wanted this license. In a subsequent
telephone call the next day, we requested more specifics about the
building of the flotilla; the barges being built in the Carolinas. Mr.
Stern and I wanted to see the construction.
We wanted more time to consider the potential as well as the le-
gitimacy of the activities. Mr. Santiago got angry. He made accusa-
tions that we were just jerking him around. He said that there
191
were others waiting in the wings to take our place. He became abu-
sive in his language: That was the last time either I or Mr. Stern
talked with Mr. Santiago. We never spoke with or met with Mr.
Goudie after that November meeting.
Sometime after, I think in December 1990, we began reading
newspaper articles about the problems of former Chairman Goudie.
We were happy and relieved that we had not participated in the
licensing deal, that we had not lost any money or time pursing it
further. We were also very angry about being scammed. I even
called the Miami Herald newspaper to tell our story to the journal-
ist that wrote the article.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludès my statement. I
would be pleased to answer any questions you or the members
might have.
Mr. SAWYER. Well, thank you very much. You are a very fortu-
nate fellow. Did you know Peter Santiago before Randy Heiman
called you to discuss any of this?
Mr. Coy. No, I had never met him prior to the meeting.
Mr. SAWYER. Had you ever heard of him?
Mr. Coy. No, not at all.
Mr. W.YER. Did Randy Heiman say how Mr. Santiago was con-
nected to the Commission?
Mr. Coy, No, he said he met him because of Emilo Estavan. They
were some kind of neighbors.
Mr. SAWYER. When you met with Mr. Heiman. did he tell you
the relationship with Mr. Santiago?
Mr. Coy. No, he was the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. SAWYER. Did he ever mention Mr. Santiago was the best per-
sonal friend of Mr. Goudie's brother?
Mr. Coy. No, he did not.
Mr. SAWYER. He didn't mention that.
Mr. SAWYER. You testified John Goudie had made it clear that
the Commission which he chaired had sold the licensing rights for
the logo to Peter Santiago.
Mr. Coy. That is correct.
Mr. SAWYER. Was it your understanding Mr. Santiago's contract
gave him the exclusive right to market clothing and other kind of
textile products?
Mr. Coy. Exclusive was very important. Without it, we wanted
nothing to dc with it. There was no marketing strategy unless we
could be the only ones allowed to sell the merchandise.
Mr. SAWYER. Was it specifically Mr. Goudie who said this?
Mr. Coy: In the very beginning. yes. Later on in the meeting, Mr.
Goudie had kind of wandered from room to room when most of the
negotiations were going on. He was only there in the beginning,
when we viewed the tape. and to add legitimacy of Peter being the
owner of the licensing.
Mr. SAWYER. Did Mr. Goudie ever tell you another company may
have had exclusive rights to the products with the Commission's
logo?
Mr. Coy. No. he did not.
Mr. SAWYER: Did he ever mention the Licensing Group. the
CCLG, the Christopher Columbus Grue ). the Group
Mr. Coy. Not to us.
192
Mr. SAWYER. Did Mr. Santiago ever mention them?
Mr. Coy. No, he did not.
Mr. SAWYER. Prior to this investigation, had you ever heard of
the Licensing Group?
Mr. Cor. No, I had not.
Mr. SAWYER. Did you know at the time of your meeting with Mr.
Santiago and Mr. Goudie that the Licensing Group had already
had a contract with the Commission for the exclusive right to
market all products, including clothing products?
Mr. Coy. Again, if we had known such a thing we would never
have had this meeting in the first place.
Mr. SAWYER. You testified Mr. Santiago didn't appear to have
much personal interest in the $300,000. He was more interested in
how to submit the profits.
You concluded Mr. Santiago was a front man. Did you have any
sense of who he was a front man for?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Goudie. I assumed the money was a down stroke
for Mr. Goudie. They had told us he originally laid the money out
himself, which I found really hard to believe, to sell it without a
profit, and his only interest was his percentage in our split.
His ability to change that quickly grabbed us as odd. That is ba-
sically why we backed out of there.
Mr. SAWYER. It didn't appear to be based on hard numbers?
Mr. Coy. No, everything was vague. They were quick to say how
great everything was, but they were slow to show us anything
solid.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me ask you as a matter of personal curiosity.
You have listened to the other witnesses today.
Mr. Coy. Sure have.
Mr. SAWYER. What is your sense of what would have happened to
the $300,000 that Mr. Santiago asked you for?
Mr. Cor. I think it would have helped Mr. Goudie's personal
standings pretty well.
Mr. SAWYER. You wouldn't have gotten any material gain out of
that.
Mr. Cor. We wouldn't have gotten any.
Mr. SAWYER. Let me again thank you, as I have all the other wit-
nesses, for your testimony today. Is there anything else you would
like to add to your comments?
Mr. Cor.-I only hope you resolve this, and mavbe you can find
room for the other people who have lost money to make money.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank every-
one who has been involved.
Let me add that, without objection, I would like to submit a
statement for the hearing record from Mrs. Nancy Sonis of St. Au-
gustine, FL. I might add. Mrs. Sonis is a former congressional staff
member.
She contacted the subcommittee about her efforts to secure a
sublicense from the CCLG to produce an official perfume for the
quincentenary events. Her dealings with the Licensing Group were
unfortunate to say the least. but there are others who have had
that same experience.
193
After being told she had been awarded exclusive sublicense to
produce a perfume for the quincentenary, the Licensing Group
avoided any further contact with Mrs. Sonis.
Finally, Mrs. Sonis was told without explanation the Group was
negotiating with a major cosmetic company for cosmetic and per-
fume sublicense. Mrs. Sonis fears the Licensing Group took her
carefully prepared proposals and tried to strike a lucrative deal
with another company.
Fortunately she didn't give any funds.
[The prepared statement of Nancy Sonis follows:]
194
Rajal Isabela
I King Street . St. Augustine, Florida 32084 . (904) 829-1492 FIX (904)826-1995
November 4, 1991
Ms. Terri Ann Lowenthal
Staff Director
U.S. House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
Subcommittee on Census
Room 608 House Annex 1
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re:Christopher Columbus Licensing Committee
Dear Ms. Lowenthal:
As the result of our recent telephone conversation, I am sending a brief summary of the events
which took place naming my product "Royal Isabella Perfumes" the exclusive perfume
licensee of the Christopher Columbus Commission and the reneging of that title.
During the third week of September of 1991, I phoned the national Columbus Commission
office in Washington, D.C., requesting information on recognizing and marketing my perfume
for the 500th anniversary celebration. At that time, I was referred to Mr. Dominick Primato of
the Licensing Committee in New York City.
I phoned Mr. Primato. He was not in I left a message to return my call, which he did the
following day. In the conversation, he explained that I should become licensed through his
Committee. I mentioned that I was not a giant cosmetic company like Revion but a small
business and probably could not afford a large licensing fee. He outlined the procedures of
licensing and told me that, if selected as a licensee, 10% of all gross revenues would go to the
national Commission with a minimum guarantee of only $2,500 to be paid in full over two
years. He stated that no one had yet submitted a proposal in the "perfume category" and that
licensees were chosen on a "first come first serve" basis, and that I should act quickly. He
addrd that his Committee would be having a luncheon meeting the next Thursday (October 3)
to review proposals and select licensees, and asked if I could send product samples, a proposal
which included a backgrounder, a marketing plan, and sales projections.
195
Page Two
Nov. 4, 1991
I was happily surprised that the rules were set up so that large or small businesses could
afford to participate in this program I thought it was excellent public relations that a
government program enabled small business owners like me to equally compete and get
involved on a national scale.
I sent my proposal overnight to the Committee to be received the morning of Wednesday,
October 2, 1991. Early Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Primato phoned me at my retail store,
"Royal Isabella," and said he was "pleased to inform" me that on receipt of my package that
morning they decided to have the meeting a day early and that during the meeting "Royal
Isabella Perfumes was selected as the exclusive perfume licensee of the national Commission."
I said, "Does it have to go to anyone else for final approval or is this it?" He said, This is it.
You're it. Now, if anyone else in your category, say Revlon, calls here, we will refer them to
you and you have the right to contract independently with them as subcontractors."
