GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OMB gives Smithsonian failing grades

• 8229
  

  Somebody needs to look at OMB because they are causing government to spend large amounts of money to implement accounting systems that are of absolutely no use to the agencies and involve spending billions of dollars to comply. There absolutely is no reason for the DoD and services (or probably any other government agency) to develop an accrual accounting system as mandated by OMB in connection with the CFO act. Stop this foolishness and save billions immediately! Government operates on appropriations that represent "funds". Funds accounting has always been the basis of government. Operations are based on available "funds" and cash flow and not on accrual accounting. The accounting groups are not going to object to this move because they all reap billions in revenues from such a stupid move! Congress needs to tell OBM to stop this total waste of taxpayer money and forget Gore's reinventing government. Gore had no idea what he was doing and his idea has cost taxpayers billions without any significant benefit and a misfocus of management onto irrelevant topics.

  taxpayer Posted February 8, 2005 7:15 AM
• 8166
  

  Besides its "yellow" rating on human crapital, OMB has four Reds, almost as many as the Smithsonian. Yet an OMB policial hack (sorry, "administration official") gets to take a shot at the Smithsonian.

  If the OMB-run scorecard is such a big deal, why is OMB itself still almost entirely in Red, even after 3+ years? What, doesn't OMB take the PMA seriously?

  Answer: The scorecard, like the PMA, and OMB, is a complete pathetic bad joke. If OMB doesn't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

  Art Posted February 3, 2005 2:46 PM
• 8165
  

  OMB only included the Smithsonian on it's pathetic scorecard to embarrass it. Some small-minded political hack in OMB has it in for the Smithsonian. They probably want to outsource the Smithsonian to Lockheed Martin. Then, Lockheed could charge $20 per visitor, and reap "efficiencies," aka buckets of money.

  Guess what OMB: We like the Smithsonian. The fact the Smithsonian doesn't hire Wackenhut to protect our nation's treasures doesn't bother me for a minute. I'm not offended to see a security guard make more than minimum wage.

  Now: Why not outsource OMB? I bet Lockheed could be more "efficient."

  Art Posted February 3, 2005 2:38 PM
• 8148
  

  Wait a minute. I generally disagree with the Bush administration's loony-tunes approach to outsourcing government, pay reform, etc. But they've gone too far. The Smithsonian solicits and receives many hundreds of my voluntary dollars every year to keep the organization functioning. It only barely qualifies as a Government Agency. It offers free admission to thousands of US citizens and foreign visitors to our nation's Capitol every year to view this slice of Americana. I approve of the way it runs. GWB: Hands off!!

  Al Plyler Posted February 3, 2005 9:43 AM
• 8141
  

  Why are any of us on this silly scorecard? -- it measures e-gov; outsourcing initiatives, financial management, and I don't know what in HR. I would work in a second for an organization completely in the red where the employees have esprit de corps, know the mission, and enjoy coming to work over working in a morgue organization that is all green according to the silly PMA.

  The scorecard measures the wrong outputs as far as I'm concerned and was crafted by bean counters to satisfy some arbitrary criteria which even OMB and OPM can't seem to meet-- how ironic.

  The workers at the Smithsonian should not worry that they have all failed the PMA, we in DC appreciate your efforts and love visiting your facilities- keep up the good work.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 3, 2005 8:26 AM