March 30, 2006
Smithsonian Entrance Fee Proposed
Commenting on yesterday's consideration of Mall privatization, worried reader Edward replied: "If you're really thirsting for more sidewalk cafes, privatizing is *not* the answer. Next thing you know the Smithsonian will start to charge admissions..."
Though Edward was thinking hypothetically, admissions fees may become a reality for the Smithsonian if a recommendation by Rep. James Moran is heeded. During a congressional hearing yesterday addressing institutional problems of concern to both the Smithsonian Institute and Congress, Moran suggested a $1 per person entrance fee as a remedy to Smithsonian facilities that are under-funded and thus under-maintained, including exhibits that Smithsonian official Sheila Burke described as "quite outdated" and a dire lack of sufficient plumbing infrastructure at the National Zoo (the potential dangers of which are all too clear after yesterday's private zoo fire in Cumberland). According to Burke's statements, the Smithsonian needs $94 million for repairs, $43 million short of the maintenance spending in this year's proposed budget.
While a dilapidating Smithsonian complex is disconcerting, the precedent of an entrance fee could be even more troubling. After all, our city's museums are sources of civic pride not just because of their excellence, but because they serve as gratifying reminders that not all of our nation's money is spent on upper-crust tax breaks and harebrained military absurdities. Millions flock to the various museums and galleries every year, and while a single dollar per person is a trifle, the introduction of such a fee would mean the loss of the social profundity of free admission, as well as the risk of an increased fee in the future.
Do you think entrance fees are an acceptable solution to the Smithsonian's straits? How importance is the Smithsonian's legacy of free entrance to you, and to the city?
|
that fire wasnt at the dc zoo though - it was at a zoo in md. the dc zoo is probably underfunded, but at least it wasnt on fire.
I have had several research fellowships with the National Museum of Natural History and have lived in DC my whole life. I am very proud of the fact that our national museums do not charge admission, and I would be very sad if they decided to start charging, even if it were only $1.
Free admission is fundamental to the identify of our national museums. And certainly that policy is enormously valued and appreciated by DC residents and esp. parents of small children. And as a business matter, I know that for my family, free admissions brings us to one of the mall museums at least once a month, and we do spend on food and etceteras.
Perhaps instead of imposing a $1 entrance fee, they could set up "contribution boxes"...or do they already have these?
Agree with Sam. Free admission is needed for our national museums.
Most people probably wouldn't mind paying $1...but once you open Pandora's box, it probably wouldn't stay $1 for long, as there would always be trustees (or congresspeople) saying "well, the MoMA charges X, and the Art Institute charges Y, so...". Next thing you know, it'll be $7, then $12, and so on.
Hypothetically, what if we put it this way:
We cannot have these museums at all if they do not charge $1 per person for admission fees. The funds are not available for maintenance and upkeep. The Smithsonian will have to sell off some of its collection or close.
Do you all still feel the same way about the free admission vs. paid admission issue?
1st- Benjamin's hypothetical is just that- a hypothetical. As a country we collect enough in taxes to support the Smithsonian. Not meaning to pick on you, Benjamine...
2nd- How about another hypothetical? What if we started charging admission to the Capitol or Supreme Court? How about if we start charging admissions to quality public schools?
These are all places of learning and, ultimately, social and community engagement. They should all be free to- to everyone- of even token admission charges.
Why not just make it a "suggested" donation? There are donation boxes in some museums already, but as long as you're making people stand in line for security and bag checks, why not hit them up for a voluntary contribution?
No worries. Mark, I know you're not picking on me. Of course we as a nation collect enough taxes to support the Smithsonian in full. However, we as a nation also elect representatives who are not willing to appropriate the funds the Smithsonian needs for basic upkeep let along expansion.
I wonder if the Smithsonian was in a state that had elected representatives if this type of thing would happen? I imagine it wouldn't. Some congressman would find a bill to add the necessary funds to support the institution.