He said that, in reviewing my proposal sales projection figures, they had chosen the "bottom
line," 1000 stores each buying two dozen bottles of perfume at $10 each, totalling $240,000, of
which the Commission would receive $24,000 (10%), and that would be my minimum
guarantee figure. He added that they wanted one half of that money ($12,000) up front and
the remainder spread over the next year.
I was elated to be selected, but surprised that the guarantee figure had changed from $2,500
spread over two years to $24,000 with one-half needed immediately. I told him I didn't have
$12,000 right now and asked if we could work out a lower "up front" amount and spread the
remainder of the $24,000. He said of course we'll work with you on that," and added that he
would send the contracts in the mail by the end of that week and I should have an attorney
review them, call him with questions and send them back.
The following week, I had not received the contracts and phoned Mr. Primato. He stated he
was delaying sending them because he wanted to include the calendar of events which had
just come back from the printer and he was in the process of sending it right out to me. I
suggested a new minimum guarantee of $12,000 (splitting the bottom line in half) and sending
a $1,000 binder with signed contracs and the remainder sent quarterly. He said that sounded
"fine" and to FAX the addendum to his office. On October 10, I faxed the addendum (see
enclosed).
Another week went by and I still had not received the contracts. I called October 18, but he
did not call back. I called again, October 19, and he returned my call. In this call, he was brief
and cold, as opposed to all other conversations in which he had been warm, friendly and
expansive. He stated his "board members" had "just met" and "selected a major cosmetics
company as a primary sponsor' and Royal Isabella will no longer be a licensee because of the
similar category." He said it was our of his hands and there was nothing he could do.
196
Page Three
Nov. 4, 1991
I thought it was strange to have been assured of this distinction and, within three weeks, to
have it taken away in the absence of any fault or conflict of my OWN. I was, and still am, angry
that the government would allow this kind of bad business behavior and practice to occur in
connection with what should have become a good project with positive business relationships.
Enclosed are copies of all documents I sent to Mr. Primato. Please feel free to call me if you
have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sonis
197
Royal Isabella
1 King Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 (904) 829-1492, 326-1992 FAX (904) 326-1995
October 1, 1991
Mr. Dominick Primato
Chairman
Christopher Columbus Licensing Committee
344 East 63rd Street, Suite #8E
New York, New York 10021
Dear Mr. Primato:
I appreciated your taking the time last week to discuss your procedure; and I hope you and
the committee agree that Royal Isabella eau de parfum would be an excellent addition to the
select list of licensed products.
Royal Isabella will have wide appeal, especially to women, not only as a fine perfume in its
own right, but also as a means of promoting the historical significance of the woman whose
leadership made possible the voyage of Columbus to the New World. Another part of the
Royal Isabella story is that it is bottled in St. Augustine, the oldest permanent city in North
America and a tourism destination which will have special appeal during the Quincentenary.
Although I am not a major corporation like Revion, I have worked very hard to create a
quality product worthy of national brand status. Royal Isabella was not "thrown together" in
haste as a promotional idea to capitalize on the Quincentenary. It is the result of a full year of
careful research, product development and refinement.
Let me assure you that I have managed numerous large budgets and major projects. I look
forward to managing the production and fulfillment scaling up which will be required if
Royal Isabella IS licensed.
Please call me at any time if I can answer questions or address concerns that you and the
committee might have as you consider this.
I look forward to your positive response and to a successful program in the months ahead.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sonis
198
Rayal Isabella
Royal Isabella Perfumes
Proposal for Licensing
Christopher Columbus Licensing Committee
October 1, 1991
199
Royal Isabella - The Perfume
Royal Isabella eau de parfum was named in honor of Isabella, Queen of Castille (1451-1504),
whose adventurous spirit made possible the voyage of Columbus to the New World.
This daring new fragrance, with overtones of gardenia, is made from high quality imported
oils, blended in Florida, and bottled in St. Augustine, America's oldest city and site of the
legendary Fountain of Youth. With King Ferdinand's permission, Ponce de Leon, who had
accompanied Columbus on his second voyage to the New World, embarked on a search for
the fountain and sailed within sight of present-day St. Augustine in 1513.
In the days of the early Spanish explorers, mos: perfume was a rare and valuable commodity.
While expensive perfumes remain popular among those who can afford them, Royal Isabella
was priced to be affordable for the average person at $14.92 or $19.92 per one-ounce bottle.
Royal Isabella - Background Information
Royal Isabella was created and developed during a period from the fall of 1990 to the spring of
1991 by Nancy Ball Sonis, vice president of Sonis Advertising & Public Relations, Inc., of
Tallahassee, Florida. After seven years of advising many clients in their marketing efforts, Ms.
Sonis undertook her own product development, introducing a new fragrance which reflects
her love of the Caribbean, her interest in the historical role played by Isabella, her fondness for
perfumes, and her wish to create a distinctly different product for the Christopher Columbus
Quincentenary.
She carefully selected a team for the Royal Isabella project, including a perfume manufacturer
in South Florida, a perfume bottle manufacturing company in New York City, and a perfume,
box manufacturer in Tampa, Florida.
The Sonis agency created the design and logo for the packaging and researched and wrote the
historical and biographical information on Isab ella contained in every box of the perfume.
The name/logo is a federally registered trademark.
Ms. Sonis conducted focus group research with a variety of fragrance formulas until
identifying an eau de parfum with superior acceptance by both women and men of different
age groups. During the initial production of Royal isabella, she and her employees bottled
and boxed more than 2,000 small sample vials and nearly 1,000 one-ounce containers. Federal,
state and local government guidelines as well as perfume industry standards have been
strictly followed in the manufacture and sale of Royal Isabella.
Royal Isabella was test marketed in St. Augustine, where Ms. Sonis opened the Royal Isabella
Perfumery & Gift Shop in May of 1991. She, her husband, and daughters reside in a house in
St. Augustine on Porpoise Point, near the very inlet through which Ponce de Leon sailed into
the area 478 years ago.
200
Ms. Sonis gew up in her parents' retail gift business. Her 1,000-square foot store is located in
the historical district of St. Augustine. Royal Isabella perfume counter displays take up only
about five per cent of the shop floor space, which otherwise is devoted to a wide variety of
gifts ranging from a $2,000 limited edition immigrant sculpture made from authentic materials
removed from the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island National Monument to 99c mother of pearl
rings. Sales of the perfume, therefore, have occurred in what would be a typical gift shop
setting without undue promotional emphasis, other than that resulting from the store name.
During the summer of 1991, Ms. Sonis and her employees sold some 450 one-ounce bottles of
Royal Isabella eau de parfum at $14.92 each and 600 sample vials at 75c each. Purchasers
included tourists from all over the world as well as local St. Augustine residents.
All but a few of the buyers were women, and their favorable comments indicate th: Royal
Isabella has appeal as an àuthenic fragrance and not just as a "souvenir" item. Customers left
to their own devices to try the tester bottles expressed surprise when they inhaled the
fragnance. "This really does smell good," was a typical comment. A variety of women -
young, old, rich and not-so-rich - tried and liked the perfume. Some became repeat
customers; some wanted to know which department stores in their hometowns carried the
Royal Isabella brand; and many were willing to put their names and addresses on a list to
receive more information on the product. The mittee is welcome to call any of these
people to confirm the overwhelming acceptance of Royal Isabella among the several hundred
persons who were exposed to it this summer in St. Augustine.
Most of the women buying Royal Isabella shopped with male partners, whom they asked for
advice before buying. Males liked the fragrance, too. In fact, both male and female shoppers
asked if Royal Isabella also offered a male fragrance. Assuming sales go well, Roval Isabella
plans to introduce a new masculine cologne, Christopher.
Royal Isabella - Public Relations Value
The relationship of Royal Isabella to the Quincentenary is self-explanatory. Inclusion of the
biographical history of Isabella in each bottle adds a special dimension befitting the role which
licensing would give to the product during the Columbus celebration.
