Ruth Rowe, Helen Dowd, and Barney Reid wrote very balanced letters regarding this situation and tried to help find a solution. They objected to the way the rules were changed, voted on while many members were away on vacation and could not attend the meeting, but understood some of the needed new proposals.

     Ruth Rowe on June 27,1966 wrote:
     "…. Our greatest objection concerns Section 5 of Article II, to wit: There shall be no inactive or honorary memberships. This proposal is felt to be neither humanly sound nor compatible with the 50 year history of the Art Guild It is a condition which creates a sudden elimination of 75% or more of the membership…"

     Helen Dowd on July 2 wrote:
     "It seems too bad the Art Guild has to go through this turmoil, but maybe some good will come from it all. I feel I should speak up because I have been in a position to view both sides.
     Those opposing the 'new' Guild have every right to feel surprisingly forgotten, not because they don't qualify for the new Guild, but the manner it was handled…
     Any change so important should not be kept clouded. No notice was given until eight days before this vital issue was to be voted upon. The annual meeting for officers was two months late and instead used to vote in the new guild by-laws. The by-laws were mailed with a letter falsely stating that the board and last fourteen Past presidents felt this a good and necessary change…"

     Mabel Fairfax Karl wrote on July 2, 1966:
     "It would appear that the true object or 'reorganizing' the San Diego Art Guild has been to further destroy what remained of its original purpose and identity.
     For nearly fifty years I have been a member, and although inactive for some time, I have felt it an honor to continue my support. It seems incredible that such memberships are now considered a liability to the 'committee'! Naturally it is with regret that I am canceling my membership."

     Evan Jones, after receiving many letters tabled the vote.

     Barney Reid on July 6, 1966 wrote this letter to Evan after that action:
     "It is my understanding that you, as president of the Fine Arts Society, have tabled the recent action to reorganize the San Diego Art Guild until additional information is in hand. For this action on your part I personally thank you….
     I have no objections to modernizing the legal structure defining the relationship of the Guild to the Fine Arts Society. Upon careful reading of the proposed new structure I see that it goes far beyond the basic consideration. This proposed change is either a deliberate maneuver to supply the Gallery with a captive 'stable' of artists of their choosing or has not been carefully or prudently considered….
     I cannot help but feel that the manner and direction of this latest effort will accomplish nothing but resentment and frustration and will alienate the loyalty and support of many members who have for years actively supported the Guild and Gallery by their payment of dues.
     The feeling for the need of Article II, Section 2, is particularly offensive since it is an established and accepted practice to jury all exhibitions. This membership structure is not only demeaning to mature and capable artists but has a built-in rejection of sensitive developing talent which is so pathetically needed during this chaotic period of art and aesthetics. I believe the Gallery would be sadly remiss in its responsibility to the community if membership in the Guild is to be determined by such arbitrary specifics.
     In the event the Guild is reorganized along the lines of the present proposal I feel strongly that it should not carry the Guild name since it would bear no identification with the parent organization nor make any pretense of filling the same need…"

     Hilda Preibisius wrote on July 6, 1966:
     "…James Sheets wrote, 'we all feel that this is the most fair solution of the problems (what problems?) and that this will keep the Guild an active and vital organization for many years to come.' It would seem to me that an organization that is still vital after fifty years does not need to be apologized for….
P.S. It might be of interest to note that among those 'ruled and regulated out' of the Guild by this radical group of re-organizers, are several who were founders of the Fine Arts Society and as a result later saw our beloved Fine Arts Gallery come into being."

     Leda Klauber wrote to Mr. Jones on July 7, 1966:
     "I wish to go on record as protesting against the recent changes passed by the San Diego Art Guild…
     The older members who were instrumental in organizing the guild were given no opportunity of taking part in the formation of the changes made. All we had time to do was to sign a ballot showing our disapproval.
     I do not mean to imply that we do not think that certain changes are necessary. I have been a member of the guild since it met in the old B. Street School, where I served as social chairman; at that time I believe the late Aime Titus was president. Hazel Shoven, Elizabeth Sellon, Esther Barney, Helen Dowd and others who were active during these early years were responsible for keeping the organization alive.
     Though we know creative expression advances with the years, more than one point of view should be considered in the guilds exhibits. The last two shows have been dominated by only one faction. Some of the things shown were not only offensive to the general public but to the artists as well. They had no place at the Fine Arts Gallery…."

