Same Old Smithsonian

After an Appalling Year of Scandal, an Appalling Lack of Action

More than a year has passed since Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Post reporters James V. Grimaldi and Jacqueline Trescott began their investigations of the serious financial and administrative improprieties at the Smithsonian Institution, the country's largest and most prestigious museum complex.

The Post reporters thoroughly documented then-Secretary Lawrence Small's bloated salary, perks and misuse of funds; his deputy's compensation from outside corporate sources; the Board of Regents' failure to oversee the institution and hold it accountable; the culture of secrecy permeating the organization; and the excessive travel and other expenses of Richard West, then executive director of the National Museum of the American Indian.

A three-person independent review committee, headed by Charles A. Bowsher, a former U.S. comptroller general, was asked to assess the organization's governance problems. The committee excoriated Small's "imperial and insular" management style; the lack of financial controls and audit procedures; and the Board of Regents' inept oversight. It recommended some major changes in the institution's governance.

But neither Congress nor the Board of Regents has moved decisively to implement the necessary changes. Why has it taken so long?

The Board of Regents, composed of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the vice president, three senators, three representatives and nine independent members, remains in office. Roger Sant, chairman of the executive committee and initial defender of Larry Small, was recently reappointed to the board by both the Senate and House, although the scandals took place on his watch.

The culture of obfuscation and secrecy still prevails. A governance committee of regents has yet to issue its final report after a year's deliberations. The minutes of its meetings are not publicly available. Nor are undoctored transcripts of the board's meetings. On its Web site, the Smithsonian has posted a scorecard of the progress it is making to address the recommendations of the independent review committee, but the scorecard provides little of substance, leaving the public in the dark about what is really going on. It took the Smithsonian 1 1/2 years to answer, in November, more than 20 requests for information by Post reporters under the Freedom of Information Act. A couple of months ago, the Smithsonian's acting secretary, Cristi¿n Samper, appointed a new chief executive of the National Museum of the American Indian without bothering to consult many members of the museum's advisory board.

It is clear that the current Board of Regents is not functional. There is no reason, other than tradition, that the chief justice, vice president and six members of Congress should serve as regents. None of them has the time or energy to be an effective overseer. No more than one senator and one House member should serve. The nine independent regents, possibly augmented by an additional two or three, should come not primarily from the ranks of corporate America and the wealthy but from the large number of outstanding public-service-minded citizens with the skills and commitment to fulfill fiduciary and accountability responsibilities. Most of the current independent regents have failed that test and should leave.

An individual of great integrity and public stature -- someone such as former senators Paul Sarbanes or Bill Bradley -- should be appointed chairman of the board. To ensure the financial and administrative integrity of the Smithsonian, the inspector general, the general counsel and the chief financial officer, who were marginalized and lackadaisical in monitoring developments at the museum, should be replaced by people of sterner qualities.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office on the state of the Smithsonian's facilities revealed that through 2013 the institution will need at least $2.5 billion more to repair, upgrade and maintain its physical plant and security needs. At a hearing of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), told the regents that the Smithsonian should raise private money to cover such costs.

It is an absurd and irresponsible proposition. Wealthy people and corporations will not give money to finance maintenance, building improvements and additional security measures. The only feasible financier of such costs is the federal government. It is appalling that Feinstein refused to consider substantial additional federal funds for the Smithsonian, especially when, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, she has sponsored 111 earmarks for a total of $174.2 million.

The Smithsonian is loved by the millions of Americans who visit its facilities free of charge and is admired overseas as one of the great American icons. It deserves this nation's wholehearted support.

Members of Congress, especially those who are regents, should be working hard to ensure full federal funding of the facilities' budget and a greater share of the institution's operating costs. They need to make certain that the necessary changes at the Smithsonian, particularly those affecting governance, are made soon. It is inexcusable for them to permit the problems to drag on and on.

The writer is a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute and a columnist for the Chronicle of Philanthropy.