Among the other public relations pluses which would result from the committee's decision to
make Royal Isabella the perfume licensee:
It would bring out another facet of the Columbus story, one with special appeal to women and
the role of women in history;
The product was developed by a small-scale entrepreneur rather than by a gigantic perfume
manufacturer with the mega-resources to spend millions of dollars in marketing and
advertising;
201
The product was developed by a woman who lives in St. Augustine, the American city most
closely linked to the Spanish explorations ushered in by Columbus;
The product will continue to be bottled in, and fulfilled from. the St. Augustine area, creating
an appropriate marketing aura throughout the Quincentenary.
Royal Isabella - Marketing
Clearly, there is a niche for Royal Isabella in today's $18.5 billion American cosmetics market.
where traditional perfume brand loyalty has given way to newer attitudes among shoppers
who try different fragrances or keep a palette of them for differe occasions. Appropriate
outlets for Royal Isabella would include, but not be limited to, gift shops, department stores,
and any other appropriate locations offering items r. lating to the Quincentenary. Based
conservatively on store orders of two dozen bottles at wholesale ($10 per bottle/$240 per
order), the following sales figures can be projected:
Stores
Gross Wholesale Revenue
10% To Committee
100
$ 24,000
$ 2,400
500
$ 120,000
$ 12,000
1,000
$ 240,000
$ 24,000
2,500
$ 600,000
$ 60,000
5,000
$1,200,000
$120,000
7,500
$1,800,000
$180,000
10,000
$2,400,000
$240,000
20,000
$4,800,000
$480,000
The above figures. of course, assume that stores would not reorder. Given the popularity of
Royal Isabella among those who have tried it, reorders would be likelv. Therefore, income to
the Committee would be considerably larger than indicated above.
The number of stores carrying Royal Isabella would depend on the magnitude of the public
relations and marketing effort. We would pursue a strategic public relations marketing
campaign designed to generate awareness and enthusiasm, supplemented with some print
advertising.
We are seeking product acceptance and placement in five merchandise marts in Atlanta,
Miami, New York, San Francisco and Dallas by the winter of 1991-92.
To the degree funds permit, a targeted print advertising effort would be undertaken in the
summer, with review and approval of all ads by the Committee in advance.
A national kickoff news conference would be held in the spring of 1992; and a national media
event for additional publicity would be planned for the fall prior to Columbus Day,
reinforcing name recognition and awareness of the product.
202
A schedule of pre-Christmas print ads would follow, with either a mail order catalog
produced in-house or inclusion of Royal Isabella in an existing mail order catalog such as the
Sears catalog. (The Sonis agency represented The Goldleaf Corporation in 1986 when it
persuaded Sears to carry numerous Statue of Liberty commemorative items.)
A significant portion of income realized from Royal Isabella in the initial months of the
campaign will be plowed back into marketing to sustain sales volume throughout the
Quincentenary, producing additional income for the Committee.
203
MEMORANDUM
To:
Dominick Primato
Christopher Columbus Licensing Committee
From:
Nancy Sonis
Date:
10/10/91
Re:
PROPOSED ADDENDUM
Guarantee
Pursuant to our October 9, 1991, telephone conversation, the minimum guarantee
to the Commission would be $12,000, paid out over the life of the contract, based on
the following:
500 stores ordering 2 dozen bottles each at $10/bottle.
Payment Schedule
$1,000
Upon contract acceptance
$1,000
Last day of 1st quarter 1992
$1,000
Last day of 2nd quarter 1992
$2,000
Last day of 3rd quarter 1992
$1,000
October 30, 1992
$1,000
Last day of 4th quarter 1992
$5,000
Spread evenly and paid at end of each quarter for the
remainder of the contract
$12,000* total
*Any overages at the 10% commission to be paid quarterly during the duration of
the contract.
Thanks again. I look forward to receiving our contract and working with you
toward a positive outcome for this commemorative event.
204
Mr. SAWYER. For those of you. who are interested, that will con-
clude our hearing today; although, as you know, this is a 2-day
hearing and we will resume tomorrow, when we expect to hear tes-
timony from Jana Joustra and John Goudie.
Thank you very much. That will conclude the proceedings today.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
REVIEW ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT OR
WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF CERTAIN IN-
DIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHRISTO-
PHER COLUMBUS QUINCENTENARY JUBILEE
COMMISSION
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21. 1991
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Sawyer, McNulty, and Ridge.
Also present: Representative Gilman.
Mr. SAWYER. Good morning. Today we are going to continue the
2d day of hearings to examine allegations of misconduct on the
part of certain individuals associated directly or indirectly with the
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Commission.
For those of you who were here yesterday, you may recall that in
my opening statement I set forth the jurisdiction of the subcommit-
tee over this matter and the legislative, purpose of these hearings.
Before we hear from witnesses scheduled 'to appear today, I
would like to review briefly the testimony we heard yesterday. It is
clear that the story that unfolded was every bit as troubling as it
was remarkable.
The range of individuals with different background and different
interests painted a, nonetheless, consistent picture. That picture re-
vealed widespread conflict of interest in planning Commission ac-
tivities, inappropriate intrusion into the management of contracted
activities, inappropriate use of corporate funds on the part of the
Christopher Columbus Licensing Group and the apparent insolven-
cy of that corporation at this point, allegations of bribery and fraud
with respect to the awarding of Commission contracts, and possible
abuse of authority on the part of the Commission's former Chair-
man.
In order to clarify and bring into focus the issues that we are
going to discuss today, let me review the evidence we heard yester-
day, as well as at previous hearings that were conducted by this
subcommittee.
(205)
206
We have prepared a chart that is before us over here that I think
will help clarify the relationship of many of the parties we have
been discussing.
We heard testimony yesterday from William Rolen. Mr. Rolen
was involved in an effort to develop a exhibit for the Columbus
Quincentenary at the site of the old World's Fair pavillion at
Knoxville, TN.
Mr. Rolen testified that former Commission Chairman, John
Goudie, directed Jana Joustra, the Commission's Deputy Director,
to participate in a meeting in Knoxville between Mr. Rolen and
two close personal friends of Mr. Goudie's, Manuel Gonzalez and
Gunter Pfitzenmeier.
We also heard testimony from Edgar Mooney. Mr. Mooney, who
has extensive experience in licensing and marketing products for
large scale celebrations, was hired as the director of licensing by
the Christopher Columbus Licensing Group.
The Licensing Group was awarded a contract by the Commission
on July 27, 1989 for the exclusive right to market the official quin-
centenary logo. That contract required the Licensing Group to pay
the Commission an advance royalty of $300,000.
The principal officers in that group were Gunter Pfitzenmeier, a
German citizen, and Dominic Primato. The General Accounting
Office told us that Mr. Alfreo Vidal, a close personal friend of Mr.
Primato, loaned Mr: Pfitzenmeier $100,000 to assist with payment
of the advanced royalty to the Commission.
Mr. Mooney testified that the terms of the Commission's contract
with the Licensing Group were "obscene" by industry standards.
The contract provided that the Licensing Group would receive 85
percent of the gross profits from marketing the official logo, while
the Quincentenary Commission would receive only 15 percent.
Mr. Mooney said that he believed the contract represented a
"gross inequity" and was not "in the best interests of the American
public.
Mr. Anthony Baltes testified yesterday. Mr. Baltes represented a
group of minority stockholders who paid $500,000 to the Licensing
Group for a 25-percent ownership interest.
Mr. Baltes discussed the role of Manuel Gonzalez in the manage-
ment and ownership of the Licensing Group. Mr. Gonzalez had de-
scribed himself as an assistant to John Goudie and Mr. Goudie's
"right arm on Commission matters."
Mr. Baltes told us that in the spring of 1990, Mr. Gonzalez pro-
posed a reorganization of the Licensing Group that would place
himself, Mr. Gonzalez. in control of all Group activities. Mr. Gonza-
lez testified before this subcommittee in June of this year that he
had no such relationship to the Licensing Group, that he was not
an officer, stockholder. agent or representative of the Licensing
Group.
However, the Office of Special Investigations testified yesterday
that Manuel Gonzalez received $122,900 from the Christopher Co-
lumbus Licensing Group.
We also heard testimony from Peter Dunev. Mr. Dunev described
the direct role of John Goudie and Manuel Gonzalez in managing
the activities of the Licensing Group.
