Viewing page 54 of 164

- 35 -

authority to recommend or make purchases of supplies, equipment or services; review or approve a contractor's performance; or arrange for the exhibit of objects or otherwise commit the resources, reputation or name of the Smithsonian Institution." In the audit of the Smithsonian Ethics Program, issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) last year, it was recommended that these criteria for identifying employees who should report be expanded. The OIG concluded that the vagueness and incompleteness of the criteria have led to their inconsistent application within the Institution and omission of employees in specific job classifications whose functions and responsibilities suggest that they should be filing the disclosure statement.

Based on guidance provided by OIG and helpful comments from several bureaus and offices, revised criteria have been developed. In addition to identifying positions that should report by the nature of their management responsibilities, e.g., members of the Secretary's management committee, bureau and office directors and managers of business activities, etc., the new requirements cover "others with the authority to recommend or approve single purchases over $2000 of supplies, equipment or services ...; purchases at cost of objects for resale; purchases of objects for the collections; lending or disposing of collection items; reviewing or approving contractors' performance or conducting other activities where the decision or other action benefits the economic interests of others."

Further strengthening the review is a more sharply defined process for applying the criteria and identifying those employees who should prepare a disclosure statement. This process requires that the director of each bureau or office or a senior designee prepare and sign the list of identified employees after applying the new criteria and personal knowledge of each employee's actual duties. Persons commenting on the criteria and process have stated that these revised requirements will be helpful in assuring that coverage is achieved.


During the period ending August 1991 there were pending seventeen cases to which the Smithsonian Institution was a party or had an interest, including six new cases (*), two of which have been resolved (+) along with four other cases:


*+ Hooper Marketing. Inc. v. Smithsonian Institution Press  (claim by a Smithsonian Institution Press contractor for $930 in additional compensation): The matter was favorably resolved in August 1991 by a settlement that provided for payment by the Press of one-half of the dollar amount claimed.


Dickson v. Smithsonian Institution (discrimination on the basis of race (white)). 
+ Janczewski v. Secretary, Smithsonian Institution (sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex): Without any admission on the part of the Institution of the claimed actions, the case was settled for $42,000, to be paid from the Judgment Fund, and revision of certain personnel actions. 

Transcription Notes:
Deleted notations of underlining per new transcription guidelines

Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact