4-Laborer-WG-3. 1-Clerk-Typist-GS-3. 1-Automotive Mechanic, WG-8. 1-Glazier-WG-10. 1-Cabinetmaker Assistant Foreman-WS-10. 17-Guards GS-4. 17-Guards-GS-5. 3-Guards-GS-6. (Statistics supplied by Smithsonian Institution) We have a great deal of concern for the morale of all of the employees of the Institution. I would like to submit in my testimony, we have an extensive network of communications in which we encourage freedom of expression-in fact, such a vast extensive program that it in itself would solicit discourse, both favorable and critical. (Mr. Pouliot requested and was granted permission to expand on his preceding reply). COMMENTS ON MORALE OF SMITHSONIAN EMPLOYEES BY LEONARD POULIOT It is my observation that the morale of Smithsonian employees is generally good. This conclusion is based upon a lower level of employee turnover in most job categories as compared to other agencies, a relatively lower level of racial discrimination complaints and a very low level of general complaints as confirmed by the Civil Service Commission. The Commission advised that they had only five complaints from Smithsonian employees in two years. Of course, we know that morale is basically the sum total of individual satisfactions and that there are many variables contributing to morale. Some of these variables include a feeling of personal esteem, a desire to know that one's efforts are viewed as being worthwhile, of acceptance by others and a belief concerning their supervisors' competencies. We in the Smithsonian know that morale is not static and that every person perceives things differently from one day to the next. It is for this reason that we place heavy demands upon our supervisors to exert their managerial skills to enhance morale. Supervisors do not always succeed but it is certainly rare to find a supervisor deliberately desiring bad morale among his staff. We plan to conduct an employee attitude and morale survey within the next ninety days to assess the effectiveness of supervisors and the morale of employees. There are organizations in the Smithsonian wherein morale is excellent. There are other organizations where morale is not high and it has become evident that the managers and supervisors need to concentrate on motivation and morale. We will continue to assist those managers whose efforts do not seem to bring about employee satisfaction along with high productivity. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you encourage discussion of union activity or prospective union activity? Mr. POULIOT. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. You don't discourage it? Mr. POULIOT. No, sir; not a bit. Mr. THOMPSON. Of course, Government employees occupy a unique position under the existing law. But there are increasing numbers of public employees in all areas-Federal, municipal, and otherwise-organizing and asserting themselves to the extent of the law in their various fields of activity-teachers, sanitation men, and so on. Mr. POULIOT. I might say in this case that the Secretary signed the last agreement with the local union of AFGE in the Smithsonian. It was considered one of the best in the area and was published by the Bureau of National Affairs. Mr. THOMPSON. I don't see any need to talk to you more at this point, principally because I have not had an opportunity to study your testimony. I do note that it is accompanied by some considerable amount of detailed information and charts, all of which, of course, will be a part of the record. I thank you for your efforts. As a matter of fact, I thank all of those from the Institution who have had to, because of these hearings, turn away from their routine duties and prepare these statements. I think in the final analysis we will have an extremely valuable record. I certainly can say for myself, if 1 ot my colleagues, that I have learned a great deal about the Institu ion that I didn't know before. I expect there is a great deal more to learn. So with that, I think that we will adjourn until tomorrow at 10 a.m. in this room. Mr. POULIOT. At that time, will I have an opportunity to make a statement? Mr. THOMPSON. If you have anything else to say right now, we will hear you. Mr. POULIOT. No, sir, not unless I receive specific questions that you would like to have substantiating information on. Mr. THOMPSON. You do have a comprehensive statement here. If there is any further need, we will communicate with you. Thank you very much. The subcommittee stands in recess. (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 30, 1970.) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION General Background-Policies, Purposes, and Goals From 1846 to Present THURSDAY, JULY 30, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIBRARY AND MEMORIALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Thompson, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Thompson, Brademas, Bingham, Schwengel, and Crane. Staff member present: John d'Amecourt, staff director. This morning we will proceed with Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary. STATEMENT OF S. DILLON RIPLEY, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION; ACCOMPANIED BY PHILIP C. RITTERBUSH, DIRECTOR, ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, AND NATHANIEL DIXON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Dr. RIPLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to welcome here this morning to speak on education of the Smithsonian, Mr. Ritterbush, Director of our Academic Office, and Mr. Nathaniel Dixon, who is the Director of the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education at the Smithsonian, formerly principal of the Scott Elementary School in Washington. Education is a word which is now commonly associated with museum-like institutions, although within the past 10 years this has been a new development. We are anxious to demonstrate to the committee, especially knowing the interest of the chairman and Mr. Brademas particularly on the Education and Labor Committee, the fact that these organizations similar to ours are newly needed in the educational problems that face us all today. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ritterbush, you have a very comprehensive statement in which there are charts and tables and biographies and so on. So, there being no objection, we will enter your statement in the record in full and then you can proceed as you wish with it. Mr. RITTERBUSH. I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF PHILIP C. RITTERBUSH, DIRECTOR OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Philip Ritterbush. I serve as Director of Academic Programs at the Smithsonian Institution with responsibility for the development and coordination of programs of advanced study, elementary-secondary education, and external educational services. My academic training was as a cultural historian. Prior to joining the Smithsonian (in 1964) I had also devoted considerable effort to studies of the system of institutions in higher education and research. In the summer of 1962 I received a short-term appointment in the office of the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology to study and report upon the use of federal research and development facilities for purposes of graduate education. I found that there was a strong trend toward the use of federal laboratories, especially large, multiprogram basic research establishments located near universities, as centers to supplement university offerings in the sciences at the graduate level. USE OF FEDERAL FACILITIES FOR ADVANCED STUDY The facilities of the Cooperative States Extension Station Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture had of course grown up mostly on campus. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory had organized an association of cooperating universities to pursue a very active program of summer appointments and educational assignments. In the 1950's the National Research Council instituted a visiting research associate scheme, with participation by a dozen or so major laboratories such as the National Bureau of Standards. In my report I predicted that educational use of governmental laboratories would increase, in view of the uniqueness of their facilities, the public interest in optimum utilization of such facilities, and the desire of scientific staff members to engage in cooperative projects with universities. There was a further reason, stemming from the character of scientific research as the process of learning about the unknown. As the President's Science Advisory Committee put it in a 1960 statement recommnding public policies for science: "the process of graduate education and the process of basic research belong together at every possible level. We believe that the two kinds of activity reinforce each other in a great variety of ways and that each is weakened when carried on without the other." I believe that my report was the first government-wide survey of federal laboratory involvement in higher education, but it was an internal document for the Office of Science and Technology. However, most agencies were themselves coming to realize, much more strongly than before, that direct association with students is integral to the process of research. In 1965 the Committee on Federal Laboratories of the Federal Council for Science and Technology embarked upon a study of this subject which led to recommendations that laboratories develop educational programs. Their report was accepted by the Council. Dr. Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, then urged all agencies to provide for use of their research facilities by universities to the "maximum practical extent."1 I started on my own study with the thought that the President might issue an Executive Order favoring education in governmental facilities, to counter a bias on the part of governmental agencies against the use of their scarce resources for services to private groups or individuals with a clear statement that assistance to students was fully authorized legally. But as I got deeper into historical sources I was quite surprised to discover that no Executive Order would be needed because there had in fact been an Act of Congress authorizing the use of governmental research facilities by students and that the organization 1 See Education and the Federal Laboratories; An Assessment of Federal Laboratory Educational Activities and Their Present and Potential Relationships with Universities (Washington U.S. Government Printing Office of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1968) and Proceedings, Symposium on Education and Federal LaboratoryUniversity Relationships (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office for the Federal Council for Science and Technology and American Council on Education, May, 1969). responsible for its enactment, in 1901, had been the Smithsonian Institution! The national organization of land-grant colleges had proposed in the 1890's that the Smithsonian take the lead in arranging for students from the Nation's colleges and universities to come to Washington to study in all of the government departments. A Committee of the Board of Regents was formed in 1899 to consider the proposal. Rather than encourage the Smithsonian to become the educational liaison center for all government laboratories, acting on implied authority under its mandate "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge," the Regents recommended that an Act of Congress be sought, authorizing all agencies to appoint students. The Act of March 3, 1901 (20 U.S.C. §91) provided that "facilities for study and research in the Government Departments, the Library of Congress, the National Museum, the Zoological Park, the Bureau of Ethnology... [and others] shall be afforded to scientific investigators and duly qualified individuals, students and graduates of institutions of learning The plan to bring numbers of students to Washington was endorsed by leading educators and hopes were raised that some of Andrew Carnegie's estate might be used for the purpose, but the managers of the Carnegie Institution of Washington preferred instead to develop it as a great research institution, and these early plans were eventually forgotten. The Smithsonian did not then or subsequently until 1964 seek to provide support to visiting students from its budget.❜ ENDORSEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY MR. RIPLEY When Dillon Ripley became Secretary in 1964 the governmental policy favoring higher education activities by laboratories was just taking shape and the Act of 1901 was just coming to light again after a long period of neglect. Mr. Ripley strongly favored the development of cooperative undertakings with universities in higher education, in order to bring the advantages of association with students and visiting scholars to our research divisions, in keeping with his interest in strengthening research. The presence of lively, inquiring students can greatly enhance the environment in which research takes place. Also, there was his very basic concern that universities had not shown the interest in some of our disciplines that we thought they merited, and that there would be advantages in introducing more investigators from universities to the areas of research wherein the Smithsonian had developed commitments. Finally, a scheme of exchanges between the Smithsonian and universities would help all participants to become aware of shared interests and opportunities for cooperation. A widely representative staff committee, chaired by Dr. Wallen, was constituted to guide planning. Dr. Wallen also consulted members of the Board of Regents. The committee recommended that a fellowship program be inaugurated and that an administrative unit be constituted to oversee arrangements. Mr. Ripley accepted their recommendation. The Institution proceeded to contract with the National Research Council for 12 postdoctoral stipends in the sciences for academic year 1965-66, leading incidentally to the highest application rate ever experienced by their office, and itself administered 4 postdoctoral stipends in humanities, and 20 stipends for Ph. D. candidates overall. In July of 1964 Mr. Ripley issued a general memorandum establishing the program. In October a Division of Education and Training was set up. That name was derived from the Division of Nuclear Education and Training in the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. We prepared a guide to the facilities, staff, and organization units of the Institution, published that winter as Research Opportunities 1965-66, the first comprehensive digest of staff interests published anywhere in the Federal Government as an invitation to university scholars and scientists. It was sent to all major universities that year in hopes of acquainting their faculty members with what the Institution could offer them. Two staff members were employed that fall and in the following spring. Charles Blitzer of the American Council of Learned Societies accepted Mr. Ripley's invitation to assume direction of the program. P. C. Ritterbush, "Research Training in Governmental Laboratories in the U.S.," Minerva, Vol. 4, no. 2 (1966), pp. 186-201. In 1968 this unit was renamed the Office of Academic Programs. |