207
Mr. Dunev gave Manuel Gonzalez two checks totaling $50,000 as
installments on an exclusive licensing agreements for T-shirts bear-
ing the Quincentenary logo. Mr. Gonzalez collected those checks on
behalf of the Licensing Group and in return received a finders fee
of $49,900 from the Licensing Group.
Finally, Mr. Robert Coy testified yesterday. Mr. Coy told us how
John Goudie participated in an effort with Peter Santiago to
market another exclusive licensing agreement for $300,000 to Mr.
Coy and his two business associates.
Mr. Santiago described himself to this subcommittee in testimo-
ny earlier this year as the best friend of John Goudie's younger
brother, Joseph Goudie. Mr. Coy characterized the effort to sell
him an exclusive clothing licensing agreement as a "hustle" and a
"scam." Those are his words.
Through the course of the investigation the subcommittee has ob-
tained other evidence concerning the flow of funds from the Licens-
ing Group for a variety of questionable purposes.
We have learned that Gunter Pfuzenmeier gave Manuel Gonza-
lez $9,000 4 days after the Licensing Group signed its contract with
the Commission. We know that 2 months later on October 3, 1991.
Mr. Gonzalez gave a check for $9500 to John Goudie's younger
brother, Jack Goudie.
Jack Goudie told the subcommittee that he used the money he
received from Mr. Gonzalez to make the mortgage payments on the
home of his brother. John Goudie. Those loans were never repaid.
We also have learned that the Licensing Group paid at least
$46,000 toward the mortgage on the Lantana, FL residence of
Gunter Pfitzenmeier. That residence is held in the name of his
companion, Marlis Ellena, a Swiss citizen.
The unfortunate result of the widespread mismanagement and
ineptitude described at the subcommittee's hearings thus far, was a
taxpayer funded Commission that was unable to carry out the
mandate of planning festivities in recognition of the Columbus
Quincentennial in which the entire Nation could have taken part
and enjoyed.
Today the subcommittee will take testimony from two individ-
uals who played a role in the sequence of events we discussed yes-
terday and who may be able to address some of the disturbing alle-
gations that we heard yesterday.
In the course of that testimony we will want to know why the
Commission sold rights to the official logo to a private corporation
that clearly had no experience in the field of licensing and market-
ing.
We want to know why close friends of then Chairman John
Goudie received substantial sums of money from the licensing pro-
gram. and why some of those friends, in turn. loaned Mr. Goudie
money that was never repaid. We want to know why Mr. Goudie
tried to sell. for $300.000. the rights to produce official quincenten-
ary clothing items when another company already had purchased
those exclusive rights.
We want to know why the Commission was involved in the day-
to-day activities of the Licensing Group and why Mr. Goudie tried
to assert control over the management of that Group.
Our first witness today will be Ms. Jana Joustra.
208
Ms. Joustra has been employed by the Commission first as the
Public Relations Director and then as the Deputy Director since
1988. Ms. Joustra is not representing the Quincentenary Commis-
sion or the current Chairman Frank Donatelli.
She appears at the request of the subcommittee to determine the
extent of her knowledge of the events discussed at yesterday's
hearing. Following the testimony from Ms. Joustra, the subcommit-
tee expects to hear testimony from Mr. John Goudie. Mr. Goudie
served as Chairman of the Quincentenary Commission from 1985
until his resignation in December 1990.
Now let me turn to my friend from the committee, Chairman
Bill Clay.
Mr. CLAY. I don't have a prepared opening statement this morn-
ing. I just want to commend you again for taking on this awesome
responsibility. I look forward to the testimony this morning.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much.
Without objection, I would like to submit for the hearing record
a statement from Mr. Richard Vanderpool. Mr. Vanderpool is affili-
ated with the Athens Clark Quincentenary Discovery 1992. This is
the Athens, GA counterpart to the Christopher Columbus Quincen-
tenary Commission.
At this point let me invite to the witness table our first witness,
Ms. Jana Joustra.
Ms. Joustra, if you would like to bring your counsel to the table,
you are welcome do that.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. SAWYER. Before we begin any statement that you may have,
I wants to make it clear for the record that y' u are not in any way
representing the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Commission
or the present Chairman, Frank Donatelli.
I also want to make clear that you have been invited by the sub-
committee to discuss matters related to the allegations of miscon-
duct or wrongdoing on the part of individuals associated with the
Commission and the Commission's activities. Finally, I want to
point out that your testimony reflects strictly your own knowledge
and not that of the Chairman of the Commission or other staffers.
I also want to express my thanks to you for your cooperation and
recognize your personnel willingness to appear voluntarily today.
We are grateful for that.
STATEMENT OF JANA JOUSTRA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR. CHRISTO-
PHER COLUMBUS QUINCENTENARY JUBILEE COMMISSION
Ms. JOUSTRA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Jana Joustra and I presently serve as
the Deputy Director of the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary
Jubilee Commission. I come before you todav in response to this
subcommittee's invitation of October 29, 1991 and the subsequent
subpoena which I received on November 12, 1991.
Your request to an appear before the subcommittee states that
this is to be a investigative hearing to review allegations of miscon-
duct wrongdoing on the part of certain individuals associated
with the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Commis-
sion. No indication is made as to whether I or any member of the
209
Commission is alleged to be a party to these allegations. I intend to
cooperate fully with the subcommittee's investigation.
I began, working for the Columbus Commission in January 1988,
after receiving an offer to serve as the Public Relations Director
from Dr. John Williams, who was Executive Director of the Com-
mission at that time. I was detailed from the General Services Ad-
ministration where I had been working in the Office of Public Af-
fairs for then-Administrator, Terence Golden.
My responsibilities for most of 1988 at the Commission were to
establish outreach with a variety of organizations who had been in
touch with the Commission, and to attempt to develop a positive
relationship with the media. To this end, I was given a file of corre-
spondence which had been left unattended prior to my arrival, due
to the volume of inquiries and the shortage of Commission staff.
I set about methodically contacting individuals who had called or
written to the Commission, to determine the nature of their inter-
est in the Quincentenary, and whether the Commission could offer
any assistance. These included press, public relations agencies, in-
dividuals, and other Government offices. In addition, I wrote press
releases, assisted with Commission meetings, and handled media
inquiries.
I continued to serve in the capacity of Public Relations Director
throughout 1988 and 1989 until July 1990, when Paco Martinez.
the Deputy Director of the Commission, resigned. At that time, I
was promoted to the position of Deputy Director. From the com-
mencement of my serve as Public Relations Director, I reported to
Executive Director John Williams.
Upon his departure in December 1988, I reported to the Deputy
Director, Paco Martinez. and to the Chairman, John Goudie. When
Raul De Quesada was hired as Executive Director of the Commis-
sion in September 1989. I reported to him and to Chairman Goudie.
During the course of my service as Public Relations Director, sev-
eral inquiries from public relations firms were directed to me for
follow-up. These included a number who were interested in being
hired by the Commission on a retainer basis, to develop corporate
sponsorship opportunities.
I had been told by my superiors that the Commission's annual
appropriation was insufficient to support such a contractual obliga-
tion, and, therefore, made inquiries to the firms who contacted the
Commission to ascertain whether any would be interested in serv-
ing the Commission on a pro bono or on a percentage basis.
The only firm who responded to this inquiry affirmati ely was
D'Arcy. Masius, Benton, and Boles (DMB&B), headquartered in
New York. I met with representatives of this agency on several OC-
casions. in an attempt to assist with the development of a proposal
for a television network special, which DMB&B felt might bring ad-
vance revenue to the Commission for its operating needs. Unfortu-
nately. there was insufficient interest on the part of any network
in this proposal, and the project was shelved.
Another project that came to my attention during this period
was a possible sponsorship opportunity with Texaco, Inc. A private
consultant in Washington, Diana Holman, asked to meet with me
regarding a proposal for a benefit dinner that her firm thought
might bring visibility and income to the Commission.
210
When I explained to her that the Commission did not have the
money required to mount such a project, the idea was abandoned.
