What is the reaction?
Give the director a higher position and even more budget money.
Details: Director of the State Budgetary Institution “RUSSIAN PHILHARMONIC” – Gayane Shiladzhyan. Her son, Harry Fedotov, works under her. Being a full-time employee of the State Budgetary Institution of Culture, Harry created a concert agency under the same name – “RUSSIAN PHILHARMONIC”. And my mother gave this agency the exclusive right to organize the participation of the state orchestra in concert programs. Now money for the state orchestra under contracts, incl. with state philharmonic societies flow through a private intermediary owned by the son of the director.
Seems like a conflict of interest? Interested party agreement? What will the FAS say?
The Moscow department of the FAS, having received one example of such cutting from the prosecutor’s office, carried out an inspection. Who did it start checking? Director of the Moscow orchestra? Her son – the founder and director of the gasket? No, the Moscow FAS began to check the payer of the remuneration – the State Philharmonic, not even Moscow, but Kaluga. What questions do you have for her? Since there is a Moscow intermediary with the exclusive right to organize the participation of the Moscow orchestra in concert programs, then only through him can the contract be concluded, only he can be paid. There were no violations on the part of the Kaluga payer, that’s what they answered (see appendix). And the Moscow department of the FAS simply decided not to check the recipient of the money and the gasket, an interested-party transaction between the director of the state orchestra and her son, the director of the gasket.
Apparently, this suits everyone, because the Moscow Committee for Culture, already knowing about these arts, promoted Harry Fedotov and put him in charge of an independent cultural institution.
“ВЧК ОГПУ”
