We ask that the U.S. Congress pass legislation that treats women’s history with the same respect as has been accorded other groups who have been granted museum space on the National Mall. It is the stated intent of Congress to preserve the National Mall as civic space. The 1986 Commemorative Works Act, for example, asks that future additions to the National Mall “reflect a consensus of the lasting national significance of the subjects involved.” We seek the same level of consideration for a national museum of women’s history. A truly national museum would be free, publicly accountable, and only built after a broadly public consideration of the museum using a commission whose structure is representative, inclusive and of sufficient stature to ensure a broad public consensus.

Unfortunately, what is being proposed is NOT public accountable or inclusive of women’s organizations. It is unheard of for a private entity to have a privileged place on the National Mall and yet that is exactly what this legislation permits.

On March 14, the private entity named in the legislation and which has lobbied for a museum, National Women’s History Museum, Inc. (NWHM, Inc.) dismissed all the scholars on its Scholarly Advisory Council. If NWHM, Inc. cannot work with scholars and does not appreciate their critical importance to a museum that tells history with fidelity, the more serious issue is that the commission proposed in the legislation also fails to create a working commission.

Further, the ONLY people who are considered to have credentials to plan for a museum in H.R. 863 or S. 398 are those with museum experience or fundraising, or who currently teach history at a university or college, or who have elected or public office experience. The problem is that this fails to ensure regional or racial and ethnic balance and this leaves out many others with expertise, including scholars with degrees in other fields, those who do public history or are researchers who may not be teaching in a university, as well as self-taught scholars and activists as well as leaders of women’s organizations who have fought for women. A successful museum should not only include ALL types of scholars, it should be inclusive of ALL women’s organizations to deserve both our public and our private contributions.

• Expand the Commission SIZE to at least 25 to 30 Members. The current size of only eight members chosen from highly restrictive types of combined expertise is too small for a working or representative commission and is one-third (or less) than other commissions which have ranged from 23 to 26 (Latino or African-American commissions) or even 60 (Holocaust commission) in size;

• Lengthen the DURATION of the Commission from 18 months to two or three years. The current limited timeframe of only18 months is too short (and shorter than other commissions) to address the responsibilities presented in the legislation or to appropriately include the public and scholars who are not members in a public fashion (e.g., a conference);

• Permit the PRESIDENT to appoint some of the Commission members. This is consistent with other successful museums on or near the National Mall, and works to ensure representativeness;

• Ensure that the appointment of Commission members is done in CONSULTATION with the women’s community and historical and other public history and women’s studies associations and scholarly disciplines which research women’s history. This type of provision is common in other commission legislation for existing and proposed museums on the National Mall, and creates consensus;

• Provide a process to ensure there is NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST among the Commission members. This is critical to ensure the broad public purpose and is missing from the current legislation, which risks misuse of the commission for private or commercial purposes;

• Delete the EXEMPTION from the Federal Advisory Commission Act. The current exemption from open meeting, public notice and reporting makes its work insular and open to controversy risks reducing the kind of public support critical to success;

• Include the Department of Interior and the National Park Service (NPS) as part of the STRUCTURE. The Department of Interior has experience in staffing history commissions, and the NPS has extensive background and an admirable track record in curating exhibits, working with scholars, and in working with the National Collaborative for Women’s History Sites;

• Permit federal STAFF to be detailed to assist the Commission. This will ensure that appropriate resources are available to provide for a timely, credible, and well-considered consensus report in the most cost-effective way;

• Provide for daily COMPENSATION for Commission members who serve. It is a financial hardship without personal wealth or private subsidies to serve in a responsible capacity. Without this compensation, it will be difficult for some women who have expertise to offer but who must take leave from their current employment to serve, and increases the risk of conflicts of interest;

• Add some LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE on the mission of the Commission to determine the scope of the museum, and include in this guidance the need for the museum to support research into women’s history. Asking only for logistical decisions assumes we already know the mission and vision of the museum, which has yet to be stated or determined; and

• Ensure that any national museum of women’s history have some sort of PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. Features which are currently absent include creation of a representative board that is based upon congressional or presidential appointment; inclusion of some degree of Smithsonian oversight and affiliation, and regular reporting to Congress and the President. These types of public accountability are found in other museums on the National Mall even when built with private funds, and any museum placed on the National Mall should be available to future generations and open to evolving visions of public history and scholarship.