94 million might sound like a lot, but it is indeed a mere trifle when compared to our national budget expenditures. If the shortfall is 43 million, that's a complete no brainer. Especially considering that the Bush Administration's public relations expenditures in fiscal '04 totalled 88 million. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-williams-usat_x.htm
The Smithsonian Institutions serve as our national public libraries--they provide free and open access to knowledge and the cultural history of America. The fact that they are free is what makes them great. Instead of comparing maintainence vs. selling off of collections, we should be expressing our outrage over congressional representatives' refusal to properly fund for the museums' maintainence.
94 million might sound like a lot, but it is indeed a mere trifle when compared to our national budget expenditures. If the shortfall is 43 million, that's a complete no brainer. Especially considering that the Bush Administration's public relations expenditures in fiscal '04 totalled 88 million. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-williams-usat_x.htm
The Smithsonian Institutions serve as our national public libraries--they provide free and open access to knowledge and the cultural history of America. The fact that they are free is what makes them great. Instead of comparing maintainence vs. selling off of collections, we should be expressing our outrage over congressional representatives' refusal to properly fund for the museums' maintainence.
Seconding the donation concept. Does the Smithsonian ever charge money for special exhibits instead of permanent collections?
I have to say after how much money Paris suckered out of me for their museums (though they were AWESOME museums...) I truly do appreciate the low cost of the Smithsonian. In exchange, I'd gladly throw an anonymous donation of a dollar or so. Just promise me that if I don't you won't look down on me. To help now, you can go to si.edu and click on the happy orange donation button at the top of the page.
Benjamin: Yeah, I know. It's been that way for some time, and the affect of the Smithsonian's accumulated funding deficit only becomes more clear as time passes.
Put me squarly in the Great Society camp on this issue. Parks, Museums, Libraries, Schools etc are all institutions of broad civic importance. Not supporting them as basic amenities is a testiment to a lack of appreciation for or general support of society.
Todd's post actually made me wonder what do other country's charge for their "national museums"? Does anyone know offhand?
Sorry for my last post. Should read countries, not country's. Ugh.
I recall an amber exhibit at Natural History that charged admission...caused quite a stink at the time (1998 or so).
Just when you think your elected representatives cannot POSSIBLY do a shittier job of representing you, something like this comes down the pike. Absolutely ridiculous. How about, in order to pay for this, we round up everyone who thinks that charging admission is a good idea and that Congress meeting the Smithsonian's needs is out of the question, and put them in some sort of labor camp system. That way, not only will their harmful effect be concentrated in one area, but their work will keep the museums free. We could put up a sign on the mall to that effect, something like "Work makes it free" or something. We could have it printed in several different languages so everyone could read it, be they Egyptian, Korean, Spanish, German, etc.
As but a wee Tecki visiting DC with my family, I was awestruck that these fantastic museums, nothing like at home, were free. You can just walk in. Surely this is a great country, where so many cool exhibits and educational materials are just there for everybody.
The free admission instilled me with optimism about the US and what we can do as a society. Much of that optimism has worn off over the years, but a kernel still exists.
Charging even a token admission to the Smithsonians would break off a significant part of that kernel.
As but a wee Tecki visiting DC with my family, I was awestruck that these fantastic museums, nothing like at home, were free. You can just walk in. Surely this is a great country, where so many cool exhibits and educational materials are just there for everybody.
The free admission instilled me with optimism about the US and what we can do as a society. Much of that optimism has worn off over the years, but a kernel still exists.
Charging even a token admission to the Smithsonians would break off a significant part of that kernel.
As but a wee Tecki visiting DC with my family, I was awestruck that these fantastic museums, nothing like at home, were free. You can just walk in. Surely this is a great country, where so many cool exhibits and educational materials are just there for everybody.
The free admission instilled me with optimism about the US and what we can do as a society. Much of that optimism has worn off over the years, but a kernel still exists.
Charging even a token admission to the Smithsonians would break off a significant part of that kernel.
Free for DC residents, and as much as it pains me to say it free for MD and VA residents as well all the time. March 15 - July 31 $1 for non DC/MD/VA residents, and $49.95 for any one who voted for Rep Moran the Moron.
Joking aside, as much as I hate the tourists this is a sad proposal. Before we know it the fees will be a lot more than a $1 and if we as a nation can not support the Smithsonian then we are only kidding ourselves if we ever argue that our country takes pride in education for all, we might already be kidding ourselves anyway.
