Senate committee narrows field for Adams and Freeman busts, debates marble vs. bronze

Chair Julian Cyr convened the Senate Audit Committee for a public working session to begin reviewing artist proposals for two commemorative busts, Abigail Adams and Elizabeth Freeman. The committee examined nine Abigail Adams submissions and five or six Freeman submissions, discussed materials and display in the Senate chamber and agreed to narrow consideration for Adams to the highest‑scoring applicants while requesting additional refinements from finalists.

Cyr said members had scored applicants using the RFP’s six criteria — artistic merit and technique; emotional impact; aesthetic quality; faithfulness to historical research; suitability for display in the Senate chamber; and physical stability and permanence — on a scale of 1 to 5, and that the compiled scores would inform deliberation. He identified Meredith Bergman and Anne Hirsch as leading the Adams field, with Skylight Studios, Serena Bates and Jordan Hine forming a solid secondary tier. “These are hefty proposals,” Cyr said, noting that the committee would likely ask finalists for additional information rather than reach a final recommendation at this meeting.

Members debated whether to require a single material across both busts or allow one marble and one bronze. Cyr flagged the chamber context — six existing marble busts and a bronze of Frederick Douglass — as relevant to the choice. Committee members raised technical and aesthetic tradeoffs after reviewing renderings and clay studies: some praised marble renderings for an open, forthright presence, while others said an artist’s bronze work sometimes better captured likeness and detail.

The panel informally agreed to limit active consideration for Abigail Adams to the top five scoring proposals and to remove lower‑scoring entries from detailed review. One member recommended focusing on the top five and removing the bottom four; another seconded that recommendation and members signaled agreement. Staff cautioned that while aggregated scoring can be compiled for transparency after the meeting, sharing scores among members before a public session could run afoul of the open meeting law.

On procedural next steps, Cyr said the committee will reconvene in several follow‑up meetings, ask selected applicants for revisions (including guidance on gaze, age and headwear), and then make a recommendation to the Senate. Staff will circulate available scoring totals after the public meeting and send a poll to schedule subsequent sessions.

The committee adjourned and said it will reconvene in the coming weeks.