Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Sacrifice of Public Service
A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an expose on W. Richard West, Jr., the founding director of the taxpayer-subsidized Smithsonian, the National Museum of the American Indian. Over the last four years, West racked up some $250,000 in globe-trotting travel expenses, hitting such obviously American Indian-relevant destinations as Athens, Bali, London, Hong Kong, Venice (four times), and Paris (12 times!).
West's defenders say his job requires outreach, and overseas travel comes with a museum director's fundraising, networking, and promotion duties. Fair enough, though that doesn't explain why when traveling on the dime of taxpayers and museum patrons, West always opted for business class airfare, first class seats on the train, and the plushest of hotel accommodations.
Now the Post reports that before West left, he commissioned a 48 x 34 portrait of himself to hang in the museum, forever reminding visitors of his legacy. The cost: $48,000. Under West's direction, the museum also spent $133,000 on a lavish going-away party for him, including $30,000 on a specially-produced DVD telling West's life story (which—and I'm just guessing, here—likely touted the splendid sacrifices West has made for a career in public service).
This is all particularly galling because by most accounts, West did a spectacularly crappy job with the museum.
Relevant factoid: Average annual income for Native Americans is about $12,900 per year.
|1.5.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I had to keep the snow out of my office with duct tape when I
was in public service.
WTF?
|1.5.08 @ 3:45PM|#
If the US Navy is public service, here are your travel perks*
-
Coach air travel
Compact rental car
Holiday Inn (or worse) Only if no barracks are
available
Enough meal money to eat at average resteraunts e.g. Applebees.
Independents are a better deal.
Darn, I got hosed!
* Full disclosure - Because of a scheduling SNAFU, I once holed up
at the Kuaui Hilton for 5 sweet days.
|1.5.08 @ 4:19PM|#
How can anyone call what Mr. West does public service? Sounds like he is the one getting serviced.
Brian Sorgatz|1.5.08 @ 4:35PM|#
To me, the scariest thing about the story is that West is probably not intentionally, consciously hoaxing us. He probably believes his own self-flattery about his "public service."
|1.5.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Honestly, I don't see much wrong with this. These "perks" seem pretty consistent with what one would expect in the private sector for a job with similar status.
BakedPenguin|1.5.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Ok Chad, so tell me how I sell my Smithsonian stock or how I boycott their government subsidy.
|1.5.08 @ 6:03PM|#
What's the last company whose stock you sold or store you
boycotted because of the executives' perks, BakedPenguin?
Or even complained about? Or considered worthy of noticing?
|1.5.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Umm, I really can't get myself too upset about this. I'm
guessing the world travel was all conferences, and the first
class/business class could be important for keeping up a
professional image for the Smithsonian.
I wager that the Smithsonian could survive by itself without public
funding, but that's just a guess. As it currently stands they don't
charge admission. Even a suggested admission (ala the Met) would
pull in some decent revenue. This would work particularly well
because someone could pay only once for admission to all of the
Smithsonian museums. They also technically have "members," but I
don't know how much money that actually bring in.
All this being said, there are far far FAR more heinous abuses of
public funds out there.. this just isn't much of a concern for
me.
I recognize the ridiculousness of calling his job "public service,"
really, but meh.
|1.5.08 @ 6:18PM|#
joe, what's your point here? That wretched excess by public
servants is OK if you can find even one private executive whose
excesses haven't yet caught up with them? The stock of companies
whose executives are grossly overpaid goes down, on average,
compared to more efficient competitors -- all those people trying
to get an edge on the rest of the stock market makes for lots of
eyes on the ball. There's accountability there, since nobody is
forced to invest their private savings in private companies. We
are, OTOH, forced to pay taxes for shite like this, and can't quit
paying the taxes without going to jail.
See the difference?
|1.5.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Wow, did you blow that, prolefeed.
Let's walk through this: stock of companies whose executives
are grossly overpaid goes down, on average, compared to more
efficient competitors...There's accountability there, since nobody
is forced to invest their private savings in private
companies.
Accountability for whom? So the CEO lives like Ceaser, the
stockholders lose value, and then what? Big exposes in the media
because they fly in converted 747s instead of coach? Lots of
scrutinty of their expense accounts? Ever see a story like that?
Ever read about the CEO who has to pay back part of his salary
because he spent too much?
No, the stock value of the company performs a little worse. Sounds
like there is "accountability" for stockholders whose mutual funds
own companies with CEOs prone to "wretched excesses," but not so
much for the CEOs themselves.
See the difference?
There's accountability there, since nobody is forced to invest
their private savings in private companies
Nice non-sequitor: because investing in a company is voluntary,
there is accountability for CEOs who indulge in wretched excess on
the company dime. Sure, that makes sense.