However, during the meeting, Ms. Holman mentioned that she
might have a corporate contact who would be interested in sponsor-
ing a Commission project. That sponsor was Texaco, and that meet-
ing which took place in March 1989, led to the subsequent develop-
ment of the concept of Texaco serving as the Commission's sponsor
for the Caravels.
This project consumed a majority of my time for the next several
months, and in September 1989. the Texaco sponsorship agreement
was signed. As this program also required the negotiation of a co-
operative agreement between the Commission and the Spanish
Commission, my responsibilities from the spring of 1989 until the
agreements were signed in September of that year, focused primar-
ily on the development of this project, although I continued to field
press inquiries and serve as a media contact.
After the agreements on the Caravels project were executed, I
continued to work with representatives of Texaco and the Spanish
Commission, in an attempt to advance the program. Unfortunately,
the parties to these agreements were unable to agree as to how to
mount the program effectively, and the Caravels project was re-
turned to the sole management of the Spanish Government earlier
this year.
During my service at the Commission, no staff person was specif-
ically designated as general counsel. I received that title in Febru-
ary of this year, with the appointments of James Kuhn as Execu-
tive Director and Frank Donatelli as Chairman of the Commission.
Prior to that time, contracts were reviewed by the Commission's
legal committee, which consisted of two Commission members, and
by Paco Martinez and me, as we were both attorneys, although we
were often introduced as attorneys in meetings.
However, with regard to the Texaco and Caravels contracts, I did
negotiate legal language, based on the advice of Chairman Goudie.
As an attorney who is fluent in Spanish, and as the staffer most
familiar with the Caravels program, I was seen by the chairmant as
the logical person to negotiate the language of these agreements.
Chairman Goudie would confer with William Tell, the senior vice
president for Texaco and with Luis Yanez Barnuevo and Angel Ser-
rano, the Chairman and Director of the Spanish Commission; then
I would be told what points Chairman Goudie wished to be reflect-
ed in the agreements, and I would negotiate with the attorneys for
Texaco and the Spanish Commission accordingly.
With regard to the Christopher Columbus Licensing Group, I was
first made aware of the contract and proposal for this organization
to be the licensing agent for the Commission at the July 11, 1989
Finance Committee meeting of the Commission, which took place
in Chicago.
At that meeting, Chairman Goudie distributed copies of the con-
tract and the proposal for the Committee's review, and a discussion
was held, which resulted in the Committee's unanimous vote to
accept the proposal. I examined the contract as did the others
present, and made one or two suggestions for changes in the lan-
guage. At no time was I asked by anyone to negotiate terms of this
agreement. or to meet with representatives of CCLG.
211
I subsequently met Gunther Pfitzenmeier and Manny Gonzalez
in Knoxville, TN, during a 1-day trip, when Chairman Goudie
asked me to attend a meeting with organizers of the Knoxville
Quincentenary Information Center, which was to be housed in the
former World's Fair Pavilion. I was asked to attend because I had
been in contact with the Knoxville representatives, Randy Tyree
and Bill Rolen, and they felt that I had a positive feeling about the
project and might be helpful.
I was told by Mr. Goudie that my presence at the meeting was
for the purpose of ensuring that the project organizers would not
get the impression that the Commission's endorsement of the
project was final. The Commission had reviewed the project for en-
dorsement, but left final approval dependent on the Commission's
Finance Committee's determination that the project was adequate-
ly funded. Such final endorsement had not yet been obtained, and I
was instructed by Chairman Goudie to make sure that neither the
project organizers nor Messrs. Pfitzenmeier or Gonzalez treated the
Commission's approval of the project as final.
I do not recall ever having met Mr. Gonzalez again. I have seen
Mr. Pfitzenmeier on several subsequent occasions, when he has
come to the Commission to meet with Chairman Donatelli or Mr.
Kuhn. I met with Dominic Primato of CCLG when he came to the
Commission last December or January after Chairman Goudie had
resigned.
At that time, Raul De Quesada had already resigned as Execu-
tive Director and I was the senior staff, having taken the position
of Deputy Director after the resignation of Paco Martinez in July
1990. Mr. Primato wanted to show me sketches of recent product
developments, and to be assured that the Commission would con-
tinue.
I had spoken with Mr. Primato on several occasions prior to that
on the telephone during 1990, when complaints from the Spanish
Commission had been brought to my attention. The Spanish Com-
mission was concerned that the Commission's licensing program
would interfere unjustly with its own, and I spoke with Mr. Pri-
mato regarding my concern that the Caravels project might be
jeopardized.
I did this with the knowledge and permission of Chairman
Goudie and Executive Director De Quesada, who were aware that
the licensing agents for the United States and Spanish Commis-
sions were in conflict. Unfortunately, no party seemed to be able to
find a solution to resolve this conflict, a factor which further con-
tributed to the eventual dissolution of the Commission's joint par-
ticipation in the management of the Caravels tour.
I did attend a meeting between Tony Baltes, a shareholder in
CCLG, and his attorney, and Executive Director De Quesada. Mr
Baltes had complained on the telephone to Mr. De Quesada that
CCLG was not being cooperative with them with regard to provid-
ing access to information on Commission projects, specifically the
Caravels tour, and asked to meet to discuss this problem. I attend-
ed that meeting, and with Executive Director De Quesada provided
what information I could with regard to the Commission's projects
and how they could be helpful to the licensing program.
212
I have also had contact with a man named Ed Mooney, who was
either a consultant or independent contractor working with CCLG.
Mr. Mooney had been in contact with Executive Director De Que-
sada to review promotional materials, brochures, fliers, and the
like, which he wished to use in attempting to sell licensing prod-
ucts. Mr. De Quesada asked for my input, and I had several phone
conversations with Mr. Mooney regarding the nature and quality of
his materials.
Some of these materials were, in my judgment, unacceptable and
I so advised Mr. Mooney. He did not take my criticisms well, and
complained to Executive Director De Quesada, who supported my
position.
Other than these phone conversations and exchanges of some
correspondence, and one meeting with Executive Director De Que-
sada in the Commission's office in which Mr. Mooney introduced
himself and presented a portfolio of his past work, I have had no
other communication with Mr. Mooney.
I had no direct contact with sublicensees of CCLG, with two
noted exceptions. The first was a meeting with Jeffrey Wyant and
several of his colleagues, who represented American Founder's
Mint, a company which produces medallions. Mr. Wyant and his
colleagues came to the Commission's office to meet with Executive
Director De Quesada to discuss possible ways to promote the Com-
mission's licensing activities, and I attended that meeting.
I subsequently attended another meeting at the Commission with
Mr. Wyant and his colleagues which took place in May of this year.
Executive Director Kuhn, Laura Hunt, the Commission's new En-
dowment Director, Dominic Primato, and Gunther Pfitzenmeier
were also present.
The second instance of my having direct contact with a sublicen-
see involved several faxes that came in from Theta Marketing,
asking for information. I noted that the fax sheet had the Commis-
sion's logo prominently displayed, and that it was accompanied by
words indicating "official licensee of the Quincentenary," or words
to that effect.
I called Theta's offices and explained that only official sponsors
of the Commission were entitled to promote their company's name
in conjunction with the Commission's logo, but that licensing com-
panies could only use it on actual product.
Aside from the above occasions, I do not recall any dealings with
sublicensees. I mention these meetings with sublicensees, and the
occasions on which I have met representatives of CCLG, because it
has been brought to my attention by subcommittee staff that these
matters have been of interest to this committee, and I have, there-
fore, set out my contacts with the Commission's licensing program.
I will now be happy to answer any pertinent questions the com-
mittee may have relative to this investigation.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you very much for your testimony and your
presence this morning. Ms. Joustra, you mentioned your initial
hiring by John Wiiliams. Could you descr, be the circumstances of
that hiring and how you came to be introduced to the Commission?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes. I was working at General Services Administra-
tion in the Public Affairs Office. The Administrator at that time
was Terry Golden.
213
He had made it known to his senior staffers that he was thinking
of leaving the Administration and that staffers, therefore, might be
advised to start looking for other employment opportunities. I
learned from a friend that the Commission existed and that they
were very short staffed.
