Walsh Case Goes to Trial Today

Six months after he tore out two dildos from an art exhibit, a former city councillor will stand trial today for charges of malicious destruction of personal property.

William H. Walsh--who was removed in November from his council seat following his federal sentencing for bank fraud--removed the dildos from a local art show on October 5, calling them obscene.

The show was situated in Gallery 57, a public arts space in City Hall Annex, throughout October 1994. Walsh said city employees working in the annex found the exhibit offensive.

Walsh removed the dildos shortly. before the exhibit opened to the public, bringing them to City Manager Robert W. Healy's office. The items were subsequently reinstalled, but with a protective barrier and a notice that the exhibit involved "sensitive" material.

Walsh will face a six-person jury and Judge Mark Cover in Cambridge District Court today. He has plead not guilty.

Under Chapter 266, section 127 of the Massachusetts General Laws, destruction of personal property is a felony and carries a maximum of two and a half years in prison and a fine, according to Middlesex Assistant District Attorney Alex S. Moffatt, who is prosecuting the case.

"We intend to prove that on October 5, 1994, William Walsh, who was then a Cambridge city councilman, went into Gallery 57 of the Cambridge City Hall annex and maliciously and intentionally destroyed Hans Evers' property," Moffatt said.

The state alleges that Walsh damaged one work in the exhibit. The work consisted of three boxes containing sexual paraphernalia. "He tore out the dildos of two of the boxes," Moffatt said. "He not only injured them, he injured the screws [and] the mirror, scraping the wood" that lined the boxes.

Walsh denied the charges, in an interview. While he admitted to removing the items, he insisted that he was obligated as an elected official to bring the items to the city council's attention.

"Don't we have rights not to be subject to having to see things of that nature we don't want to see?" Walsh asked. "It was nothing but lewdness. There was no redeeming social quality to it," Walsh added.

"The human body is a wonderful thing--there's nothing wrong with it--but displaying dildos in a box is disgusting," Walsh said.

Moffatt disagreed. "He hostilely and intentionally destroyed that piece of work," the assistant district attorney said. "What he was motivated by is at this point irrelevant."

If Walsh is guilty the state will probably seek probation or a suspended prison sentence rather than incarceration, Moffatt said. But no final decision has yet been reached, she added.

The state has subpoenaed artist Evers, Deputy City Manager Richard C. Rossi and Gallery 57 Director Hafthor Yngvason. Both Rossi and Yngvason were present at the exhibit's installation when Walsh removed the dildos.

"The deputy city manager, Richard Rossi, was there, he talked to [Walsh] and basically suggested there would be other ways to deal with [the exhibit] but nobody tried to stop him," Yngvason said yesterday.

The gallery director refused to say whether he believes Walsh is guilty.

Controversy

The fallout over the art exhibit and Walsh'sactions has continued, even though it is half ayear after the incident.

Walsh was convicted in March 1994 on 41 federalcounts of bank fraud, conspiracy and making falsestatements. But the controversial fiveterm citycouncillor refused to resign his seat, and wasonly removed from office in November after hissentencing, as mandated by Massachusetts statelaw.

Walsh was sentenced in November to 18 months inprison and two years' probation, but the sentencewas stayed pending his appeal.

If convicted in the arts case, he could faceadditional jail or probation time.

But Walsh said he would remove the dildos againif he had to.

"I take my stands and I fight my battles,whether it be rent control or the U.S. Attorney'soffice or this situation," he said, referring tohis bankfraud trial and rent control, of whichWalsh was one of the most outspoken opponents. "IfI believe I'm right I play all the way."

The former councillor disputed both the chargesand the extent of the damage to the exhibit.

"If you walk into somebody's house and removedildos from their house, that's a crime," he said."I had the power to look after the constituents ofthe city. This was something that should not havebeen on city property."

Walsh added that the dildos--which Walsh hadripped when tearing them from the artwork--cost$19 and $25 each and that no other damage wascaused.

Walsh said the case is a waste of taxpayers'money. "The problem with law enforcement today isthat instead of using those forces to work for thepeople, they use them for catchy, politicalcauses," he said.

Walsh's attorney said Evers was exploiting thecase to advance his personal career as an artist.

"Mr. Evers is looking to improve his standingwithin the arts community," said James J.Rafferty, a former School Committee member who isrepresenting Walsh. "It's become needlesslysensationalistic and is an absolute waste ofgovernment resources."

Rafferty has subpoenaed several City Hall Annexemployees who complained about the exhibit andCity Manager Robert W. Healy.

The controversy over the use of Gallery 57 hasalso continued. Use of the space is regulated bythe Cambridge Arts Council, which selectsthree-member juries from the community, which inturn pick which artists exhibit their work.