Your feelings on this are clearly very strong, and that's probably
why your logic isn't.
|1.5.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Oh, and since my point is, apparently, so obscure: the only
reason there is any accountability whatsoever for this well-paid
executive's oveindulgence in "wretched excess" is BECAUSE he is in
the public sector. There is nothing unusual about such an executive
living like that on the store's money in the private sector. It
never even warrants comment or censure.
People trusted with other people's tax dollars shouldn't spend them
like this. It's not their money. We all agree on that. People
trusted with other people's retirements shouldn't, either. That's
not their money, either.
Jennifer|1.5.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Joe, for all that I get annoyed by certain corporations that (in my opinion) pay their CEOs far too much, at least I personally am not forced to take money out of my pocket and put it into theirs to subsidize these big salaries. With the government, I am. That's the difference.
|1.5.08 @ 6:56PM|#
So to single his spending out as "the sacrifices of public service," as if identifying a problem that demonstrates the inferiority of public service or public servants, is laughable. The fact that this is even being called out as wrong, as contrary to how he should have been spending the "company's" money, puts the lie to that thesis.
|1.5.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Without a system to curtail "wretched excess" on the part of
private-sector executives, such as the sunshine and shaming behind
he Post column, you are no more free to avoid paying for corporate
excess than this guy's excess.
Flying business, or a hell of a lot better, is standard practice
for CEOs. If you want to have a retirement fund or even just buy
goods, you have no choice but to subsidize that behavior.
Jennifer|1.5.08 @ 7:01PM|#
So to single his spending out as "the sacrifices of public
service," as if identifying a problem that demonstrates the
inferiority of public service or public servants, is laughable. The
fact that this is even being called out as wrong, as contrary to
how he should have been spending the "company's" money, puts the
lie to that thesis.
Media reports of waste in the name of public service prove that
public service is not inferior? How do you figure?
Jennifer|1.5.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Without a system to curtail "wretched excess" on the part of
private-sector executives, such as the sunshine and shaming behind
he Post column, you are no more free to avoid paying for corporate
excess than this guy's excess.
Sure I am. When I got fed up with Wal-Mart's business practices, I
stopped giving money to Wal-Mart and I've not spent a second in
jail over it. How can I similarly safely refuse to send money to
the Indian museum, do you think?
|1.5.08 @ 7:07PM|#
I haven't shopped at costco for years due to their eminent domain abuses and have encouraged everyone I know to stop shopping there as well. What if I boycotted my local property taxes due to my city's eminent domain abuses?
|1.5.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Jennifer,
Media reports of waste in the name of public service prove that
public service is not inferior? How do you figure?
Because the behavior is identified as waste, and wrong, on the part
of the public servants doesn't even warrant shrug on the part of
the private CEOs.
If it's wrong to live like that on other people's money, than the
public sector is vastly superior, because there are consequences
for living like that on other people's money in the publis sector,
if only bad press. But I bet there will be even more.
When I got fed up with Wal-Mart's business practices, I stopped
giving money to Wal-Mart... So, is the CEO of Wal-Mart, or any
other corporation, facing and consequences, like West is?
|1.5.08 @ 7:11PM|#
What if I boycotted my local property taxes due to my city's
eminent domain abuses?
It would have a far greater impact on the people whose behavior you
object to, and curtail their ability to act, far more than your
boycotting of Costco.
|1.5.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Funny, once upon a time this was a thread about whether a
corporate officer - public or private - living high off of other
people's money was inappropriate.
Not anymore, though. The double standard just isn't defensible.
|1.5.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Considering how much easier it is to "punish" a private-sector executive for his "wreteched excess" with other people's money, it becomes even more striking how much more rare it is for such an executive to ever actually be punished for it. Or exposed. Or criticized. Or for the people who claim to believe that "stockholder power" is the solution to express the thought that there is anything wrong with such behavior.
Jennifer|1.5.08 @ 7:18PM|#
So, is the CEO of Wal-Mart, or any other corporation, facing
and consequences, like West is?
Wal-Mart stock's been going down. Even if it isn't, what matters is
that my money is not being added to their profits.
Do you really find it so hard to understand the difference
between wasting private money versus wasting money that was taken
from taxpayers by force?
The double standard just isn't defensible.
Yes it is. The standard is as follows: you do whatever the hell you
want with your money, but not with mine.
BakedPenguin|1.5.08 @ 7:19PM|#
It would have a far greater impact on the people whose behavior you object to, and curtail their ability to act...
What? You would be arrested, and your property seized and sold. End
of story.
...living high off of other people's money was inappropriate.
If he's living off other people's money without their
consent, then hell yes, it's inappropriate.
Jennifer and bob made my other points for me already...
|1.5.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Wal-Mart stock's been going down.
The question was, "So, is the CEO of Wal Mart facing and
consequences?" The people he is ripping off - his shareholders -
certainly are. Yippee.
And that's making two assumptions - such wretched excess is
considered wrong, which no one seems willing to agree it is, when
the money you're blowing comes out of corporate funds - and that
opposition to such excess has ever actually caused a stock to do
down. So, it two things that don't actually happen actually
happened, the wrong people would suffer. Hooray!
Do you really find it so hard to understand the difference
between wasting private money versus wasting money that was taken
from taxpayers by force? No, I'm just talking about something
else. You - especially you, Jennifer - don't ever have to worry
about my not being able to follow you're thought process, and don't
ever have to ask me if I'm having trouble understanding something.
Mmm-kay.
The standard is as follows: you do whatever the hell you want
with your money, but not with mine. Clearly not, since you
have absolutely no problem with corporate CEOs of companies you
partly own spending money that is rightfully yours on themselves,
rather than doing it on their own dime.
Jennifer|1.5.08 @ 7:30PM|#
since you have absolutely no problem with corporate CEOs of
companies you partly own spending money that is rightfully yours on
themselves, rather than doing it on their own dime.
Which company would this be? If I own stock in a company and don't
like its behavior, I can sell my stock without going to jail. How,
by contrast, can I stop funding this Smithsonian nonsense without
going to prison?
And that's making two assumptions - such wretched excess is
considered wrong, which no one seems willing to agree it is, when
the money you're blowing comes out of corporate funds - and that
opposition to such excess has ever actually caused a stock to do
down.
Still doesn't matter, unless you can identify a private company
that I am required by law to support with my own money, the way I'm
required to support the government with my own money.
|1.5.08 @ 7:31PM|#
BakedPenguin,
It would take years to actually have your property taken for taxes,
and cost the city a great deal of time and money to do so. In the
meantime, the politicians you are targetting get to enjoy all the
wonderful press your protest brings to their eminent domain
takings. As this article's appearance in the Post demonstrates,
exposure, shaming, and political hits can be brought to bear on,
and be much more damaging to, public officers than private
ones.
It's not something that readily occurs to deeply materialist people
who don't value the public realm, but democratic accountability can
be a bitch, too.
|1.5.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Jennifer,
Which company would this be? Most of the companies you own
stock in allow their top executives to pamper themselves on the
company's dime to the extent, or moreso, that West is accused of
doing.
If I own stock in a company and don't like its behavior, I can
sell my stock without going to jail. Yes, and you don't.
Nobody does. You don't even wrinkle an eyebrow at exactly the same
behavior by corporate executives. That's the point here - not that
public officials aren't accountable for their misdeeds(they are,
just in a different and probably greater manner), but that you only
consider such behavior to be a misdeed when carried out by people
in the public sector.
|1.5.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Anyone ever see a CEO lose his job for spending too much money
on personal perks?
Anyone ever see a public employee lose his job for spending too
much money on personal perks?
|1.5.08 @ 7:50PM|#
I get the point that you can stop sending your money to
private-sector officers who misbehave.
Given that, it is still wrong for people to spend other people's
money on cushy perks, regardless of how that money was obtained.
That's my Point #1.
When public sector officials spend other people's money on
themselves, they are much more likely to actually face consequences
for it, as the practice of using O.P.M. to pamper yourself is much
more likely to be questioned for public officials, and because
there is a more-direct method for the people whose money is being
wasted to impose consequences (bad press, lost jobs, lost
elections). That's Point #2.
BakedPenguin|1.5.08 @ 7:56PM|#
It's not something that readily occurs to deeply materialist people...
WTF? Yeah, I'm going to go have a money fight with Smithers, then
I'll get back to you.
Point #1 & Point #2.
Okay, fine. You're right. Here's how I view the difference: A
kindly grandma gives her grandson $100 on condition that he save
it. He goes out, and buys 3/4 of an ounce of pot, and gets really
high with his friends. Well, that's not nice.
However, if he stole the money from her to buy buds, it's worse
than just being not nice, and the consequences should be
different.
|1.5.08 @ 7:59PM|#
I think we are just going to have to accept that joe just
doesn't get it, never will, and let that be the end of.
In any case, joe has already conceded the point that the post made
(i.e. that living large on the taxpayer's dime is unacceptable),
which is admirable. What hay he tries to make with it from there is
his own business. It is pretty clear that the point he thinks he is
making is wholly unconvincing to everyone here, because we do get
it, and do understand the difference between subsidizing the
lifestyle of a public "servant" with money taken by force and
subsidizing the lifestyle of a fatcat CEO with money given
voluntarily, money which can be withdrawn if the CEO's salary and
perks become too unpalatable.
