Report Blasts Pay of Ex-Chief of Smithsonian
Salary and other compensation for the executive, Lawrence M. Small, whose formal title was Smithsonian secretary, soared from $536,000 in 2000 to $915,000 in 2006, the report said. But ultimately, it added, the institution became more dependent on taxpayer funds and obtained less of its budget from private donations during his tenure.
Mr. Small resigned in March amid growing controversy over his lavish expense-account spending.
From 2000 to 2006, the report said, he also took 70 weeks of vacation — nearly 10 weeks a year — and spent 64 business days serving on corporate boards that paid him a total of $5.7 million.
Rather than rein him in, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents stood by passively, the document said, and allowed him to spend the institution’s money profusely on personal expenses and treat the board as irrelevant to decision-making.
“It appears that the board reported to him rather than the secretary reporting to the board,” the report said. “The Committee was told by a regent that Mr. Small ‘did not listen to the opinions of the regents’ and “did not seek input from the regents.’ ”
The report was issued after a three-month investigation by the independent committee, which was appointed by the Smithsonian after concerns were raised about Mr. Small’s expenditures on personal items...
comments powered by Disqus
- 'Sexist' Paris streets renamed in the name of feminism
- NYT profiles a path-breaking transgender pioneer who became a judge
- CIA Plans Huge Release of Top-Secret Reports From the 1960s
- South Dakota drops history as a high school requirement
- The Forgotten History Of 'Violent Displacement' That Helped Create The National Parks
- Historian author Antony Beevor says his new World War 2 book may anger Americans
- Ron Radosh and Allis Radosh plan to defend Warren Harding in a new book
- Historians tackle America’s mass incarceration problem
- Report: Russian studies in crisis
- Ken Burns: Donald Trump’s birtherism — a “politer way of saying the ‘N-word'” — proves America isn’t remotely “post-racial”