Smithsonian Strategies Suggested

GAO Calls for Method of Measuring Reforms After 2007 Spending Scandals

The Government Accountability Office recommended yesterday that the Smithsonian Board of Regents develop ways to critique its own policies and institute a plan to discipline its members if they neglect their duties.

The GAO reviewed the measures the regents have adopted after a series of scandals in 2007 that revealed inadequate oversight of Smithsonian leadership by its main governing board. The GAO approved the changes already in place, though it said many other reforms have not been completed.

It strongly encouraged some form of self-assessment, saying such measures had improved the effectiveness of other organizations with recent governance challenges, such as American University and United Way of America.

"It remains to be seen how the Smithsonian Board will proceed with its self-assessment process and a key challenge for the Board will be how to hold all regents accountable for their individual performance," the report said. The GAO also called for establishing a mechanism to determine whether the regents' reforms are working.

The Board of Regents is a 17-member voluntary body with representation from the executive, judicial and legislative branches, as well as the public. The membership includes the U.S. chief justice, the vice president, three members each from the House and Senate and nine citizens. Only Congress can remove a regent.

The regents were roundly criticized last year when the spending practices and compensation of top Smithsonian administrators were made public. Several top officials left, including the institution's chief executive, who resigned. Members of Congress blamed the regents and publicly chastised board leaders and other Smithsonian officials.

In response, the regents revised executive compensation policies, adopted written duties for all regents, created a committee to look at the backlog of building repairs, and separated the leadership responsibilities of the appointed chairman and the chancellor, who is the chief justice.

In the lengthy report, the GAO said the regents must keep improving communication with the staff, the 30 advisory boards and the public.

"I am especially pleased with the progress we have made in communications between the regents and the staff, Congress, our advisory board members, donors and the public," Smithsonian Acting Secretary Cristián Samper said yesterday. The regents have reported that of the 25 reforms they had hoped to accomplish, 20 have been completed.

Yet the GAO still had questions about the fundamental role of the regents, especially the congressional regents and the new role of non-regent advisers, who are experts from the corporate and nonprofit sectors. "There is currently little transparency" about how members of various Smithsonian committees are selected and held accountable, the GAO said.

In his response to the GAO's questions about the regents' diligence, Chairman Roger W. Sant wrote, "The Regents share a strong expectation that all members will be equally engaged and active. . . . Accepting membership now requires a promise by each Regent to be active, engaged, and productive." He also said the board has committed to a review of its practices every three years.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, requested that the GAO analyze the steps the regents had taken and to make further recommendations.

She reacted favorably to the GAO report. "The past year has been a tumultuous one for the Smithsonian, but I think the Board of Regents and the acting secretary have taken great strides in restoring the public's faith in this great institution," Feinstein wrote in a statement. "I am pleased that the GAO report released today documents the many positive changes that have been implemented at the Smithsonian since last March."

But Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a frequent critic of the Smithsonian, had concerns. "The Smithsonian Institution has checked off a lot of reforms on a list, but good governance requires more than a checklist," he said in a statement. "For example, the board is said to have embraced transparency, yet the board recently met to choose the next secretary, apparently without announcing the meeting or the location. The public learned of the meeting after the fact, when the new secretary was announced. So what does transparency mean? The effects of these reforms are yet to be seen."