Mandatory Published Inquiries

Applicant's Inquiry:

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: 5. 5. 2023

1. Whether the extraordinary inventory of collection funds mandated by the Director's Order No. 004-2015 - Measures regarding the inventory of collection funds dated June 1, 2015, has been completed at the Regional Museum and Gallery in Most, a contributory organization.

2. If completed, by what date and with what result?

3. If not completed, when is its completion expected?

Response (Position)

1. As of December 31, 2016, the inventory of all sub-collections of the collection fund of the library of the Regional Museum in Most was completed, i.e., sub-collections 18 – Books (Old Prints), 19 – Documents and Prints, 24 – Other Conservation Fund, 25 – Regional Literature.
2. And as of the same date, the inventory of the group Historical Furniture from sub-collection 16 – Applied Arts was also completed.
3. As of November 30, 2019, the inventory of sub-collection 14 – Militaria was completed.
4. As of November 24, 2021, the inventory of models belonging to sub-collections 25 – Various and 11 – Ethnographic was completed.
5. The completed inventory is further in the funds of sub-collections 9 – Archaeological, 10 – Historical (group Textiles), 13 – Numismatic, 16 – Applied Arts (group ceramics, porcelain, metals), 17 – Applied Arts, 23 – Science, technology, and industrial production. However, final control revisions of the recorded data are ongoing so that everything can be officially closed by August 31, 2023.

Applicant's Inquiry: April 27, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: July 31, 2020

• Complaint about the procedure for handling the request

  1. “The obligated entity responded with communication No. 1535/2020/OMGMO dated July 20, 2020, delivered on July 23, 2020, providing a contract for the restoration.”

  2. “Regarding point 3, the obligated entity did not provide the information without issuing a decision on the partial rejection of the request.”

  3. “I am filing a complaint about the procedure for handling the request according to § 16a InfZ.”

Response (Position):

Sending the missing Decision on the partial rejection of the request for information.

Applicant's Inquiry: August 4, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: September 15, 2020

• Appeal against decision No. 01658/2020/OMGMO
• “The obligated entity responded with communication No. 1535/2020/OMGMO dated July 20, 2020, delivered on July 23, 2020... Information regarding points 2 and 3 was not provided without issuing a decision on the partial rejection of the request.”
• I am appealing against the decision according to § 16 paragraph 1 InfZ for the following reasons:
  1. The decision incorrectly states the date of the original request for information as May 5, 2020, whereas it is correctly July 13, 2020
  2. In its reasoning, it incorrectly references legal regulations regarding copyright to the work
  3. As a project partner within the project “Art of the Late Middle Ages in the Mining Area of the Ore Mountains,” it did not clarify certain questions regarding the restoration of Czech works abroad with the German partner
  4. According to the restoration contract (attached), OMGM must physically possess documentation with an unspecified right to use
  5. It possesses the information but refuses to provide it based on its own and incorrect interpretation of legal regulations.
  6. It questions the legal obligation to possess certain information, which according to the appellant does not comply with the provisions of Act No. 122/2000 Coll., on museum collections, as amended
  7. It chose a different legal approach (i.e., refusal of information), whereas information on other works of the same category had already been provided by the Lead partner of the project “Art of the Late Middle Ages in the Mining Area of the Ore Mountains.”

Response (Position):

1. This is a typo, which is, however, easily recognizable in the context of decision No. 01658/2020/OMGMO and accompanying letter No. 01657/2020/OMGM:O.
2. The appellant does not dispute the wording of the decision, only believes that it should have been supplemented with references to specific paragraphs of the copyright law that the obligated entity does not mention.
3. This is a criticism whose meaning escapes the obligated entity.
4. The obligated entity physically possesses the information – the thesis in question was sent to the obligated entity by the processor.
5. The mentioned thesis is an original document stored in the organization. The obligated entity does not feel authorized to provide this thesis as a work of a third party, which was stated in the decision.
6. The appellant presents their own view on the meaning of legal regulations regarding restoration. The wording of the entire section does not allow the obligated entity to do more than accept this wording without being able to respond in any way.
7. The obligated entity assumed that “Providing information can be refused not only for legal reasons, which are exhaustively listed in § 7- § 11 of the Access to Information Act, but also for factual reasons that are understandably not listed in the law.” This factual reason, according to the obligated entity, is the fact that the thesis, which clearly and unequivocally substitutes both the restoration intention and the resulting restoration report, is a work of a third party and cannot be provided as such. Unfortunately, the obligated entity did not verify that the Lead partner of the project had already provided such information in identical form.

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry: September 10, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: September 11, 2020

• In connection with the intention to accept a donation of the art collection “Florsalon” from the spouses Ing. Petr Zeman and Eva Kunstová to the Ústí Region, I request information:

  1. Travel order and settlement of the business trip of the director of the Gallery of Fine Arts in Most, a contributory organization, participant of the business trip to Tenerife (Spain), carried out from November 7-11, 2016, for the review and acceptance of part of the donation to the Ústí Region – the art collection FLORSALON …”

Response (Position):

Sending the travel order and settlement of the business trip to Tenerife carried out from November 7-11, 2016.

