A Small problem at the Smithsonian

This morning I was reading this article, and it really upset me. Not just because some jerk was allowed to come into a museum, a source of public knowledge, and abuse it for his own material gain, but because he was allowed to get away with it because there was no method of watching over his spending. That's absolutely outrageous, when it comes to spending as much money as he did.



A key point in the article is this 55 page report that I'm going to try to track down, and it includes "a new rule that prohibits staff members from serving on corporate board". No... really? I understand the quest to earn as much money as possible in a lifetime (well, sort of), but to take a position on a board that would call into question not only ethics but level of commitment is outrageous. This is what I will go to graduate school for, this is what I will train to do. It will be a job. There is a world of difference between moonlighting and serving a for-profit company that conflicts with non-profit interests.

A point that I'm confused about in the article is the complaints about the former director's deal with Showtime to create Smithsonian programming, so stay tuned, I'm going to look into that.

But the Smithsonian's annual budget is $700 million. Contrastingly, the museum I work for up here (granted, a small town historical society) makes it work with less than $100,000 in grants each year, constantly dipping into reserve funds. Are they a worse museum for it? Doubtful. I'd say it's more a matter of dedication. Yes, the director of the Smithsonian deserves to be compensated for his traveling and work-related entertainment expenses. But a house? Transport on a private jet? Get real.

A job like this should be done for the love of it - not for the ease of the scam or the contacts you'll make. Good riddance, Small, and clear the way for those of us who will love what we do.