Outlook: Smithsonian's Privatization Hangover

Lawrence Small Firing Is Just Start of Purging After Commercialization Binge

Robert Sullivan, former associate director of the Natural History Museum, was online Monday, April 2 at noon ET to discuss his Sunday Outlook article on the firing of Smithsonian director Lawrence M. Small -- and the difficulty of recovering from his disastrous management decisions, commercializing steps that badly sullied the national institution. Now, he says, reinvention -- and depoliticization -- are needed.

It's been politicized and kitschified, and its luster is gone. The Smithsonian needs to get back to basics. ( Post, April 1)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Robert Sullivan: Hi all this is Robert Sullivan, or Sully, and I thank you all for your questions, which I will attempt to answer as best I can

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Why did it take the various regents and authorities seven years to recognize what so many members knew from the beginning -- that a non-scientific Secretary like Lawrence Small was a slippery square peg in a round hole from the very start? The departure of so many museum directors should have been followed immediately by the departure of Larry Small, yet the Regents did nothing until six years later.

Robert Sullivan: The Regents structure itself needs some rethinking, in my opinion, to create a true governance board that oversees the place with more rigor.

_______________________

Washington: Your remedy will just lead the Smithsonian further down in mediocrity. Time to wake up people -- there is not enough money do it all. Could we turn over the art galleries to the National Gallery of Art?

Robert Sullivan: The interdisciplinary nature of the SI is a real untapped strength that should be advantaged. The leader has to have a broad background, curiosity, and vision for that kind of diverse intellectual climate

_______________________

Washington: Is it time to consider spinning off the research components of the Smithsonian and making them independent entities? The Smithsonian no longer can be a research institution and also run museums and art galleries. There is not enough money.

Robert Sullivan: It is a reasonable question ... right-sizing the Smithsonian is a consideration. It may have gotten too big to manage the way it is being managed.

_______________________

Maryland: IG's office or Congress also should look how some of the upper-management in OFEO who retired from civil service as an SEL appointee on January 31 and then were hired on with the trust fund at $250,000 per year in the same position. What makes them so special?

Robert Sullivan: I agree, there have been occasions when the trust funds were used to move people beyond the federal levels. The notion that trust funds do not matter because they are not public funds just is not true -- all the financial assets of the SI must be treated as critical and prioritized and used efficiently. As we have seen from recent articles, that has not been the case. The trust funds are some of the most precious funds of the SI, as they are less constrained, and need to serve the mission directly, not be squandered.

_______________________

Washington: Great article! I think the Smithsonian is particularly cavalier in the treatment it accords to the buildings that house its vast collection. They are spending $260 million to modernize the National Portrait Gallery/Museum of American Art, but the glass roof they are erecting over its courtyard has been criticized widely for detracting from its architecture and historic character. At the same time, they are allowed the Arts & Industries Building to gradually crumble away. These National Historic Landmark buildings deserve a better fate from an institution supposedly dedicated to preserving and showcasing artifacts of American history, of which our great architecture is a part.

Robert Sullivan: I agree on both points. The glass roof was an unnecessary flourish that should not have been approved. It added little real value or real estate to the project. It is not a very smart business venture to place a cafeteria under a 30 million dollar roof and actually try to convince people it will generate income. That money could have been better applied to upgrading exhibitions or collections storage. The A&I building is in need of major upgrading -- it has been closed for two years without any repairs being done. Both Congress and the SI need to take responsibility for this historic building and get it fixed!

_______________________

Sandy Spring, Md.: In the 1980s art museums learned the lesson that businessmen don't make good art museum directors because they don't understand the business model -- not-for-profit art-centered institutions. Why was the Smithsonian so clueless; didn't anyone notice what had happened to these kinds of experiments with not for profits before? Also, what can be done to make not-for-profit boards more responsible, as they are in for-profit boards?

Robert Sullivan: Again, this is clearly a Regents responsibility; to match the right leader with the needs of the organization. It is insulting to those of us who are dedicated to the not-for-profit world to be told we cannot possibly know how to manage, make effective decisions, stretch budgets effectively. Of course we can, we choose the NFP world because we are passionate about its content, not because we are idiots. Besides, has anyone looked at the wreckage in the business world. Who says that is the model?

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Sullivan: The Smithsonian is not the only museum in the past ten years to appoint business-oriented directors -- it has become a popular trend within the museum field. Many museums have hired business people to director positions and also have changed the titles of their senior staff to reflect those used in the business world. Do you have any thoughts on this larger trend ... of making museums look and act like businesses? And do you think the Smithsonian should serve as an example for reconsidering this type of business orientation within museums? Thank you.

