[Infowarrior] - Capitol Hill Joins Criticism of Smithsonian Film Deal

[Richard Forno]

Capitol Hill Joins Criticism of Smithsonian Film Deal
Key Congressmen Call for Review of Showtime Pact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802
213_pf.html

By Jacqueline Trescott
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 29, 2006; C01

Angered that the Smithsonian Institution sold a television network access to
its treasures without consulting Congress, two influential members of the
House have asked for a public airing of the business deal.

The two lawmakers, who oversee the Smithsonian's appropriations, are also
displeased that the institution refuses to make the contract public.

The contract between the Smithsonian and Showtime Networks has generated
considerable criticism in recent weeks from documentary filmmakers and
historians, mainly because of new restrictions on access to Smithsonian
archives.

Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small, in his first public comments on the
Showtime matter, defended the agreement and said the contract has a
"confidentiality provision."

This is the first public rebuke from Congress about the deal, which was
announced last month. In a letter to Small, the congressmen warned that they
are monitoring all future agreements, especially ones that "appear to
essentially sell access to Smithsonian resources." A spokesman for Showtime
said the network would not respond to the letter because it was addressed to
the Smithsonian.

The April 27 letter from Capitol Hill, released yesterday, was written by
Rep. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.), chairman of the House subcommittee that
approves the federal appropriation to the Smithsonian, and Rep. Norman D.
Dicks (D-Wash.), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. The panel
is currently considering a $644.4 million appropriation for fiscal 2007. The
Smithsonian receives about 70 percent of its funds from the government.

"The Subcommittee requests the Board of Regents to immediately review this
contract to determine whether it violates the spirit if not the letter of
the Smithsonian Trust and to consider changes to the contract which would
fully guarantee that its terms are limited to a narrow set of programs," the
letter said. Taylor and Dicks also said they objected to the restrictions on
"legitimate commercial filmmakers who we believe have the right to
reasonable access to the collections and staff."

In a written response, released last night, Small defended the venture and
said the regents would review the "issues you have raised regarding
reasonable access to collections and staff."

He argued that the television deal would bring the Smithsonian to many more
people than are able to visit the Mall. "The venture provides an
unprecedented opportunity for the Smithsonian to expand exponentially its
ability to reach the public with information about our collections and
activities, at no cost to us," he wrote.

The contract, according to Smithsonian officials, creates Smithsonian on
Demand, an outlet that will produce 100 programs a year. The programs will
use Smithsonian materials and experts, and the shows will be available,
starting in December, to households with digital cable TV.

Because of the vastness of its archives, the Smithsonian is a popular
resource for researchers, authors and filmmakers. The Smithsonian says the
archives will be fully available to news and public-affairs teams as well as
noncommercial organizations. But the Smithsonian will decide which
commercial requests for more than "incidental use" of the archives will be
approved.

The congressmen suggested that the Smithsonian Board of Regents, the policy
and oversight board chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, review the whole
matter at its May 8 meeting. Taylor and Dicks also said Small should put
together a public forum, and Small said in his letter that the regents would
consider the suggestion.

The congressmen urged that the meeting include "an opportunity for public
testimony, to analyze the issues surrounding financial agreements which
appear to provide exclusivity or significant limitations on access to
Smithsonian collections, which are by definition the property of all of the
people of the United States."

The congressmen were worried that the contract "crosses the line" for a
public institution's business deal, according to congressional sources. The
sources said that Taylor and Dicks thought the Smithsonian had been
"nonchalant" in its public responses so far on the matter.

"In addition to our concern about this particular contract, we would be
concerned about any future agreements that are negotiated in secret, without
Committee consultation, which commercialize Smithsonian resources or which
appear to essentially sell access to Smithsonian resources," said the
letter.

Taylor and Dicks, at an Appropriations hearing last month, said repairs
needed for the Smithsonian are a high priority for Congress. But in their
letter, they said, "While the Committee recognizes that budget shortfalls,
in particular the need for funds to repair and maintain an aging
infrastructure, require the Smithsonian to be aggressive and imaginative in
its fund raising, these actions are often controversial and raise the risk
of damaging both Congressional and public support for the Institution."

The protests against the Showtime contract have included a coalition of 215
filmmakers and historians, the American Historical Association, Society of
American Historians, Society of American Archivists, American Library
Association and the Association of Research Libraries.

In his letter to Congress, Small said, "The fear the Smithsonian is
curtailing or constraining the work of historians and documentary
researchers seeking to use the collections is unfounded."

He also responded to Carl Malamud, a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress, who raised a number of issues in a letter signed by
actress Anna Deavere Smith, filmmakers Ken Burns and Michael Moore, and
dozens of others.

To that group, Small argued that filmmakers would benefit from the
production entity and that the Smithsonian had the right to exercise
controls of the material so it wouldn't be competing with itself.

"The joint venture," he said, "will provide millions of dollars of
incremental income to the very community you fear will be discouraged from
creating projects."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company