Untenable Public Positions -- Smithsonian Trustees Exhibit #1

Rule number one of public relations - Don't take a public stand that a) sounds disengenuous b) undermines your credibility c) appears completely self-serving d) all of the above.

The Smithsonian Board of Trustees have no credible reason for not taking accountability for the situation there. Either they did know the situation and approved (which is the case) or they didn't know, disapproved, and are guilty of negligence. Either way there is no reasonable justification for how or why they escaped accountability.

They held a public Board meeting this week...their first ever as I understand it. The Washington Post, which has shamelessly exploited the situation with its New York Post-like coverage, wrote about the meeting.

At its first-ever public meeting, the regents of the Smithsonian Institution sat
around a red-covered table and announced they wanted "a lively dialogue."
The audience did not hold back. The first volley from the public, gathered
in an auditorium at the National Museum of Natural History, was essentially this: Why didn't all of you resign, since you are the
people who picked the last secretary? The tone of the question implied that
the
group was responsible for the tenure of Lawrence M. Small, which ended in
a scandal and smeared the reputation of the Smithsonian.
Regents
Chairman Roger W. Sant repeated what he
has said many times before: The board asked its members, "Do we resign or
roll
up our sleeves?"

And so I say, Roger, be a man. Take responsibility. Resign. And when you leave, take James Grimaldi and Jackie Trescott with you.