That one even has to ask if there are donation boxes at SI museums goes a long way to show how easily ignored "voluntary" donations can be. (In my opinion, the boxes are fairly prominent. I can recall specific, prominent, numerous locations of donation boxes at both NASM and the National Zoo. But that's beside the point.) People would gladly pay $1 each to get into the museums if they had to, but those voluntary donation boxes assuredly get less than $1 per person. There is a huge psychological difference between having to pay and using donation boxes. Apparently, the difference is enough to make people not even notice them.
An entrance fee for national cultural institutions would be regretable, but I fear in this age of inequitable public policy that such change is inevitable. It's a shame when considering the egalitarian value of such inherently public institutions. Paul Mellon not only donated the new wing of the NGA, but refused to allow his name to be attached to the building because he considered it a national shared resource. In addition, his bequested $75 million was the largest donation in NGA's history (not even including the 100+ donated paintings valued well above that figure).
Some other nations charge for their national museums. The British Museum is free, but charges for special exhibitions. The Louvre is 8.50 Euros. The Vatican Museums (it is a country) charge 12.00 Euros.
The Smithsonian Museums and Zoo have long been the worldwide exception rather than the rule on charging admissions.
The National Parks did not used to charge admission either, but now almost all have user fees, for example Great Falls charges $5.00.
Great Society camp is great, but that society doesn't exist.
The Smithsonian has millions of items it is unable to display, maybe selling some of them off isn't such a bad idea.
For the past decade politicians have been running against "Washington" and any Member of Congress seeming to want to do too much for the city and its institutions like the Smithsonian is then criticized in their home district as selling out. There is little civic pride in the rest of the country's political class for making our Capital a world class city, and the sorry state of Smithsonian finances is just another example of this.
Instead of charging at the door, why not charge for special services such as tours? They already charge for those handheld audio things, doesn't make sense that the guided ones are free. Also, why not set up additional special events or demonstrations and charge for them? That way, Smithsonian could pull in some extra revenue AND expand on what they already do. Everybody wins!
Instead of charging at the door, why not charge for special services such as tours? They already charge for those handheld audio things, doesn't make sense that the guided ones are free. Also, why not set up additional special events or demonstrations and charge for them? That way, Smithsonian could pull in some extra revenue AND expand on what they already do. Everybody wins!
If we're going to emulate the ways of other nations, how about starting with giving residents of our capital representation in the national legislature. Then we can worry about how they fund their museums.
It's crap, of course. He says "Oh, just a dollar, that's not much." Then that $25 million rolls in, and he says, "Oh hey, look, you have an extra $25 million, let's just cut that out of the budget money we were going to give you, since you don't really need it any more." It will all zero out.
Not to mention that once they get it started, they're guaranteed to keep bumping it up more and more, so that they don't have to fund any of the Smithsonian from the budget.
One of the great things about the museums is that ANYONE can afford to go in and see fantastic art and history. If you want to charge admission, put out a "suggested donation" box. People who want to pay and feel that it's worth it, and can afford it (like me) will pay and they'll get the extra income. Forcing admission on people is not the way to go.
I think it should be remembered that Moran made the suggestion at the hearing. He did not submit a bill or give much thought (I assume) to this idea. I would go so far as to say that this idea would not have many supporters in his own party so I doubt there is any danger of a fee happening anytime soon.
How about we charge CongressCritters like Moran a fee for proposing more taxes and fees?
And knowing Moran and his ilk, they'll make the Smithsonian coolect the fee, then turn around and steal the money to spend on wasteful pork somewhere else.
Okay, lets think about this logicially. Each museum gets about 2 million visitors annually ( I think...based on old internal presentations on NMAH). The money needed to collect the money, make a recognition system, extra security, make donations, etc would be HUGE and the money coming in would do nothing.
Maybe if Congress frigging funded their mandates then new and interesting things could get done. When I had a research assistantship at NMAH...we had multiple floods in collective rooms and collections got destroyed left and right from poor infastructure. No one wants to give 20 Mill for plumbing -- they want their name on an exhibit.