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry: September 11, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: September 15, 2020

• Supplement to the request for information according to Act No. 106/199 Coll. – No. 1906/2020/OMGM:

  1. Costs for transportation and accommodation including meals, documented by copies of tickets and hotel bills…

  2. Data on the receipt for excess baggage

  3. Sending a copy of the protocol, according to the travel report drawn up and recorded from the review of part of the collection, stored in Tenerife.

Response (Position):

1. Invoice attached

2. The receipt for excess baggage in the original document is without data. Unfortunately, the scan of the document cannot be made with quality text, as the original document is poorly filled out. The original document can be provided for inspection directly at the museum. The receipt contains information about excess baggage – 4 kg, €24.

3. €24

4. The requested protocol was never included in the file agenda and thus we do not possess it either.

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry: September 21, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: October 1, 2020

• Provision of information according to Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information, as amended, request delivered to the obligated entity on September 21, 2020.

• Complaint about the procedure for handling the request for information according to Act No. 106/199 Coll. (hereinafter InfZ) Florsalon ZPC

• On September 17, 2020, I received the provision of information regarding the supplementary request from September 11, 2020, against which I am filing a complaint about the procedure for handling requests according to § 16a InfZ for the following reasons:

  • No decision on partial rejection was issued

Response (Position):

Decision No. 2003/2020/OMGMO issued

Attachments:

APPLICANT'S INQUIRY: November 10, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: November 16, 2020

• Provision of information according to Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information, as amended, request delivered to the obligated entity on November 10, 2020.

• Supplement to the request for information according to Act No. 106/199 Coll. – Control of management

• Provision of information:

  1. Report on the ongoing control of management of the contributory organization, No. KUUK/1380126/2020

  2. Document on the deposit of the penalty for violation of budgetary discipline

  3. Request for reduction of the penalty

  4. Decision on the reduction of the penalty

Response (Position):

Sending the requested documents

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry: November 16, 2020

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: December 1, 2020

• Complaint about the procedure for handling the request

• A response No. 2343/2020/OMGMO was sent to the request for information dated November 16, 2020. A complaint has been filed against the handling of point 2. The provided information was not submitted, and no decision on the partial rejection of the information was issued.

Response (Position):

Decision No. 02437/2020/OMGMO issued

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry:

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: July 20, 2020

• “In connection with the restoration of the collection item The Joint with St. Anne Samotřetí from Most within the project “Art of the Late Middle Ages in the Mining Area of the Ore Mountains” No. 100289027, I request information:

  1. Contract for the restoration

  2. Restoration intention

  3. Restoration report

Response (Position):

1. “You are requesting information about certain actions within the project “Art of the Late Middle Ages in the Mining Area of the Ore Mountains,” in the cross-border cooperation program CZ-Saxony, No. 1002879027, details are available on the website of our institution and the Ústí Region.1 Therefore, we are sending the contract for enabling restoration and processing of the thesis (1)” ……..“ We also attach the restoration description and intention (2), although according to current regulations it was not necessary to process it, as it is not a registered cultural monument.”
2. “We are not authorized to provide the restoration report (3), as it was created as a work (thesis) at the Hochschule für Bildende Künste Dresden (HBK)……………….”

Applicant's Inquiry:

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: December 15, 2021

• Provision of information:

  1. Report on the results of the public administration control of management with received transfers, fixed assets, investment fund, including a review of internal regulations of the Regional Museum and Gallery in Most, a contributory organization for the period 2019 and 2020.

  2. Measures that were imposed on the obligated entity by the founder based on the results of the extraordinary control.

  3. Any request from the obligated entity for mitigation of imposed sanctions and the founder's decision on it, if submitted.

Response (Position):

Based on the received request, we are sending the relevant documents. The control in question was initiated by the former head of the Department of Culture and Heritage Protection of the Ústí Region Office. We also provided the founder with an oral explanation regarding the entire matter. We emphasized that the financial statements for the affected period were approved by the ÚK authorities without reservations and that the former management of the Department of Culture, etc., was thoroughly informed about both the course of the two actions and the problems that arose, especially due to strong pressure to meet deadlines and the extraordinary time discomfort that accompanied them.

Attachments:

Applicant's Inquiry:

Answered by: Mgr. Michal Soukup

Created: August 11, 2022

• Provision of information according to Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information, as amended, request delivered to the obligated entity on August 3, 2022.

Response (Position):

An Advisory Board for collection-making and acquisition activities operates in the organization, which acts based on the Rules of the Advisory Board for Collection-Making and Acquisition Activities. The director of OMGM approves the minutes from the advisory board through the Protocol from the meeting of the Advisory Board for Collection-Making and Acquisition Activities. This document contains the decisions and positions of the director and acquisition. The minutes are drawn up in the case of acquiring items through donation or purchase contracts.