Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) submitted a bill that would bring the Smithsonian Institution under the Freedom of Information Act and Sunshine Act, a position the Institution has eluded for decades. Anyone who's followed the scandals over the past couple of years, starting with former Secretary Lawrence M. Small's excessive expenses and eventual ouster in March of last year, knows that transparency is crucial to win back public trust in the Institution and hopefully end the corruption and misuse of funds.
One can almost read the glee with which the Washington Post reports on this new development -- the paper has done a fantastic job exposing corruption inside the Institution, and is largely responsible for its recent cleansing, but not without significant leg-work. Post reporters struggled for a long time to acquire the financial documents that exposed the swath of executives who abused their positions, eventually being forced to acquire them through alternate sources.
The current disclosure responsibilities of the Institution as a quasi-public agency are still essentially that they'll hand over what they feel like handing over. Smithsonian reps say that even though not compelled to by law, their practices are good enough, insisting that they do their best to respond to every public inquiry. As the Post notes, however, if the Smithsonian declines to produce a document, there is no appeals process (as there is under FOIA). Even now the Institution claims that their recent overhaul includes self-driven transparency, but the bill co-sponsors respond that the new era must include some kind of formal check on the process.
Photo by JAGalicious
Two cases in the 1990s led to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the Smithsonian did not fall under the auspices of FOIA. Cotton v. Heyman in 1992 and, more definitively, Dong v. Smithsonian Institution in 1997, established that the Smithsonian does not meet the "agency status" required to be included in FOIA, which specifically states it applies to "agencies in the executive branch." Congress later amended FOIA to include "any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." Nevertheless, courts go on a case-by-case basis to determine if an organization falls under FOIA, and the Smithsonian has never been shown to have enough "independent authority," even though it is treated as an agency under some federal statutes with slightly different definitions, such as the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Ironically, it may only have seemed that the Smithsonian didn't have enough independent authority until its executives began giving themselves the authority to spend hundreds of thousands on personal expenses. At any rate, the previous court rulings state that the Smithsonian cannot be forced to follow the rules of FOIA until Congress specifically includes them in the Act. We applaud the Congressmen for going forward with the bill, and can only wonder what in the world took so long to do it.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
While I don't like seeing Smithsonian executives spending absurd amounts on travel, etc., I have to admit this new development makes me nervous. I just hope this doesn't turn into the next generation of the 1990s Helms era of arts/culture funding cuts.
If the government wants to force the Smithsonian to the same level of accountability as a fully-funded government agency, shouldn't they also provide the Institution's entire budget?
Well, the White House actually proposed an increase in funds for 2009. I think the fact the Smithsonian is wildly underfunded to begin with will trump any activism to reduce their budget further based on corrupt officials who are being wiped from the slate. One hopes.
What a flippant, under-researched, opinionated piece of garbage this entry is. Try reading something other than the Wash Post, research an issue and then write a well-educated entry. You obviously do not know what in the hell you are talking about when it comes to FOIA, what that entails and how that would impact a semi-public institution. Go back to writing "How Interns Can Get Drunk for $10 In DC" and stay away from adult issues.
I don't think anyone has the intention of wanting to cut Smithsonian funds, Lynne. I think the events of the past couple of years have demonstrated that the institution lacks the type of internal controls that belong in governmental or quasi-governmental agencies.
loganmo: Agreed, but am still a bit paranoid about a hysterical spiral. I've been doing research lately on the various European models of arts funding, and the differences in governmental control are staggering.
So, old city, how would FOIA impact a semi-public institution?
Lynne, I appreciate your concerns. I do wonder, though, how many people actually view SI as the main depository of American culture? I certainly don't!
old_city doesn't give concrete recommendations, politburo. old_city just hangs around trolling dcist posts for people who like chatting with bitter, old cities (or their personification).
Look out, Goph! old_city is a cougar! Rowr!
Cotton v. Heyman in 1992 and, more definitively, Dong v. Smithsonian
In the struggle between a dead guy in a crypt and a penis, always bet on penis.
old city, keep it civil or I'll start removing your comments. If you have something to add to the conversation, please do so, respectfully.
Yeah actually, I'm removing the one with all the namecalling. That's not cool, old_city. Either make your point without all the epithets or face being banned.
whoa, did i miss something here? sorry to get your dander up, old_city, if that's what happened.
old_city: dude, first -- and this is really important -- remove the pine cone that's lodged in your ass. Only then can you comment without the threat of being banned. Just some friendly advice.
The Smithsonian runs a clever shell game. It is a government agency when it wants to suck at the public tit. When it wants to avoid those tiresome regulations, it is a quasi-governmental, trust-supported, public-private exercise in shadow-puppetry. It farms out the museum shops to a huge profit-making corporation, a chain of private retail establishments that earns millions yet charges no local sales tax and regularly sells good that violate the museum's curatorial principles. It sells its name to the highest bidder.
I doubt the Sunshine Act is strong enough to clean this mess. Is there a High-Pressure Fire Hose Act?
Politburo- FOIA has a different affect on a quasi-gov't agency because: the Smithsonian is NOT fully-funded by the gov't, so it must raise private dollars. Donors expect a level of privacy when they make donations or bequests. Also, the Smithsonian has an endowment and no organization with an endowment gives away its investment strategies. Also, the Smithsonian is forced to raise revenue though a business venture. No business wants its strategy advertised to its competitors. There simply needs to be ways to make FOIA work for the Smithsonian, which is a completely unique organization.
It's 65% publicly funded. Therefore, it really should only be 65% subject to FOIA. If people don't like that, than we should demand that Congress fully-fund the Institution that preserves more of our national heritage than any other.