BakedPenguin|1.5.08 @ 8:17PM|#
asterisk - yeah, I was about to add a line saying we should "agree to disagree". FWIW, I don't think he's wrong that some people in the private sector are paid far more than the value they add, but if someone values them that much...
Chad|1.5.08 @ 9:36PM|#
Whether West's job is a legimate taxpayer function is a
different debate.
The question is whether these perks represent something
inappropriate for someone in his position. It is not obvious that
they do. Upper-middle and senior management normally travel
business class, both for public and private organizations. Even
mid-level managers often travel overseas if necessary for the job.
$60k per year is not unbelievable by any stretch.
Mike Laursen|1.6.08 @ 12:54AM|#
Dang it! Looking for raw material for snide remarks, I read a
couple of bios of West online, and ended up with a more sympathetic
opinion of him.
I hate that!
I found out that: (a) he has dedicated his legal career to
providing representation for Indian tribes across the country; (b)
he is half Cheyenne Indian, which means, of course, that both sides
have been against him since the day he was born.
|1.6.08 @ 1:06AM|#
Also, the National Museum of the American Indian pretty much
sucks.
Am I the only person here who has actually been to that place? It's
mostly empty space.
I guess you should drop by if you are in town though. It's free to
get in (because you already paid for it).
|1.6.08 @ 10:16AM|#
If the problem actually was that "taxation in theft," then what the "thief" does with the money is completely irrelevant.
|1.6.08 @ 10:36AM|#
a couple of pointless observations
Anyone ever see a CEO lose his job for spending too much money
on personal perks?
Does the name "Conrad Black" ring a bell?
Private companies create value, and executives and
officers are paid out of profits. Government agencies are funded by
taxes imposed on the wealth-creating segments of the economy.
And, if the museum didn't suck, there would most likely be not one
peep out of anybody regarding Mr West's expenses.
Mike Laursen|1.6.08 @ 10:41AM|#
joe, nobody here brought up the "taxation is theft" meme. Why did you bring it up? Arguing with the libertarians in your head?
Episiarch|1.6.08 @ 10:58AM|#
Also, the National Museum of the American Indian pretty much
sucks.
Yup, this is 100% true. I was down in Battery Park one day and
decided to check it out. As someone with a degree in anthropology
(and some specific study of American Indians) I thought it would be
interesting.
It sucked. Let's put it this way: it was 45% "Indian arts
and crafts" (seriously!), 45% "the white man exploited us", and 10%
actual information about how the Indians lived, their culture, and
their religion.
This guy deserves to be shitcanned solely for creating one of the
worst museums I've ever been in. But the architecture was
beautiful! So much open space--and money spent.
Indy|1.6.08 @ 11:40AM|#
The museum is political rather than ethnographic, historical or
archaeological.
The director was selected based on his race and connections.
ed|1.6.08 @ 11:55AM|#
I personally am not forced to take money out of my pocket
and put it into theirs [CEOs] to subsidize these big
salaries.
Unless they are taking juicy government contracts. Then you are
indeed forced, Jennifer. It's not quite as simple as boycotting the
local Korean market for discriminating against black kids. But the
point is taken. There is, of course, much less accountability on
the public side than the private.
|1.6.08 @ 1:28PM|#
Chad writes:
The question is whether these perks represent something
inappropriate for someone in his position. It is not obvious that
they do. Upper-middle and senior management normally travel
business class, both for public and private organizations. Even
mid-level managers often travel overseas if necessary for the job.
$60k per year is not unbelievable by any stretch.
I would add that during the times I have traveled extensively for
work, spending additional money for first-class travel was money
well spent. If there is enough money at stake that it's worth
flying a senior exec across the country or to Europe -- e.g., a
deal meeting, a fundraising pitch, or attending an court hearing or
other important offical proceeding -- then the exec and his/her
staff have probably expended the equivalent of tens of thousands of
dollars preparing for the trip. After all that expenditure, it
makes no sense to have the exec half-awake at the meeting because
he/she had to fly in a coach middle seat for 7 hours and stay in a
hotel room next to 15 kids who just left their junior prom. The
fact that you might tolerate those kind of irritations if you were
spending your own money on a vacation or personal trip is really
beside the point.
The travel dollars at stake here are really minimal by comparison
to the museum's overall budget. If the museum benefitted, they were
well spent. If the museum is "spectacularly crappy," then the
problem is not the travel budget.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245