Robert Sullivan: Some have worked and some have not. The character and capability of a person are not measured by their domain of interest. There must be passion for the product, energy, wit, integrity, imagination, and caring for the audience and staff. That is the right type for this job

_______________________

Washington: Each of the museums and research centers has advisory boards populated by strong leaders from academia, the arts and business. Why didn't they step up to bring the problems to the Regents?

Robert Sullivan: They, too, are not governance boards with the authority or information to provide rigorous oversight. They meet infrequently and are poorly tasked for the most part. Again, the goal often was fundraising and not accountability. There has to be an authentic, engaged governance board that meets systematically and takes responsibility. It is just too loose and ungainly.

_______________________

Washington: If Congress or the Administration is not willing to fully fund the Smithsonian with public dollars (as clearly is the case and will continue to be the case), how can a academician come in and run the Smithsonian without having to fundraise full-time? We can't go back to the Smithsonian of the past -- we'll end up being mediocre at best.

Robert Sullivan: The Congress has to realize what they have. Between sales tax, hotel tax, airline taxes and tourist spending, the SI generates more for the federal dollar than Congress gives. First step is to scuttle one Fighter Jet and pay for the SI. Also, America is generous and will give to an honorably run SI. They love the place. The generosity of the small-scale giver has not even been tapped. There is a real upside financially; that is not the issue. It is competent leadership.

_______________________

Washington: I thought your article was a real hatchet job and a missed opportunity for a productive discussion about important issues facing the Smithsonian. Your article was riddled with accusations and statements that were not backed up with concrete examples or statements of fact. I would like to see an article that comprehensively addresses the lack of oversight and structural problems with the Board of Regents.

Robert Sullivan: Limitations of space prevented detailing the facts, but they are all there and more. It needs to be rethought from the bottom up. Fresh leadership and a return to scholarship and education as the mission would be a good start.

_______________________

Detroit: Assuming things have not changed in the past few years since I last visited the Smithsonian, why is there no major admission fee to the museums? I realize that they want to make the museums as available to the public as possible, but when I am in Europe I have to pay entrance fees to all the museums. It seems to me that because so many visitors are from abroad and because the Smithsonian has financial problems, admission fees should be instituted.

Robert Sullivan: I am torn on this one as you are right -- a modest admissions fee with lots of free days might be a wise choice. Still, in a democracy as wealthy as this one, it really makes a statement to have a museum that is free for all. It is admired all over the world for that and we are seen as committed to equity of access to culture and education as a result. It is an Institution of American Identity, and what says that better than free and open to the public?

_______________________

Washington: Sully -- In your editorial, you said that in your opinion none of the names yet put forth to fill Larry Small's spot are good candidates. Who's on the top of your list for Secretary? If not specific names, can you suggest resume must-haves for the incoming Secretary?

Robert Sullivan: I will be sharing a list of names with the Regents of folks I think are good. In the meantime, Cristian Samper is an young, energetic man dedicated to quality content. I worked gladly for him. Still, he is relatively inexperienced at managing a place of this size and complexity. I would love to see a thorough, rigorous search to assure the right person is matched up with the needs of the place. It cannot tolerate another experiment

_______________________

Crownsville, Md.: As a museum professional, what strategies can we use to influence what happens next at the "broken" Smithsonian Institution?

Robert Sullivan: Serious letters of concern to both Alan Spoon and Roger Sant are important. We do take the place for granted sometimes and do not realize how it affects the image and health of museums everywhere. A strong, well-run, leadership museum would lift all boats ... so write about that.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Just wanted to say I thought your criticisms were spot-on. I was a "charter member" of the American Indian museum (NMAI) and donated a great deal of money for its construction (a great deal of money for me, anyway) but when the place opened I was extraordinarily disappointed by the results. I like the building itself a great deal, but the exhibits are so poorly arranged and interpreted that I got almost nothing out of visiting the place. I only have been back once since my first visit and that was to see a film program. I'm afraid they see their mission very differently than museum-goers expect. Now I am just a member of the National Building Museum, which seems to be very well organized and has great exhibitions.

Robert Sullivan: I was harsh on the NMAI but I truly support its risk-taking and attempt to allow native voices to be heard. It is a hard experiment and will have growing pains, but I see them getting better and better with each show as they learn this new model of interpretation. The Identity show is first-rate and you should support it

_______________________

Washington: Thanks, Mr. Sullivan, for all your answers. Do you think that the new managers will support cutting-edge research and, above all, finally will back scientists and staff of the different museums? What should be their position about censorship by the Congress? This applies particularly to exhibits that present hot topics ... thank you.