Well, I could talk on this for hours. And have. And some has tons of SI staf in many departments. They aren't ignorant to their problems. There is just so little that can be done in such a huge system with such little money who is charged with such huge national cultural responsibility.
Firstly, I totally agree that the issue here is not how the Smithsonian can begin to earn more capitol, but how Congress/Private Donors can provide more funds.
Mouse: You comment about selling items only illustrates why people do not donate more often. Museums and their collections were not created for display; they were created for the collecting and studying of our material past. Exhibits are a byproduct of both of these. It is a glamourous byproduct, but not the end all and be all of a museum's mission. If more donors would give money to collections care and care less about their name appearing on the outside of an exhibit hall, that would help. It also might mean that more of the Smithsonian's operating budget would go towards the salary of existing (underpaid) employees and the hiring of future employees. Don't forget, the Smithsonian is not only made of buildings that house objects, it is a place where many underappreciated, underpaid, and hopelessly overworked people do their best to care for objects without enough resources to do so. The selling off of objects or the charging of admission are both short-term answers to a larger problem of Congressional stinginess and a lack of public financial support. Instead of selling objects at auctions to rich patrons, why not have a society that demands these wealthy art/history lovers donate to institutions created to care for art/history objects? And why don't we demand that instead of funding unjust wars, we support institutions that are a part of the best of America?
The WaPo article makes it clear that it is illegal to charge an admission fee at three of the museums; at a fourth it would violate the provisions of the will establishing it. So not only would Congress have to pass a law allowing a fee, they'd have to change three other laws and overturn a will. It may happen, but not soon.
Museums and their collections were not created for display; they were created for the collecting and studying of our material past. Exhibits are a byproduct of both of these.
I have to call bullshit here. Museums have always been about display, and even in the case of the Smithsonian the bequest reads, "to found ... an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge." Outreach and education (which includes things like exhibits) are just as imporant as studying and collecting, and at a lot of museums they're much more important.
Also, rich art/history lovers DO donate to art/history institutions, there just aren't nearly enough of them, which is why the government needs to step up. Leaky roofs, crumbling walls and flooded storage spaces just aren't acceptable for institutions charged with preserving the nation's cultural heritage.
Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we stop spending all of our tax dollars on this f-ing bullshit war and increase funding for the Smithsonian so that they don't have to charge an admission fee.
Ah yes, that's it. I'm sure the question of whether the Smithsonian has an entrance fee really will be the "tipping point" that stops the Iraq War.
Let's just make some "No Blood For One Dollar Admission Fee" signs. I'm sure that'll finally settle it.
Yes, Congress could magically change overnight. My guess is that its not going to happen. So, let's think of solutions based on reality.
One potential solution is to be a little more "in your face" about donations.
I have actually wanted to and tried to give money, but when I looked around there was no donation box in sight! This is a problem especially at the National Zoo. The donation boxes are hidden around corners.
Most tourists go into the museums with their kids or with large groups and are simply too distracted to remember to look for a donation box. The Smithsonians need to make a MUCH larger effort to get donations from tourists. There should be donation boxes all over the place with signs in large print...."DID YOU ENJOY YOUR VISIT?? PLEASE DONATE HERE."
Outreach and education (which includes things like exhibits) are just as imporant as studying and collecting, and at a lot of museums they're much more important.
Maybe, but the Smithsonian isn't necessarily one of them. The academic importance of the collections and research of the Smithsonian Institution is HUGE and deaccessioning (selling stuff) is definitely the beginning of the end.
I also want to point out that the Smithsonian staff is not sitting around waiting for visitors to drop a couple of bucks in the donation boxes and asking Congress for the rest. The Smithsonian has one of the most sophisticated fundraising operations in the country, and they raise about $150 million a year, which by the way is more than their total federal funding.
The problem here is not that we don't have big enough signs in the lobby to ask for donations. Congress needs to make a long term investment in the infrastructure that will protect and maintain one of the most diverse and important cultural and scientific research institutions in the world. A dollar a visitor isn't going to do that.
Just a couple shortcuts to help you with future analysis.
Out of the mouth of James Moran = Bad Idea
Out of the mouth of James Moran = Probably will never happen