     Hazel Shoven a member since 1925 wrote on July 8, 1966:
     "…. I have never heard of an association crossing off members because they are old and do not or cannot take part any more if they pay their dues and wish to be included. Of course if they are in jail or disgraced the guild in some way that's a different matter. It's the old story they are going to be old some time and be in exactly the same place. I do not see how how they can lower the quality of the work of the guild if they do not submit work to the Art Guild exhibits."
     Fey Marshall, a Guild member and an executive member of the Gallery staff in business administration, wrote this letter dated July 8, 1966:
     "I understand there is to be a meeting at the Gallery this Monday regarding the recent action to reorganize the San Diego Art guild. As a Guild member, I would like to add my plea to others that this be given further consideration before being adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Fine Arts Society.
     Is there any possibility that the voting of the recent Guild meeting could be nullified, I believe a better plan for reorganization should be formed.
     These plans for reorganization appear to have been a 'snow job' of a few members and is not a realistic answer to the question. I am not against a change in the rules and regulations in order to make the Guild a better committee, but that there should have been such secrecy in the reorganization plan, without considered opinions of the complete group, is unthinkable.
     The San Diego Art Guild stands to be lost in the shuffle and has too long been a part of the Society to be dissolved by a few of its members.
     I hope there is a solution."
     Ruth M. Gray wrote this in her letter dated July 10, 1966:
          "… Many of the nearly 200 members who would be dropped in accordance with the new rules have been loyal members for many years. They help support the Guild with their annual dues and their friendship if in no other way. Since our shows are juried they do no harm. It seems to me 200 friends are far better than 200 antagonized people…."

     James R. Clark wrote to Evan Jones on July 10, 1966:
     "As a long term Art Guild member and art educator in this city, I should like to protest the underhanded manner in which the Art Guild was scuttled.
     I was appalled, when returning from a week's vacation between semesters, to find what had transpired in such a pitifully short time.
     It is not necessarily the concept the Guild Board has initiated that is repugnant; it is rather the sneaky attack that smells.
     Most of us would endorse a method of streamlining the Guild, i.e. active and in-active members, etc. However, such sweeping reorganizational trap should not be viciously sprung upon a largely unsuspecting membership without due regard for the democratic process. This casual disregard for the parliamentary rights of each member constitutes an indignant rebuff.
     The original purposes for which the Guild was formed are still desirable and meaningful (esthetic quality--the single criteria) whereas the revisions set forth are an effort to turn the Guild into a sanctimonious, self-perpetuating group. For example; avant-garde artists select avant-garde juror to select avant-garde art. Alas, we are caught up and spun in a vicious circle.
     Surely there could be a more equitable way of selecting a membership and program that would promote art quality which the Fine Arts Society should wish to foster in our community."

     In a letter written on July 10,1966, Martha Alf wrote:
     "…The Fine Arts Gallery is the most beautiful and desirable place in San Diego for an artist to show his work. Under the old Art Guild, Guild members were loyally given the right to at least one exhibit there a year. This was a sign of their belonging to the Fine Arts Society. They were a part of it. The Art Guild had, in their own show, a chance to hang in the Gallery; a chance, which was given to no other San Diego or California artists. There was a definite advantage to belonging to the Guild then if an artist was interested in showing his work at the Gallery. Now Guild artists have no advantage over any other local or State artist. In the years to come, the shows may even be open to all fifty states. The scramble among Guild members to maintain their membership under such mounting competition will be humiliating indeed. I am sure that you and the Board of the Fine Arts Society will wish to spare local artists that humiliation."

     Herbert L. Minshall Jr. wrote to Evan Jones on July 11, 1966:
     "As a recent past president of the San Diego Art Guild, I wish to protest the disgraceful manner in which a small minority of the Guild has apparently achieved its reorganization against the wishes of the majority, and by means that appear to be fraudulent and deceitful.
     The officers of the Guild failed to call an annual meeting at the time specified in the Constitution, delaying it until the maximum number of members could be expected to be out of town, and perpetuating in office the officers and directors two months beyond their lawful terms.
     The officers of the Guild held an election vital to the interests of the membership without sufficient advanced announcement and without discussion by the membership at large.
     The officers of the Guild released a newsletter in which they stated that the fourteen most recent past presidents had been invited to participate in the reorganization planning, and they intimated that the result was concurred in by the past presidents. This was, in my opinion, a deliberate and calculated lie; I suppose its purpose was to clothe the wreaking operation in some semblance of respectability, and influence the general membership toward a favorable vote. I never received any communication that could be construed as an invitation to participate, nor did a number of other past presidents. I am bitterly resentful of this deception.
     I strongly urge you and your board of Trustees to investigate this matter, and to take appropriate action to rectify a situation that reflects that greatest discredit on the Society."

     A literal flood of letters was sent protesting the change. Some of the other artists protesting the changes and sending letters were Isabel Churchman, Elsie Donaldson, Maude Shumacher, Joseph Earl Schrack, Helen V. Stockes, Eve Gilchrist, Katherine Conover, and Kay Whitcomb.