Robert Sullivan: I certainly hope so. There are only three questions after a human or natural disaster. What did you know? When did you know it? And what did you do about it? SI scientists know a lot now, but it is hard to get the support to tell these tough stories. They must be allowed to freely engage with the public. This medium, the Web is terribly underutilized by the SI and that has to change. The word must get out to hundreds of millions of citizens

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Sullivan -- thanks for your essay on the current state of the Smithsonian. As a retired Smithsonian staffer, I've been distressed about the directions that the Institution has taken in the past 15 years or so. The Institution faces one fundamental problem: it is required to meet its mission without the money necessary to do so. As you know, Congress consistently refuses to fund essential expenditures. Thus -- to cite one example -- Arts and Industries is closed to the public, because its failing roof endangers visitors, because Congress won't appropriate the money to fix the roof.

The Board of Regents seems unable to persuade the Congress that the Smithsonian needs more funding than Congress sees fit to appropriate. Given the responsibilities of most of the Regents' daily jobs (Chief Justice, Vice President, members of the House and the Senate), one should not be surprised that the Regents want to avoid hands-on oversight or being mired in the Institution's fiscal problems. The current scandal may discomfit the Regents for a short while, but they will return to non-business as usual. Do you believe that this time might be different -- that this time people in power finally may understand that they have to pay for the Smithsonian? Or do you expect them to continue to believe that wishing the Smithsonian well will make it so?

Robert Sullivan: I think there needs to be an entirely different approach with Congress. Instead of focusing on what is needed, they should focus on what the SI generates for the U.S. In real dollars the SI brings more money to Congress than they ask for. The money is there, we have to support the SI and pry it loose!

_______________________

Washington: Surely, in this country there is someone capable of running an organization of this size. Head of a corporation? Marine General? Head of a successful University? The point of the Smithsonian is that it is all-encompassing, not a bit here and a bit there. It is the true nature of it that defines it. Let's not lose sight of this.

Robert Sullivan: I think you are right on with a major university person. Paul Riser has volunteered to head the NMNH during the search. He is a high-integrity scholar who ran the entire Oklahoma university system and raised money to boot.

_______________________

Chevy Chase, Md.: How can the Regents structure be changed to have less political representation?

Robert Sullivan: I think the whole Regents system needs to be rethought. You cannot expect the Chief Justice and the Vice President to do crisp oversight of the SI. Boards need to authentically oversee to avoid excess and they need the time to do it. Each of the major museums is large enough to have a governance board of its own. There are sincere, engaged Regents who really care, like Roger Sant, but it is just too big and burly a place to be run by one beleaguered board. It has to be rethought

_______________________

To Washington: Are you kidding "Washington"? Have you been to Madrid or London? They seem to be able to "do it all" as you put it. Seriously are you saying we can't do as well if not better than the French? Perhaps when conservatives stop politicizing the NEA (Lynn Cheney refused to fund projects that didn't agree with her worldview when she worked there under Reagan), then perhaps we will be able to preserve our national treasures and display them in a way that gives both pride and knowledge to our citizenry instead of blind "oh we can't afford that" lemming-ry.

Robert Sullivan: France?! We certainly can do it as well as the French. But I have to say the new Quai Branley in Paris is going to be a knockout of an Anthropology Museum. I agree that Congress in the past 15 years has become much more petty in its scrutiny of the SI. No true increases to the base have happened in the core programs during that time. Annually the SI has to absorb small personnel cuts 4-5 percent -- repeated through 10 years, that has been devastating. It is totally unknown to the public that the Congress approves a COLA for federal workers and then does not fully fund it, causing agencies to have to cut staff to manage the raises gifted by Congress.

_______________________

Des Moines, Iowa: Seems the Bush administration also fouled up the Smithsonian. Please keep people like the last director off the enrollment list. I'm seriously considering if I want to contribute more to the Museum.

Robert Sullivan: Please do contribute more. On the ground, the staff of the SI are an honorable and committed lot, full of scholars, artists, financial folks, educators, carpenters, etc. dedicated to excellence. I was there and saw how hard these people worked to keep the place alive. It is a shame to see people at the top squander precious money when in the trenches people are working for peanuts out of caring for the place. Some of the people laid off at the Henry Papers, for instance, are coming back and volunteering to keep the project alive. I saw that kind of commitment every day, which is why I am so outraged at the callous arrogance at the top. We must take the next Secretary appointment seriously.

_______________________

Washington: Congratulations on a brilliant article informing the outsiders and the insiders about the tragic goings-on in the world's largest education and research center. Education at the Smithsonian has been reduced to fictitious numbers and up "for sale" irrespective of standards. Staff callously and mercilessly was evacuated from the historically important A&I Building and put into "prison cells" at a huge cost. Why are the Federal/Trust differentials only for top management? Dare we hope for better days?