The panel which selected Evers consisted ofJames B. Cuno, director of the Harvard UniversityArt Museums; Doris Chu, president of the ChineseCultural Institute in Boston, and Barbara Krakow,owner of the Krakow Gallery in Boston.

In November, however, Chu told reporters thatshe had not seen sexually explicit works and wouldnot have approved the exhibit had she known of itsgraphic content.

Evers, who was born in Curacao and now lives inCambridge, defended his work in an interviewyesterday.

"The exhibit, as I pointed out in the past,deals with issues of gender [and] sexual identityand incorporates elements that are anatomicallyexplicit, but there's nothing lewd about them," hesaid.

The Gallery 57 show was Evers' first inCambridge.

Walsh "has caused a lot of problems," Everssaid. Following the show, Evers had been "worryingabout the show not going up initially, worryingabout the safety of my work, being upset about mywork being destroyed" before the show opened.

"It was an attempt at an act of censorship,"Evers said.

Evers said the damage was substantially morethan the cost of the removed dildos. "The damagewasn't only done to the dildos, but to the systemthat was placed in the box and the labor it tookto replace them," he said.

In addition, Walsh threatened to counter-sue,charging Evers with public dissemination ofobscene material. A clerk magistrate in thedistrict court found that charge groundless, butgranted Evers' civilian complaint, beginning theprocess leading to today's trial

Controversy

The fallout over the art exhibit and Walsh'sactions has continued, even though it is half ayear after the incident.

Walsh was convicted in March 1994 on 41 federalcounts of bank fraud, conspiracy and making falsestatements. But the controversial fiveterm citycouncillor refused to resign his seat, and wasonly removed from office in November after hissentencing, as mandated by Massachusetts statelaw.

Walsh was sentenced in November to 18 months inprison and two years' probation, but the sentencewas stayed pending his appeal.

If convicted in the arts case, he could faceadditional jail or probation time.

But Walsh said he would remove the dildos againif he had to.

"I take my stands and I fight my battles,whether it be rent control or the U.S. Attorney'soffice or this situation," he said, referring tohis bankfraud trial and rent control, of whichWalsh was one of the most outspoken opponents. "IfI believe I'm right I play all the way."

The former councillor disputed both the chargesand the extent of the damage to the exhibit.

"If you walk into somebody's house and removedildos from their house, that's a crime," he said."I had the power to look after the constituents ofthe city. This was something that should not havebeen on city property."

Walsh added that the dildos--which Walsh hadripped when tearing them from the artwork--cost$19 and $25 each and that no other damage wascaused.

Walsh said the case is a waste of taxpayers'money. "The problem with law enforcement today isthat instead of using those forces to work for thepeople, they use them for catchy, politicalcauses," he said.

Walsh's attorney said Evers was exploiting thecase to advance his personal career as an artist.

"Mr. Evers is looking to improve his standingwithin the arts community," said James J.Rafferty, a former School Committee member who isrepresenting Walsh. "It's become needlesslysensationalistic and is an absolute waste ofgovernment resources."

Rafferty has subpoenaed several City Hall Annexemployees who complained about the exhibit andCity Manager Robert W. Healy.

The controversy over the use of Gallery 57 hasalso continued. Use of the space is regulated bythe Cambridge Arts Council, which selectsthree-member juries from the community, which inturn pick which artists exhibit their work.

The panel which selected Evers consisted ofJames B. Cuno, director of the Harvard UniversityArt Museums; Doris Chu, president of the ChineseCultural Institute in Boston, and Barbara Krakow,owner of the Krakow Gallery in Boston.

In November, however, Chu told reporters thatshe had not seen sexually explicit works and wouldnot have approved the exhibit had she known of itsgraphic content.

Evers, who was born in Curacao and now lives inCambridge, defended his work in an interviewyesterday.

"The exhibit, as I pointed out in the past,deals with issues of gender [and] sexual identityand incorporates elements that are anatomicallyexplicit, but there's nothing lewd about them," hesaid.

The Gallery 57 show was Evers' first inCambridge.

Walsh "has caused a lot of problems," Everssaid. Following the show, Evers had been "worryingabout the show not going up initially, worryingabout the safety of my work, being upset about mywork being destroyed" before the show opened.

"It was an attempt at an act of censorship,"Evers said.

Evers said the damage was substantially morethan the cost of the removed dildos. "The damagewasn't only done to the dildos, but to the systemthat was placed in the box and the labor it tookto replace them," he said.

In addition, Walsh threatened to counter-sue,charging Evers with public dissemination ofobscene material. A clerk magistrate in thedistrict court found that charge groundless, butgranted Evers' civilian complaint, beginning theprocess leading to today's trial