Viewing page 107 of 164

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 88 -

sure that the figures and the allocation are correct. The Drinker, Biddle & Reath opinion also points out that the Smithsonian is paying the bills subject to a possible claim against Dr. Mitchell for repayment.

Mr. Powers added that Drinker, Biddle & Reath did an extensive report last December about the factual issues of Dr. Mitchell's Smithsonian responsibilities and came to quite a different conclusion from that of the GAO. Drinker, Biddle & Reath has now been asked to comment on the GAO opinion in light of its earlier report. With regard to the legal issue of the Smithsonian's authority to use appropriated funds to pay the cost of representation under the Regents' indemnification policy, it is not clear whether the Department of Justice itself would agree that the Attorney General must control government litigation on both the prosecution and defense of the case. The staff intends to seek the views of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, preferably informally rather than inviting a hostile opinion, including the question whether the Smithsonian ought to seek GAO's reconsideration.

Dr. Hoffmann described the work which Dr. Mitchell performed on behalf of the Smithsonian and suggested that none of it was professionally unethical or illegal. Mr. Powers commented that, notwithstanding the peculiarities of Dr. Mitchell's relationship to the Smithsonian, he is seen by his colleagues at the Institution as one of them. There is growing concern among the professional staff that someday management and the Regents might abandon one of them; they are watching very carefully to see whether the Board's indemnification resolution really means what it says. 
 
Mr. Powers added that it appears from the opinion of Drinker, Biddle & Reath that the Smithsonian has a simple legal obligation to the attorney who Dr. Mitchell selected to represent him. As that opinion had not been