Robert Sullivan: I agree that education is undervalued at the SI these days and needs rethinking. It is the last untapped educational asset in this Country and has so much to offer. New learning technologies are made for the SI assets and need to be engaged. The SI should be electronically next door to every school in America and that would make Congress stand up and take notice of what this place is worth. The A&I building is an enormous failure of will on the part of Congress and the SI. It has been closed for two years with no progress on funding of fixing it. To have such a derelict asset on the National Mall of the wealthiest country in the world is sending the wrong message. There are so many educational functions it could fulfill. Something has to be done about it. Write everyone you can!

_______________________

Smithsonian Institute museum guide: As someone who has lived in the D.C. area for more then 35 years and who has been a volunteer for the SI, I've got a question/observation ... I know that exhibits have major corporate sponsorship, i.e the bug zoo sponsored by Orkin, etc. and that sponsors want to see there name on a exhibit. How difficult is it to have the budget fund the building improvements (A&I roof) and SI salaries? Or could they find corporate sponsorship to fix the roof of A&I ... "this building upgrade sponsored by The Home Depot"?

Robert Sullivan: It is a great idea. There are local construction firms that have offered to help. Maybe each could adopt a building the way we do highways and contribute upgrading and maintenance on a regular basis. There are a lot of creative fundraising ideas that are untapped and need to be encouraged. I believe the small donor pool has enormous potential as there are so many people who feel grateful to the free SI. I like the idea of broadening the base so there is less temptation to turn the place over to an elite few. And by the way, let's end the practice of naming people regents because they gave a lot of money. It just does not get you the Board you need.

_______________________

Washington: The Smithsonian is not in the executive branch of the government. Would the Smithsonian be better off if it were to become part of the executive branch, with a six-year-term appointee as is done with NSF to avoid political leanings?

Robert Sullivan: It is an excellent point and should be explored. Its current position is fairly buried in the Interior Department, giving it very little leverage. It probably should be its own line item entirely, more like the Institute of library and museum services or the NEH.

_______________________

Washington: Mr. Sullivan, when did you leave the Smithsonian, and have you been involved as part of Chora in any of the projects you criticized? Some of your statements seem to be based on what has been presented in the press, not on knowledge of specific projects. For example, the Norman Foster-designed courtyard enclosure at the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery was not criticized widely, but was questioned by one commission that did approve the project, and its purpose was to create a wonderful public gathering space -- not to make money -- an idea that first was proposed in the 1880s by Montgomery Meigs.

Robert Sullivan: I left the SI six months ago but I had contacts with many of the projects I am criticizing. I was, as you might imagine, a vocal pain in the backside while I was there and openly resisted many of the decisions that were made. I hate the glass roof for both aesthetic, political, and architectural reasons. I did express that opinion to folks managing the program. I just do not like it, but that is only my opinion. That was precious private money that I felt could be better applied elsewhere.

_______________________

Fairfax County, Va.: It's not just the Smithsonian, and it's not just museums. Many other cultural not-for-profits -- libraries, serious music venues, and others -- have gone to the "business model," believing it was just a matter of getting enough money to support their activities. In business there is a clear, measurable bottom line involving a product (however ephemeral) to be sold to a customer. Presentational cultural institutions are not about "selling" culture, but reflecting it -- and in the process often presenting challenging points of view that no sane business person ever would try to make a buck selling. While there may be entertainment along the way, at the core what these institutions do is challenge their audiences, not try to sell them a product. I'm hoping that the Smithsonian case is big enough that it will scare others into remembering this important distinction. While there is a need for business in these institutions, it is not as a leader but as a servant. That position may be hard to swallow for those who believe that anyone who successfully can "create wealth" is the best person to judge what picture to hang on the wall (or not).

Robert Sullivan: I agree, the gift economy operates with its own rules and protocols and those often are not respected by the business world. Still, the public is offended when they see business values and beliefs applied to not-for-profit organizations. The recent Showtime deal is a case in point. Exclusivity and limiting access to cultural materials are not values that fly in the NFP world no matter how good the business deal is.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Any thought about privatizing the Smithsonian Institute?

Robert Sullivan: It is technically a private organization now, a trust entity, not a federal agency. Still, it is so beholden to Congress that it dares not act as a private entity. I think the public has just got to support the place on the Hill as a priority. Hopefully these scandals have an upside in that the Stewardship and caring will go up. But we have to keep a sense of urgency and accountability in the air for as long as possible or it will just fade away again. Keep up the heat and your support.