So as they were across the street I wandered over there 1 day
and met the Director, John Williams, and the Deputy Director,
Paco Martinez. They were very encouraging about having addition-
al staff people there. They said if details could be worked out, more
than likely I would be able to start immediately. I went back to the
General Services Administration and spoke with Administrator
Golden. He agreed to arrange a detail.
Mr. SAWYER. You came on originally as Public Relations Direc-
tor, but your background in the law had to be helpful.
Ms. JOUSTRA. We were very short staffed at the Commission.
Paco Martinez was also an attorney and we wore several hats in
the office. We did everything that needed to be done, from writing
correspondence, contacting the press to doing filing.
Mr. SAWYER. I am not looking for long answers but we would
like to get a feel for background in terms of different areas of law,
contract law, criminal law?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, just general. I had done some work in the past.
That was pretty much it. I had done some statutory compliance
work with Legal Services Corporation in 1985.
Mr. SAWYER. Have you worked in terms of ethics as it relates to
government activity?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No.
Mr. SAWYER. Could you today, off the top of your head, or from
your experience in government and law, provide examples or defi-
nitions of conflicts of interest as they may apply to a public offi-
cial?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I would say the easiest definition of a conflict of
interest is when one individual has divided loyalties.
Mr. SAWYER. Would using public office for private gain be char-
acterized as unethical conduct?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I believe so.
Mr. SAWYER. Would acting with partiality or giving preferential
contracts to a private organization be considered unethical con-
duct?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Would it be your view that soliciting gifts or money
from a person, entity, friends or family member or seeking or doing
business with an employees agencies be considered unethical con-
duct.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Given that. can you tell us whether you, while em-
ployed at the Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Goudie,
participated in any unethical conduct of the type we just discussed.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Did I? No.
Mr. SAWYER. Have you observed any unethical conduct during
the course of your employment?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Not personally.
Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. Let me turn to my friend and colleague
from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of this subcommittee.
214
At this point we have gone past opening statements, but I think
it would be appropriate for you to share your thoughts on the work
of the Commission and the committee.
Mr. RIDGE. Mr: Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
entire opening statement be considered as part of the record.
Mr. SAWYER. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas J. Ridge follows:]
215
OPENING STATEMENT
CONGRESSMAN TOM RIDGE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION
INVESTIGATIVE HEARING WITH REGARD TO THE CaRISTOPHER COLUMBUS
QUINCENTENARY JUBILEE COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 1991
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO PUBLICLY
APOLOGIZE TO THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS
SUBCOMMITTEE YESTERDAY FOR MY ABSENCE. I DID TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY LAST NIGHT TO READ THROUGH THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENTS
AND WOULD LIKE TO THANK THEM FOR PROVIDING US WITH THEIR STORIES,
WHICH I BELIEVE BENEFICIAL TO OUR INVESTIGATION.
HAVING BEEN A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, I STRONGLY SUBSCRIBE TO
THIS COUNTRY'S PRINCIPLE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS INNOCENT UNTIL
PROVEN GUILTY. BUT GIVEN THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE
YESTERDAY. REVIEWING THE TESTIMONY I AM REMINDED OF THE WELL-
KNOWN ADAGE THAT POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS
ABSOLUTELY. WHEN JOHN GOUDIE WAS NAMED CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMISSION, HE WAS ENTRUSTED WITH POWER AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS
POWER BECAME ABSOLUTE.
TO SHOW HOW POWERFUL JOHN GOUDIE THOUGHT HE WAS, I WOULD
LIKE TO QUOTE BRIEFLY FROM SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE
PRESENTED YESTERDAY.
WILLIAM W. ROLEN: MR. TYREE RECEIVED A LETTER SAYING
KIE WAS MISREPRESENTING THE COMMISSION'S ROLE IN THE
PROJECT AND LEGAL ACTION BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
WOULD BE INITIATED IF THE MISREPRESENTATION DID NOT
STOP.
ANTHONY BALTES: MS. JOUSTRA TOLD ME THAT SHE HAD CLOSE
CONTACTS AT THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
216
SERVICE AND WAS GOING TO HAVE THE SERVICE INVESTIGATE
MR. PFITZENMEIER.
ANTHONY BALTES: MR. GOUDIE WAS VERY UPSET AND TOLD ME
NEVER AGAIN TO SEND ANYTHING TO THE COMMISSION OFFICE
AND IF YOU DO, HE WOULD TAKE IT TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
PETER DUNEV: HE SAID (REFERRING TO JOHN GOUDIE) "I AM
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT" AND I COULD HAVE YOU RUINED.
EDGAR MOONEY: MR. DE QUESADA TOLD ME, THAT UPON
DIRECTION FROM JOHN GOUDIE, I WAS TO REMOVE THE
PRESIDENT'S PICTURE FROM A BROCHURE I HAD PREPARED WITH
THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TRADE AND THE
PUBLIC; AND REPLACE IT WITH JOHN GOUDIE'S PHOTO AND A
LETTER FROM MR. GOUDIE.
STATEMENTS LIKE THESE LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT JOHN GOUDIE, AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS QUINCENTENARY JUBILEE
COMMISSION (CCOJC), WAS CONVINCED THAT HE HAD ABSOLUTE POWER OVER
ANYONE AND EVERYONE.
AS I SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS STATEMENT, IT IS NOT OUR
PLACE TO JUDGE MR. GOUDIE ON HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE. HOWEVER,
ANYONE READING OR HEARING THE TESTIMONY OF ONE DAY AGO WOULD
BEGIN TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT MR. GOUDIE WAS CORRUPT. I AM
CONVINCED THAT HAVING ABSOLUTE POWER THROUGH THE COMMISSION
PRESENTED MR. GOUDIE AN ABSOLUTE OPPORTUNITY.
ONE OTHER OBSERVATION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS ABOUT THE
SOLVENCY OF THE CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS LICENSING GROUP (CCLG). AS
EDGAR MOONEY TESTIFIED THE CCLG STILL OWES HIM $473,466.63, PLUS
INTEREST ROYALTY PAYMENTS. MOONEY ALSO SAID THAT HE DID RECEIVE
TWO CHECKS FROM THE GROUP, ONE $10,000 AND ONE $5,000, WHICH BOTH
BOUNCED. WHEN QUESTIONED BY CHAIRMAN SAWYER, PETER DUNEV STATED
THAT HE PERCEIVED THE CCLG DESPERATE FOR MONEY AND THOUGHT THEY
WERE BROKE. TESTIMONY SUCH AS THIS, LEADS THIS MEMBER TO BELIEVE
217
THAT THE CCLG IS INSOLVENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION
THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED FROM CHAIRMAN CLAY AND CONGRESSMAN
BEN GILMAN, THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, OF THE POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE. LASTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STEVE
MYERSON, JOE POTTER AND ALL THE FINE INDIVIDUALS AT THE OFFICE OF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE LONG HOURS AND DEDICATION THEY
HAVE GIVEN IN ASSISTING US.
218
Mr. RIDGE. Having been unable to attend much of the hearing
yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank those witnesses for tell-
ing us those stories which I certainly believe was beneficial to our
investigation.
Having myself been a practicing attorney, I strongly subscribe to
this country's principles that an individual is innocent until proven
guilty. But given that, I would like to make a few observations
about what was said before the subcommittee yesterday.
Reviewing the testimony, I am reminded of the well-known
adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I guess I have some grave reservations as to the conduct of Mr.
Goudie when he was named Chairman of the Commission. In my
judgment he was entrusted with absolute power and given the tes-
timony of Messrs. Rolen, Baltes, Dunev, and Edgar Mooney, one
questions whether or not he handled it in a manner consistent
with the purpose and intent as outlined by Congress back in 1984
when we decided to have this celebration.
So I continue to applaud you for the very open and efficient and
professional inquiry that you have made during the course of this
investigation.
I certainly don't enjoy looking backward at some of the more
troubled moments of this Commission, but I appreciate not only
your willingness to do so, but the manner in which you have con-
ducted these inquiries.
As I said before I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be in-
cluded as part of the record.
Mr. SAWYER. Do you have some questions?
