Tyler writes in response to my argument for corporate accountability at cultural institutions:
Oh dear no. Those are precisely the wrong lessons to take from what has happened. One of the biggest stories in the c3/nonprofit-etc. sector in the last 10 years is the failure of biz leaders as non-profit CEOs. Small is the last one of many fashionable biz-world-to-c3ish hires to fall by the roadside.One crucial nugget in the story about the fashionable migration of leaders from private to public (and profit to nonprofit) sectors shouldn't go overlooked. From the WaPo:
Small raised more money for the Smithsonian in his seven-year tenure than had been raised in the previous history of the institution.That doesn't sound like failure, exactly. Rather, the failure was on the part of the Board of Regents, first for maintaining an incredibly lax administrative regime with regard to Small's behavior: read WaPo writer James Grimaldi's online chat, which tells that while Small was required to file all sorts of documentation of his spending, he stopped doing so for "administrative ease". But the Board truly shirked its oversight obligation by changing the rules for Small:
After the IG issued her report finding that Mr. Small charged unauthorized travel for his wife, Sandra, (Small's wife's spent $5,700 in Smithsonian money to travel to Cambodia), the regents changed Small's employment agreement to waive preapproval, which is required for other Smithsonian employees.Whether the director was a suit or a scholar doesn't explain these abuses. The lesson to take away here is that abuses are difficult to prevent, perhaps even bound to happen, when the oversight branch abandons the watch tower.
Grimaldi raises an important point today about Small: How much credit can he take for the notable fundraising achievements under his tenure?
On the Senate floor, Grassley said it was "insulting" to give Small credit for every dollar raised under his watch. After all, there are 18 museum directors and their No. 1 job is fundraising. There also is an extensive development office -- hardworking people who deserve credit for trying to raise money for the institution. And each of the 18 museums -- and a 19th in development -- has fundraisers.It's difficult to suss out the information you'd need to evaluate any claim, pro or con, since the Smithsonian is opaque—it resists FOIA requests based on a DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Smithsonian is a creation of Congress (which is itself exempt from FOIA). This is the information that the Board will weigh heavily in appointing its next director; notwithstanding Small's eminent shortcomings, a candidate who can do as much—assuming he did do much—is going to be an attractive candidate. I don't think that's a negligible criterion for selecting a director. But it won't do the Smithsonian much good if the Board doesn't adopt best practices, aggressively.
DISCLOSURE: I contribute to Eye Level, the blog by the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
Posted by Kriston at March 27, 2007 4:05 PMSorry, I disagree. The Smithsonian's most important fundraising possibility is Congress, which has the abilitiy to authorize real money rathen than just a few (relatively) piddling tens of millions from private individuals. And Small ticked off Congress at every turn. That's net failure, not net success.
Posted by: Tyler at March 27, 2007 9:20 PMNo doubt, the tax dollar accounts for the largest and most important pie slice. But I don't know whether one can attribute the whole of Congress's hostility to Small; the misguided sentiment certainly exists that Smithsonian should pay for itself. And this suggestion must be resisted.
We'll see, but I don't think it's wrong to emphasize financial savvy. Given how much the Board seems to appreciate Small—even after the abuses came to light regents were pulling for him—I could see them tapping the corporate realm for the next director. Again, we'll see. Right now they're not going to get anyone, not for that money. But scholar or suit, the director should be operating in a transparent environment, with proper oversight mechanisms in place, and so on.
Posted by: Kriston at March 27, 2007 10:10 PMKriston, what kind of data is available on fundraising at the Smithsonian? It is, in part, a public institution ... right?
"After all, there are 18 museum directors and their No. 1 job is fundraising. There also is an extensive development office -- hardworking people who deserve credit for trying to raise money for the institution. And each of the 18 museums -- and a 19th in development -- has fundraisers."
This seems like an empirical question. Compare and contrast with some basic methods used in other areas where one might wish to apportion out credit for team-based measures of success to members of that team (think: sports, specifically baseball).
It is, in part, public. To my knowledge the known unknowns include the fundraising total and the amount that Small raised privately. I'm not doing any original reporting on this story, though. Grimaldi's complaints about getting information of this kind from the Smithsonian suggest it's not widely available.
If I have some time at the end of the week, I'll look up this information and see what is and isn't available.
At the same time, though, I'm not sure the question is entirely empirical. What work within a company may or may not a director take credit for?
Posted by: Kriston at March 28, 2007 11:11 AMWell, 'company' s/b 'basketball team' and 'director' s/b 'Rick Barnes', and I think you'll see what I'm getting at? I mean, how much of the UT men's basketball team's deep run into the tournament this year is to the credit of Barnes, rather than to (say) Kevin Durant?
I kid, but I think you see where I'm going with this.
Anyway, yeah, I see how not being able to get accurate information about fundraising would be a pain-in-the-ass here. "Exempt from FOIA," etc. But even if you didn't know the amounts that Small raised privately, if you had some record of the total amount raised each year, over a number of years, and also information on when various people (Small, other museum directors) entered and exited the employ of the Smithsonian, then that would be something to start with.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, that's all.
Posted by: arthegall at March 28, 2007 11:53 AMI am a little surprised as to how naive Tyler is with this issue. A quick review of the FOundation Center on K street soon reveals that the 50,000 plus foundations that donate billions of dollars to American art institutions and American artists make whatever the federal government donate and funds for art seem like chump change.
Congressional funding yes, but in this era of austere funding for everything but Congressional pork barrel for farmers, the SI needs someone at the helm like Larry S. who can bring in the big bucks from the private sector, AND a watchful set of regents. Kriston is dead on right on this issue.
Maxxie
PS - Was I the only one who thought that today Tyler also seemed a little jealous of the NYT coverage of Goldman? I'm familiar with the LA art scene and Goldman has been a very respected LA art critics since I was a little girl. Goldman is certainly not a "little-considered local critic", that was uninformed and sounded mean and petty.
Maxxie: To be certain, within the specific context of the Smithsonian, the federal government is the largest donor. But it seems true that Congress is losing its appetite for supporting the Smithsonian even as massive infrastructure expenses mount. The next director must be one who inspires public confidence, but I suspect there are more factors than his job performance influencing Congress—so the next director must be, well, good at finding money everywhere.
Posted by: Kriston at March 29, 2007 9:32 AMI'm not sure if Maxxie means this point, but I also think that in addition to the shrinking funding from Congress, that with the right business and social mix at the lead, the Smithsonian can raise a lot more money than with just a scientist in charge. Universities raise billions and billions of dollars (I believe Stanford is number one) from alumni, and that's an excellent example of organizations that mix federal and private funding to achieve their goals.
Tyler is not naive, it's just that he rarely if ever, once he makes a point, wants to see the other side; he's always right. And he did come across as whiney and jealous of the LA critic profiled in the NYT; it's not the first time.
Posted by: Walden at April 2, 2007 2:38 PM