INDEPENDENCE ISSUE PAPER No, 5-92 Independence Institute 14142 Denver West Parkway #101 * Golden, CO 80401 « (303) 279-6536 March 18, 1992 SMITHSONIAN AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM SHOULDN'T BE A BELTWAY MONOPOLY Introduction Outgrowing the Treasurehouse of Flight IN BRIEF: HOW ‘NATIONAL’? The Smithsonian Institution's aeronaut- The Smithsonian Institution plans ical collection is among the nation’s great to build an extension to display treasures. And its home, the National Air more of its renowned National Air and Space Museum (NASM), is one of the and Space Museum collection most popular attractions in the Wash- (NASM). ington, D.C. area, hosting almost 10 million visitors each year. The tentative decision to put the facility at Dulles Airport, near the As America approaches the centennial of Washington Beltway, seems tainted manned flight in 2003, the Smithsonian by conflict-of-interest involving is commendably working to ensure that one Smithsonian regent. ~ in coming decades this massive and ever- growing collection will be maintained and Bids to site the extension in exhibited better than ever before. Maryland or Colorado have been brushed aside despite lipservice to Since only 13% of the NASM's holdings geographic outreach by the can be exhibited in the existing facility, Institution plans are underway for an Air and Space Museum Annex large enough to display The non-DC sites argue they could much of the remaining collection. give more Americans access to this national treasure while saving The Garber facility in Suitland, Maryland, taxpayers over $100 million currently used for storage of the overflow, is run-down and under-sized. With a new MCongress has given subcommittee annex facility, the NASM could exercise approval to HR 3281, requiring more effective stewardship of its open, competitive NASM site treasures and make it possible for the selection with an outside advisory public to enjoy much of what cannot be panel. This would exert reasonable displayed at the original museum. oversight in keeping with 83% federal funding of the Institution. However, choosing a site for the pro- posed National Air and Space Museum MThe Skaggs-Cardin bill would let extension has proved to be an expensive, Washington, Baltimore, Denver, and drawn-out, and contentious undertaking. other sites vie for the NASM annex The process originally used for tentative ‘on merit, not favoritism. siting of the extension at Dulles Internati- Note: The Independence Issue Papers are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.onal Airport just outside the Capital Beltway set off alarm bells with many observers, who questioned {ts fairmess and impartiality. ‘Those voices point out that inasmuch as the Smithsonian Institution receives approximately 85 percent of its budget from the federal government (about $311 million in 1991), Congress has a legitimate interest in seeing that the site decision is made fairly, openly, and objectively. They are calling for legislation to make certain the selection process is sensitive to the concerns of taxpayers and responsive to the wide variety of issues important in selecting the best site. This issue paper will analyze the controversy and recommend a course of action. ‘What Happened on the Way to Dulles The Smithsonian Board of Regents' expressed preference for Washington-Dulles Airport to host the museum annex has been tainted by ethics questions. One of the regents who helped choose the Dulles site, David Acheson, has business holdings that could be significantly affected by building the project there. Mr Acheson serves on the board of, and owns stock options in, a private company by the name of Dartrail, which plans to build a light-rail line to Dulles. He also owns land in the surrounding area, the value of which could be significantly affected by the NASM extension. Although Mr. Acheson did disclose this information to the other regents, it was never discussed as a potentially disqualifying factor. Because officials of the Smithsonian Institution have never been bound by federal ethics rules, there was no technical violation in Mr. Acheson's participation in the decisionmaking process. However, soon after his financial ties were publicized, the Smithsonian tightened its rules on conflicts of interest. Officials would not comment on whether the Acheson situation had precipitated the change in rules, but the timing suggest it did. It is likely that were the regents to meet again on this matter, Mr. Acheson would be forced to recuse himself from the decisionmaking process. Bids from Maryland, Colorado, and Who Knows Where Else When an institution receives 85 percent of its funding from the taxpayers, it is hardly unreasonable to expect some federal oversight of its decisions, particularly when big dollars are involved and the decision is contested. The present case fits that description. ‘That is to say, Dulles was not the only contender for this lucrative plum, Other airports submitting proposals for the extension includedBaltimore-Washington International and Denver's Stapleton Airport. Those bidders came forward even though the Smithsonian never made known its intentions or solicited proposals from other sites. Moreover, backers of both alternative sites contend they could be developed for many millions of dollars less than the Dulles site. How many other cost-saving bids might potentially exist across the 50 states? Only a wide-open, arms-length siting competition can give the answer. It sounded good when Robert Adams, Smithsonian Secretary, wrote in ‘Smithsonian Year, 1990 that one of the Institution's main responsibilities is to “respect and justify the national support on which we depend by effectively reaching out to increasingly diverse, geographically dispersed audiences.” But one gathers that the Institution tacitly exempts itself from such outreach in the field of aeronautics, inasmuch as the Maryland and Colorado proposals offered exactly that opportunity but were brushed aside. Non-DC Sites Pitch Access, Enthusiasm, Savings Proponents of these two other sites argue that they also offer several other advantages over Dulles Airport, none of which seem to have had a fair hearing from the Smithsonian panel. One of the benefits common to both non-DC sites -- again right in line with another statement by the quotable Robert Adams, namely that the Smithsonian "must be seen as the property of the whole American people” -- is that the BWI and Stapleton locations provide access to millions of visitors who could not so easily travel to the nation's capital and are thus excluded from seeing many of our country's aeronautical jewels. Since Denver and Baltimore do not have the rich array of museums. that the District of Columbia does, the NASM extension would be a relatively more prominent attraction in those tourist markets. For the same reason, both other proposals enjoy fervent support from civic, business, and government interests in their respective states. They have the backing of Keenly-motivated constituencies of a sort not found in the "company town" of Washington. Both of the so-far spurned proposals appear to reflect impressive homework by their sponsors. Stapleton advocates, for example, point out that their facility will cease regular aviation operations in 1993 as a new Denver airport opens, thus leaving the entire superstructure and infrastructure for redevelopment to serve the Air and Space Museum extension. It's argued that this would cut down on construction costs, thereby saving taxpayer money, and provide more facilities to use for exhibits. Denver proponents also note that their site already has complete parking lots, hangar space, utility lines, and road access, as well as tourist facilities like restaurants, retail space, and restrooms.