Mr. RIDGE. Yes, I do.
Ms. Joustra, yesterday Mr. Rolen testified before this subcommit-
tee. He told us that his partner Randy Tyree had a conversation
with you shortly after June 6, 1989-I would tell you, I don't know
what I was doing on June 6 1989.
Ms. JOUSTRA. I do, it was my father's birthday.
Mr. RIDGE. It was peculiar in that it involved a request by John
Goudie for the Rolen Group to lend him a yacht. It is my under-
standing, according to the testimony, it was to be tied up, loaned to
Mr. Goudie and tied to a pier directly linked to Mr. Goudie's home
in Coral Gables, FL. I wonder if you would care to relate to this
subcommittee your recollection of that conversation.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, sir. I was rather irate about it.
Mr. RIDGE. Would you move the microphone closer, SO we can
hear better?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I was what can probably best be described as irate
about it because I could not imagine that that was a serious con-
versation. It just seemed so clearly improper. I discussed did with
Chairman Goudie. Chairman Goudie, told me that in no way was
that a serious discussion and he understood that that would be a
clear conflict of interest and he was very annoyed that Mr. Rolen
would suggest to Mr. Tyree that that was a serious conflict of inter-
est. I made it clear to Mr. Tyree that the Commission would not be
able to condone such an acceptance of a gift to the Chairman.
Mr. RIDGE. From whom did you first get knowledge about this re-
quest?
219
Ms. JOUSTRA. To be honest with you, I don't remember. I thought
about this since yesterday. I remember having a conversation with
Mr. Rolen on the telephone about it. I remember having a conver-
sation with Mr. Goudie. I don't know which came first. But I do
remember the end result was, which was a conference with Mr.
Tyree and we settled the matter very clearly.
Mr. RIDGE. Do you recall what your response was to Mr. Tyree
about this alleged request, about the ethics of it.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, I was very upset. As I understood did, my con-
versation with Randy Tyree, he was not a party to the conversa-
tion. He and I were discussing the issue from a legal and ethical
standpoint. We both agreed that it was highly improper.
Mr. RIDGE. Did Tyree indicate to you who initiated the conversa-
tion?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He merely told me who had first made him aware
of it. That was Bill Rolen. He did not indicate to me that John
Goudie asked for a boat or Bill Rolen offered a boat.
Mr. RIDGE. Did Mr. Goudie deny the request for a boat or did he
say it was simply improper to do so?
Ms. JOUSTRA. As best as I recall, the conversation I spoke with
John Goudie, I think it was the same day I spoke to Mr. Rolen
about it. I said, "what is this business about this boat?", or words
do that effect.
I said I talked to Bill Rolen and he said something, or Randy
Tyree and he said something about a boat. John said, that is ridicu-
lous. He said you had told Bill Rolen that that is out of the ques-
tion. I did not ask him, "did you ask for a boat?"
Mr. RIDGE. Do you recall the conversation as being one where
Mr. Rolen or Mr. Tyree were volunteering the boat spontaneously
or whether or not they indicated that there had been any commu-
nication and they were actually responding to a request for this.
Do you have any sense of that?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No. As I understand it, they were talking about the
boat in terms of the relationship to the Information Center. So it is
possible that the conversation was started by Bill Rolen in relation
to a yacht that would be docked at the Information Center at
Knoxville, TN. Perhaps that started the conversation. But as to
when it took a turn to talking about a boat outside Chairman Gou-
die's house, I don't know how that happened.
Mr: RIDGE. Since you did mention Knoxville, I think you told us
that you met Manuel Gonzalez during a 1-day trip to Knoxville.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, I did.
Mr. RIDGE. I think you were there in response to a request made
by former Chairman Goudie when he asked you to attend a meet-
ing of the Rolen Group sometime after July 1989; is that correct?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Mr. Goudie asked me to go and Mr. Tyree and Mr.
Rolen also asked me to go because I was very enthusiastic about
the project.
Mr. RIDGE. You also stated you do not recall ever having met Mr.
Gonzalez again; is that correct?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, that is correct. I don't think I ever saw him
again.
Mr. RIDGE. Had you seen or visited with or been in the company
of Mr. Gonzalez prior to that time in Knoxville?
220
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, no, sir.
Mr. RIDGE. Are you S. re you never had an occasion to meet Mr.
Gonzalez at a reception in Mr. Goudie's home in 1988?
Ms. JOUSTRA. That is the only possibility. I did express to staffers
of the subcommittee when they asked me about it earlier if I had
ever met Mr. Gonzalez before, the only only thing I can think of
would be there, but I don't recall seeing him there. I assume since
the Chairman had a reception at his home in December 1988 in
conjunction with the meeting in Miami, I knew there were many
associates of the Chairman's in Miami so I thought he might be
there, but I never had a conversation with him there.
Mr. RIDGE. There was never any occasion, either socially or pro-
fessionally during this period of time when you had occasion to
talk to him, write to him or phone him in furtherance of the Com-
mission's business?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, sir.
Mr. RIDGE. Could you tell us what, if anything, you were told by
Mr. Goudie, regarding his relationship with Mr. Gonzalez?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He said only that he was a friend.
Mr. RIDGE. Did he every indicate to you under what context that
friendship arose and how it was sustained?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I believe he said that they knew each other from
the time they were young.
Mr. RIDGE. Did he ever indicate to you that this lifelong friend-
ship had ever included any business relationships?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Not related to the Commission. I mean. he had said
that they had been friends together for years.
Mr. RIDGE. But in the course of that friendship or relationship,
did he ever indicate to you or specifically tell you that they had
engaged in joint business activities together?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I don't recall the detail of that but I had the feeling
that they had done business together.
Mr. RIDGE. Did you ever have occasion to talk to Mr. Gonzalez or
send him any correspondence or deal with him at Mr. Goudie's re-
quest?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, sir.
Mr. RIDGE. Do you have any personal knowledge as to the fre-
quency of the contact between Mr. Goudie and Mr. Gonzalez?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I can only speculate that they, being close friends
and living in the same town, it might have been very frequent.
Mr. RIDGE. Did you ever have occasion to discuss with Mr. Gon-
zalez his relationship with Mr. Goudie, particularly when you were
in Knoxville?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No.
Mr. RIDGE. Did the fact that they had apparently a close person-
al relationship that may have extended during the course of a life-
time ever give you any concern about the propriety of their busi-
ness relationship?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, because the only time that I had contact with
Mr. Gonzalez was at the Knoxville meeting. At that time he was
introduced-as a matter of fact I was introduced to him by Mr.
Rolen. I was told that he was a consultant and his presence at the
meeting was as a consultant for Mr. Gunter Pfitzenmeier.
221
At that time I did not know anything else then other than he
was working as a consultant for Gunter Pfitzenmeier. That was the
only time that I saw him. So it never came up.
Mr. RIDGE. Do you recall telling Mr. Rolen in June 1989 or there-
abouts that you would attend the meeting in Knoxville with Gonza-
lez and Gunter Pfitzenmeier because they, were close personal
friends of Mr. Goudie's?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No. I believe he said yesterday that I said to a
staffer that they were close personal friends. I think what I said
was that thev were friends. I mentioned it in an offhand way. I was
not aware of the specific relationship between Gunter Pfitzenmeier
and John Goudie. I never heard of them before:
I knew Mr. Gonzalez was a friend of Mr. Goudie's. I may have
mentioned that to Mr. Rolen. Mr. Rolen wanted me to go and
Randy Tyree wanted me to go because I was excited by the project
and he thought my enthusiasm might lend something to the meet-
ing.
Mr. RIDGE. At the time of the Knoxville meeting had Mr. Pfitzen-
meier and the Licensing Group signed an agreement with the Com-
mission?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, sir. That was the first time I ever knew who
Gunter Pfitzenmeier was. It was the first time I ever heard about a
Gunter Pfitzenmeier; in Knoxville.
Mr. RIDGE. To your knowledge. had there been any prior negotia-
tions regarding the licensing arrangement undertaken prior to
that?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Not that I was aware of.
Mr. RIDGE. Thank you.