_______________________

San Francisco: Do you think the entire Board of Regents should be replaced by people who will uphold freedom of speech, reject censorship in all forms and restate a commitment to scholarship? This Board of Regents obviously didn't do that. Can we trust that it will in the future? Second, did you speak out about the censorship when you worked in upper management at NMNH?

Robert Sullivan: There are some dedicated people on the Board of Regents but I think the whole idea of one largely symbolic board govern a place as unwieldy as the SI needs to be rethought. Yes I spoke out rigorously which is why is was disliked by the Secretary and Dave Evans. I was told by my boss that it was their pressure to muffle me that precipitated the reorganization that ultimately encouraged me to move on.

_______________________

Museum Guide is Right On: I'm on the board of a college, and maintenance of buildings is one of the hardest things to fund. Sponsors like to have a plaque with their names on the bug zoo or the science lab, but nobody sees paying for a roof (which must be replaced at regular intervals) as that glamorous, even if a plaque is arranged somewhere. If the Smithsonian solves this problem, there are many of us who will be extremely grateful. One possibility is to fund endowments for buildings, but, again, not enough glory for most donors.

Robert Sullivan: I agree, but a naming opportunity on the Mall is still an attractive commodity. Previously a questioner mentioned contractors funding repairs or adopting buildings, which I think is a good idea. Also, peeling paint and drips on the Mall do get the Congress's attention. Perhaps we should put some more holes in the roofs.

_______________________

Melfa, Va.: I spent 15 years on the Hill and more than a dozen of them on the Appropriations subcommittee that provides funds for the Smithsonian. I think that it is a bit naive to say that "the money is there and all that is necessary is to pry it from Congress." The Smithsonian Institute competes with dozens of other agencies for Interior Appropriations, including the Indian Health Service, NEA, NEH, NGA, the Forest Service, part of the Department of Energy and virtually all of the Department of the Interior. Each of these programs has its own constituent group, which regularly contact Congress on behalf of specific programs. Quite frankly, during my tenure there was little constituent support for the Gallery and the Smithsonian. We would get a letter once a year signed by one of the Senators who served as a regent -- but it was clear that the letter was written by the SI and his signing it was just a formality. Someone needs to rethink congressional relations at SI.

Robert Sullivan: Exactly, that is why I am saying the massive support that the SI enjoys from average Americans needs to be mobilized rather than backroom dealing. I disagree with the thought that it is naive to think the money is there. Scrutinizing the federal budget to see where money actually goes is always stunning. We are talking about a $500 million dollar organization. It is so small that is only began showing up on the summary budget several years ago when it creeped up to $500 million. I still say this is a matter of will and generating the public support and knowledge of what is needed.

_______________________

Washington: Re: Contributions of the Smithsonian Edward O. Wilson, one of the world's greatest scientists, was inspired by the daily visits he made to the Smithsonian as a young boy. Edward Smith, head of the American History Department at American University similarly was inspired -- as a young African-American boy, there were many places he could not go, but the Smithsonian was available to him and his family. These are two instances that I know about. How many more there must be? The Smithsonian is of infinite value to our culture. It needs to be well-managed and well-supported financially.

Robert Sullivan: I agree many of the scholars at the SI, including myself, were inspired by a public scholar who took us seriously and encouraged us. Mine was Ted Guthe at the Rochester Museum when I was 11.

_______________________

Washington: Yes, the Regents are big, burly and beleaguered, but don't you think at least the "private citizens members" should be held accountable for what has happened during the past seven years?

Robert Sullivan: Absolutely, and the responsible members are now alert and paying attention. I still think it is too big and each major museum should have its own governing board.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: It's hard not to conclude that the Smithsonian's Regents willfully and repeatedly chose to disregard the many signs of Small's unsuitability for his job. There were many voices raised against his policies and values -- both inside and outside the Institution -- through the past six years. I remember in particular an eloquent commentary by Milo Beach, former director of the Freer & Sackler Galleries, that vividly detailed Small's astonishing disrespect for research and scholarship; this was published in The Post way back in January 2002!

Robert Sullivan: I agree, but again, it is time to look at the whole governing structure, size, management style etc. The Regents should commission a high-level board to look at the current on-the-ground needs of the SI and develop a clear profile for the kind of leader that meets those needs. This will be the 12th secretary. It is like a Pope -- they are around for a long time and have a huge impact. The next secretary deserves to be selected with great care and patience.

_______________________

Robert Sullivan: Folks, thanks for caring about this wonderful institution that deserves our best support and, when needed, criticism. Please stay connected -- as Thoreau said, "there is more day to dawn, the sun is but a morning star." Thanks for participating ... cheers, Sully.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.