OK, I have to respond to L. Dewey's critique of my "curious and lengthy"
"defense" of Mr. Small.  Curious?  Perhaps, although what I found curious was L's
broad generalizations and insinuations without being very specific.  Lengthy?
I dunno--I've seen many posts on Museum-L that were lengthier, but is length
relevant?  I wrote what I felt was necessary to clarify some issues and, I
hope, correct some misunderstandings.  What I find curious is the frequency with
which people who disagree with a statement begin by citing its length.

First and most importantly, L: whoever said anything about receiving stolen
property?  That's a heck of a leap.  I found nothing in the Washington Post
stories about the "scandal" that even remotely hinted at anything being stolen.

L seems to be laboring under the impression that it is unethical for a museum
employee to have a private collection and implies that the Smithsonian
Institution forbids staff to have personal collections (it does not).  I quote from
the ICOM code of ethics:

"The acquiring, collecting and owning of objects for a personal collection by
a museum professional may not in itself be unethical and may be regarded as a
valuable way of enhancing professional knowledge and judgement. However, no
member of the museum profession should compete with their institution either in
the acquisition of objects or in any personal collecting activity."

Indeed, the newspaper articles about Mr. Small's private collecting activity,
which appeared at the time he was selected as Secretary of the Smithsonian,
strongly suggested that his personal collection was a factor in making him seem
to the Smithsonian regents like an attractive and appropriate candidate for
the job, in lieu of actual museum experience.  This is part of the Smithsonian
tradition: forty years ago it was common to hire people for Smithsonian jobs
on the basis of their private collecting experience.  A background in personal
collecting could be substituted for education.  And there was something
reasonable about that philosophy.  The rule, of course, was that private collecting
should not compete or conflict with the museum job.

L wrote:

"Lawyers vet issues regarding legal conformance and obligation. I am
confident that Mr. Small has substantial experience working with
lawyers at Citicorp and elsewhere. I am sure his lawyers stipulated
their findings carefully. He is not a minor. He has his own obligation
to follow the law."

I confess I don't understand what this means.  Mr. Small did indeed consult
his lawyers, who, he claims, assured him that everything was OK.  What I tried
to say was that he presumably was operating on the assumption that if his
lawyers and the seller of the collection claimed everything was OK, it must have
been OK.  If what you mean, L, is that he had an additional responsibility
beyond these assurances to investigate the legality of the materials in the
collection, I'm inclined to agree.  But I'm giving Mr. Small the benefit of the
doubt about his knowledge--or lack thereof--about the identity of the feathers in
the collection.  It is possible that he knew full well that some of the
feathers were from endangered species and therefore  forbidden, and has been
criminally disingenuous about the fact--but I doubt it.  It seems to me far more
likely that he really didn't know what he had.  Was he therefore negligent in not
hiring a qualified ornithologist or other expert to inspect the collection
before he acquired it and certify that all the feathers were legal?  Perhaps.  In
hindsight, it certainly would have saved him a lot of trouble and money.

In any event, what I was trying to get at was that a qualified assessment of
the collection was precisely what was lacking, not a knowledge of the laws.  I
pointed out that the Fish & Wildlife Service concluded its initial
investigation of the matter by declining to charge Small with any wrongdoing.  This
would be either because (a) they failed to find anything improper or (b) found
improprieties but decided not to charge him, for reasons unknown.  After they
reopened the investigation, it took three years to decide that he should be
prosecuted.  All indications are that it was difficult to determine that some of
the feathers were in fact illegal.

I'll backtrack a bit on what I wrote about the regents' involvement muddying
the waters.  Certainly this matter does reflect on the Smithsonian and the
regents have to address it, not just ignore it as a purely personal matter.  But
I think that the waters that have been muddied concern private collecting.  I
hope there isn't a backlash that will question the propriety of personal
collecting by museum staff per se, because I support and defend Mr. Small's right
to collect.  Obviously, responsible collecting is important.  I personally
think he did not knowingly break the law.  This incident is an embarrassment to
Small, not only because he had to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and suffer a
penalty, but because his expertise has been questioned.

I was not being entirely facetious about the culpability of the tribal
artists.  I merely offered it as something to think about in the grand scheme of
things.  There's plenty of blame to toss around, including the seller and whoever
imported the materials in the first place.  What is the responsibility of the
Brazilian government and U.S. customs inspectors, for that matter, in
ensuring that illegal materials are not imported into the United States?

"I will venture that the artist is probably unaware that his/her work is being
discussed in the Washington Post or that someone paid an amazing
fortune to acquire it."

Well, probably not.  And your point is...?

Sorry about the length, L.  I hope it doesn't ring your chimes too much.  :-)
 And I hope that emoticon will save me from accusations of being too surly.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).