Mr. SAWYER. Left me recognize at this point Mr. McNulty, the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. McNuLTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Miss Joustra, the license agreement signed by the Commission
and the CCLG on July 27, 1989 called for special assistance to be
provided by the Commission to the group promoting the use of Co-
lumbus souvenirs at the Knoxville. as well as other exhibition
halls. Was Mr. Gonzalez representing the Group or the Commission
by his attendance at that meeting?
Ms. JOUSTRA. In no way did I feel that he was representing the
Commission. That is what I was supposed to be there for.
Mr. McNuLTY. Was there any other reason Mr. Gonzalez joined
you and Mr. Pfitzenmeier at the meeting in Knoxville?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I was told, this is Manny Gonzalez, he works for
this man and this is Gunter Pfitzenmeier. That is the way the in-
troductions went. That was pretty much the only explanation I was
given.
Mr. McNuLTY: Was Mr. Gonzalez an officer, stockholder. investor
or employee of the Licensing Group?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I had no knowledge of any activities on his part.
Mr. McNuLTY. Was he involved with CCLG?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I later heard he was a consultant, but this came
out in newspaper articles. et cetera.
Mr. MCNULTY. Do you know anything more about that?
Ms. JOUSTRA. About what?
Mr. McNuLTY. Mr. Gonzalez being connected.
55-308 O - 92 - 8
222
Ms. JOUSTRA. I heard several things from the investigation, that
he was some sort of consultant.
Mr. McNULTY. That is why you did not have any details beyond
that.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Just that he was a consultant. I had no idea what
that meant.
Mr. SAWYER. Was there an overt reason that you could tell for
Mr. Gonzalez being at the meeting?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He never said two words at the meeting. We never
exchanged words beyond "how do you do." He spoke to Mr. Pfitzen-
meier.
We toured the facility with Mr. Tyree and Mr. Rolen. We drove
around Knoxville. Mr. Rolen talked about parking patterns, the
flow of tourism. Mr. Gonzalez never said one word. He spoke to Mr.
Pfitzenmeier when we were touring the facilities, but that was it.
Mr. McNULTY. Did you wonder what he was doing?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, but he was pretty much with Mr. Pfitzenmeier
and that was pretty much it.
Mr. McNuLTY. It was to a relationship specifically?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes:
Mr. McNuLTY. Was Mr. Vidal an officer or employee of the Li-
censing Group?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I never heard his name until yesterday.
Mr. McNuLTY. So you don't know of any other connection?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No, sir.
Mr. McNuLTY. We are aware Mr. Goudie visited Knoxville the
last week in May 1989 and spoke at an invitation luncheon at the
Knoxville Hilton. The media quoted him as saying, "I don't report
to anyone but the President of the United States." The Business
Journal reported that a man who reports only to the President was
in Knoxville last week to insure civic and city officials that the Co-
lumbus Commission is serious about the commitment to the U.S.
pavillion.
Was it true that Mr. Goudie only reported to President Bush?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I know that he had several meetings at the White
House. I think that when he said that he reported to the President
it was said rather tongue-in-cheek with the feeling that as a Presi-
dential appointee, he was at the top of the chain.
Mr. McNuLTY. What was your personal reaction to this represen-
tation by Chairman Goudie?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Usually when I heard it, I thought it was of a hu-
morous nature. I never felt that he was saying that he and the
President conferred on things. I just felt he was saying it in a hu-
morous, rather tongue-in-cheek way.
Me. McNuLTY. You don't think he was serious when he said it?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He usually said it in a rather off-hand way, I only
report to the President. ha, ha.
Me. McNULTY. Why did you think that the media thought he
was serious?
Ms. JOUSTRA. If I had been a reporter that would ha e been a
great line to start my article off, too. He definitely had a presence
in meetings. He was very convincing and charismatic. I think in
saying he reported to the President lent to that image.
223
Me. McNuLTY. I have no further questions at this time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Clay.
Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How did Mr. De Quesada come to his position at the Commis-
sion?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He was hired by Chairman Goudie in September
1989.
Mr. CLAY. You told us that you began working for the Commis-
sion in January 1988 and reported to Executive Director John Wil-
liams. You also stated that after Director William's departure you
reported to Deputy Director Paco Martinez and to Chairman John
Goudie.
Do we understand your statement to mean that prior to Decem-
ber 1988 when Director Williams left the Commission you did not
report in any way to Chairman John Goudie?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I believe my work performance was probably ulti-
mately approved by Chairman Goudie through Director Williams.
The reason I phrased it that way in my statement is because I can
only remember seeing Chairman Goudie three or two times before
Director Williams resigned. He was in Washington more and he
was very much less in the office in 1988.
Mr. CLAY. Do you know why Director Williams left his position?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He resigned. I believe he had a conflict with the
Commission and he resigned.
Mr. CLAY. Do you know the nature of the conflict?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, I do. He signed an employment contract with
an individual without having it approved by any committees of the
Commission or the Commission. It involved a considerable expense
to the Commission. It provided for an individual who was being
hired as a fundraising consultant to be paid, I believe, $10,000 a
month. The Commission budget could not sustain that.
Mr. CLAY. What was the name of the fundraiser hired?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Paula Dellinghouse.
Mr. CLAY. Did you play a role in terminating Mrs. Dellinghouse?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I was asked to tell Mrs. Dellinghouse that she
could not work for the Commission. She was interviewed by the
Commission staffer, Paco Martinez and John and I had all spoken
with her. Our sense was that she was a nice person and she would
be a good addition to the staff.
Apparently, the Chairman did not feel that she was capable of
handling thé fundraising role and had his reservations about it.
When we all discussed it in the office, it turned out that they all
had had some reservations about it, but we wanted a endowment
person on board so we kind of tabled our reservations.
Mrs. Dellinghouse came up for a event the Commission had, a
signing ceremony at the White House proclaiming Columbus Day a
national holiday. She had an occasion to meet other Commission
members and talk with the Chairman.
At the end of that day, the Chairman and a couple of other mem-
bers apparently had discussions with Director Williams and said
they did not think she was appropriate or that she would be the
one to do this.
224
I don't know. This is speculation on my part. This is what I was
told. So Director Williams was told by the Chairman to tell her
that she could not be the endowment director. She called the office
and Director Williams had her on hold. He said, he tried to explain
it to her and she was very distraught. He turned the phone over to
me and said, would you tell her? I explained to her the best I could
what had been told to me by Mr. Williams.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Goudie made the decision.
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes.
Mr. CLAY. Still, did you go to the convention in New Orleans?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes, I went to the Republican National Convention.
Mr. CLAY. Was Mr. Goudie one of the persons you met while you
were there?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I ran into him while I was there.
Mr. CLAY. Did you meet with him?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No.
Mr. CLAY. During the New Orleans trip, did Mr. Goudie make
any public displays of public affection or sexual comments?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He put his arm around me once.
Mr. CLAY. Did you feel the Chairman, that John Goudie made
public displays of attention toward you?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I told him about the putting of his arms around
me.
Mr. CLAY. You were not concerned about it, were you?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Dr. Williams and I had discussed it and and I de-
cided it was not anything to get upset about.
Mr. SAWYER. Could you characterize the management style or
leadership style of John Goudie?
Ms. JOUSTRA. He was very much an involved, roll-up-your-sleeves
Chairman. He was very active and involved in the day-to-day oper-
ations of the Commission, not in the sense that he was there, but
he called the Commission frequently and he wanted to know the
details of a lot of the day-to-day operations.
Mr. SAWYER. And he was familiar with the content of that
detail?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Was he authoratative?
Ms. JOUSTRA. Yes.
Mr. SAWYER. Would you describe him as in direct command
or
Ms. JOUSTRA. He was very much direct command.
Mr. SAWYER. We have heard a good deal about Chairman Goudie
and his brothers. Would you characterize him as having close
family relationships?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I believe he did. I never met his family.
Mr. SAWYER. Would you describe him as objective in his dealings
with you and other employees?
Ms. JOUSTRA. I think SO.
Mr. SAWYER. Was he fastidious in terms of his handling of the
detailed record keeping, the memorializing of his activities, the
filing of memos, the recording of conversation and activity?
Ms. JOUSTRA. No.