Last week, U.S. House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) launched an investigation into how federal agencies acquire and preserve art in their buildings, under the theory that these programs may be a waste of money.

 

The investigation began with Chairman Chaffetz sending out letters of inquiry to 25 federal agency directors requesting them to provide—within two weeks—every document, contract, picture, and communications outlining exactly how the art came into their agency’s possession, how the works are preserved, how many staff are involved in these activities, and the associated costs. 

 

Despite the preface to the Chairman’s inquiry acknowledging, “Art collections in federal building bring creative and artistic beauty to public spaces and create attractive work environments for federal employees and the public they serve,” Chairman Chaffetz then suggests, “these taxpayer funded art programs, however, raise the potential for wasteful spending.” 

 

Not since the congressional investigations during the early 1990’s has a congressional committee launched such a wide-ranging roundup of artwork in our federal agencies.

 

It is unclear what steered Mr. Chaffetz to conduct this inquiry. We do know that:

It is unclear how each of the federal agencies receiving the Chairman’s letter will find the resources to provide or build a database of documents and pictures that can adequately respond to the nine categories of the inquiry in alignment with the 19 committee guidelines. It is also unclear how much these 25 agencies will need to spend in order to provide a response to Mr. Chaffetz’s request. 

 

This investigation, without apparent parameters, or methodology, does not request an explanation for these authorized programs, or description of how the art facilitates learning and is central to the educational mission of many agency programs. Art shows our history and culture—it is patriotism at its founding.

 

In addition to art serving an educational, aesthetic, diplomatic, and healing role in and around federal buildings, we know from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis that it serves as a major economic impact to our country as the arts and cultural sectors contributed $704.2 billion to the U.S. economy in 2013—4.2 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), more than the construction sector ($619B) or transportation and utilities sectors ($270B). It creates a trade surplus, lowering our deficit. 

 

Ironically, just as Chairman Chaffetz is questioning government spending on art in federal buildings, a recent poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs for Americans for the Arts reinforces the American public’s overwhelming support of government arts funding. In December 2015, a nationally representative survey of 3,020 American adults on topics such as support for arts education and government arts funding, and how arts programs extend more broadly to the community. Some of the research found:

Clearly, the public that Chairman Chaffetz represents supports the federal government’s investment in the arts. Many of the agencies which have been sent his letter of inquiry are using the arts to better serve the citizenry as well as our economic competitiveness and diplomatic standing abroad. We look forward to an enumeration of these strategic benefits in his report.