     On July 11, 1966 a letter/petition was put together by Kay Whitcomb, passed around, signed, and presented to Fine Arts Society Board in order to preserve the San Diego Art Guild under the 1963 By-Laws:

     "We the undersigned wish to show our desire to preserve the San Diego Art Guild under the revised By-Laws of 1963. We are in accord in the belief that some Amendments need to be made in order to make it a more unified organization. Two basic points are listed for preserving the Guild as it was till June 23rd, 1966, and we ask the Fine Arts Society Board to take an action to revoke or declare invalid the motion and voting upon the new By-Laws.

     1. To keep our honored members who are influential and respected in San Diego and the backbone of art in this area, lending our organization prestige. Many of them help founded the Fine Arts Society. To preserve the membership of those who currently are inactive because of other responsibilities but have previously given unselfishly to the Guild's programs and been active artists. To give dignity and graciousness to our organization with 50 years of growth and not discard it so lightly -
     2. To preserve our Purpose in the 1963 By-Laws -
The Purpose of this organization shall be to promote good art, regardless of medium or school. The purpose shall be threefold:
          1. To judge and accept by aesthetic principle alone.
          2. To encourage high standards and individual creative expression.
          3. To provide for exhibitions, discussions, and other events…

     This petition is also for the purpose of expressing our approval of the action taken by Mr. Evan Jones…."
Elizabeth S. Sellon, Esther Barney, Leda Klauber, Jean Anthony, Lilli Hill, Martha Alf, James R. Clark, Elizabeth A. Newkirk, Marvelle D. Stickney, Marguerite S. Gray, Stephania G. Howard, Poni Swanser
(These are the only signatures found on several copies of this petition, however many others probably sent in this petition as well.)

     Evan Jones subsequently tabled the vote and then received many other letters of praise from all sides of this issue.

     However, on July 18, 1966 a letter was sent to Evan Jones, President of the Fine Arts Society announcing the resignations of 19 Guild members who had penned the original new rules and were upset over the Fine Arts Society's rejection of them. Here is an excerpt from that document:
     "The Guild has appeared to us in a new light as a unique organization that is absolutely resistant to change. The membership is held together by ties that bind: sentiment and the pursuit of mediocrity. With a combination like that how can we hope to sell the heady atmosphere of superb quality and hard work.
     By making the requirements for membership more stringent we had hoped, by our yea vote, to improve the Guild and thereby strengthen the Fine Arts Society but now we understand that happiness and comfort are the goals, not that which provokes dialogue and intellectual stimulation.
     Since the artist never exists in the warm broth of happiness and comfort and since we the undersigned would probably continue to set up the gross vibrations of controversy, we feel that we would be a threat to all that happiness and all that comfort, therefore, be it known that we the undersigned hereby resign our memberships."
Joan Wells, John Dawson, Lynn Fayman, Marc Grant, Alva Thomas, Florence Bird, Verna Loy, Don Hughes, Dorothy Stratton, Carol Lebeck, John D. Clark, Robert Matheny, Norma McGee, Sarah Roberts, Marj Hyde, Phyllis Gormish, Jim Kacirk, Pete Matosian.

     On July 22, 1966 Evan V. Jones, President of the Fine Arts Society wrote a letter to the Guild members. This is an excerpt:
     "That the Fine Arts Society Board of Trustees disapprove the action taken at the June 23rd meeting of the Art Guild; that the Fine Arts Society Board recommend that a subsequent meeting of the Art Guild be held September 15th at which time the proposed new, or modified, Rules and Regulations be voted on again."

     In the minutes dated August 31, 1966, the following was recorded:
     "Rudy Turk was the acting director of the gallery during the absence of Warren Beach.
     Change in membership allowing members who were members prior to 1942 were allowed to remain and other punitive wording was removed.
     20 members signed a letter of resignation."

     William Bowne Secretary of the Guild wrote this note in October 1966:
     "Much credit is due the Art Guild Board of 1965-66 for the reorganization plan. Their intent was to give professional quality to the work of the Guild, to prevent it from declining into a club-house activity, to point it toward the realities and responsibilities of artists. They hit upon a bizarre device for accomplishing this (the young Picasso, Cézanne for twenty of his most productive years, Van Gogh in all his life,--could not have qualified for Art Guild membership). However, what practical way exists for comprehending the artist's motives, integrity, and attainments that equals the judgment of experts, such as those selected for major exhibitions? So, high praise is due Jim Sheets and his outgoing Board, who have profoundly affected the future of the Art Guild."

back to top