CHRO Complaint Intake form Response

 

INTAKE QUESTIONNAIRE II

Inquirer Name and Address: Frank Krasicki <snip>

1. Respondent Name and Address:
   
   CT Office of the Arts

       

450 Columbus Boulevard, Ste 5
Hartford, CT 06103

PHONE : 860-500-2300

2. Does the Respondent offer its goods and services to the General Public? Is it a store, a bank, a Police Department, etc.? :
   
   They administer the 1% for [Public] Art program

3. How were you denied services and when? What was the Name and Title of the individual you spoke with? What were you seeking?:

   I received a notice of artists whose public arts submissions in early February of 2026.
   I attempted to corresponded with Tamara Dimitri, CT Office of the Arts at CT.gov.
   I was seeking an accounting of the “1%” that was spent on the art and who received it. She never replied.
   
   So I began to examine the program’s results.
   
   
   

4. Is the Respondent a school system or educational facility? If your complaint is against an educational facility or school, are you filing on behalf of your minor child (under 18 years of age)? If so, what is your child’s name, age and what grade were they in? Were you treated differently by the school in your role as a parent?:
   
   Not school related.
   
   
   

5. Was your child bullied? If so, when, for how long, and how often? Did you report the treatment to the Administration, to whom and when? Did the school investigate and what was the result?:
   
   N/A
   
   
   

6. Was your child denied a reasonable accommodation? What was the reasonable accommodation requested? Was anything offered in the alternative? What is the Name and Title of the Administrators you spoke with?:
   
   N/A
   
   
   
   

7. What is the reason for you claim of discrimination (race, sex, age, disability, national origin, religion, retaliation, pregnancy, color, ancestry, etc.)? Please identify on what basis you are being treated differently.:
   
   Regional residency. Zip Code economic class.
   
   
   

   Why do you think these actions were discriminatory?:
   
   The evidence of the discriminatory nature of how the 1% [Public Art] is administered is obvious (but I will provide those details in a summary).
   
   The nature of the discrimination is the money laundering of public arts funds that is funneled to wealthy or ingrown, privileged communities.
   
   State funds paid by *everyone* in the State in programs such as 1% for Art are intended to be used to acquire art works that represent the best of a broad spectrum of arts and crafts from ALL OVER the State regardless of an artist’s identity details or State based geographic location. A reasonable expectation for a qualifying artist who submits work for consideration is that that piece of work will be given an objective and incorruptible opportunity to be selected.
   
   My complaint is NOT that my work should have been selected, it is that my work (and the work of lots of other artists who are geographically challenged or not an insider) never had a fair opportunity to be selected. Furthermore I question whether or not the process even involved individuals who had the mental capacity to judge the art. And finally, I question the integrity of the program and whether or not the Connecticut Art Collection itself is being culturally compromised by swindlers.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

8. Describe if anyone else was in the same or similar situation and how they were treated. Provide the race, sex, age, national origin, religion, disability of these individuals, if known, and if it relates to your claim of discrimination.
   
   Yes, a multitude of artists who submitted work to these calls for public art who don’t live along the shoreline or Western CT [NY getaway] suburban communities are affected.

 

1. Of the persons who were in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated better than you?
   
   Any honest evaluation of the art selected cannot statistically explain the extraordinary clustering of geographic co-incidence. At face value, all the art should have been given a blind consideration based on the art alone. I can’t prove it wasn’t but the results give a miraculously astonishing proof.

2. Of the persons who were in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated worse than you?
   
   We were all discriminated against either as a by-product of money laundering or as a consequence of the dysfunctional administration and lack of accountability of the 1% for Art program.

 

9. If you are claiming discrimination because of disability – Did you ask respondent employees for any changes or assistance to use their facility or services?
    

1. When did you ask?

2. Did you ask verbally or in writing?

3. Who did you ask?

4. Describe what you asked for.

5. Describe how the individual responded to your request.
   
   N/A

 

10. Did you file an internal complaint of discrimination with the Respondent? If so, was it investigated and by whom? What were the results of the investigation?
    
    Arts funding in CT is a tangle of incomprehensible bureaucracy. I have never been able to penetrate this administrative pile of worthless bureaucrats to ever get an answer to anything. I refer you to my blog; artscrub.blogspot.com where I document my efforts to do so over many years.
    
    I have had success in the past with CHRO in resolving similar issues and I trust this process far more than the wolves guarding the hen house art collection.
    
    I am currently compiling a body of material that I believe will prove the assertions I’m claiming.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference: https://artscrub.blogspot.com/2026/03/chro-ct-office-of-arts-complaint.html