The Ethics of Naming Public Buildings, Etc. After Serving Officials
In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/472" target="”_blank”">my recent entry</a> about Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, I said
nothing about the fact that the university center he was seeking funds
for has his name on it. An excellent <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/bipartisan-scandal-congre_b_113…; target="”_blank”">entry
by John Fund placed up on Huffington Post </a>today focuses on
this part of the story.<br>
<br>
Yes, why should anything, especially anything built with public funds,
be given the name of a serving (or even recently serving) government
official? You can't have a stamp, but you can have an airport or street
or university center -- or several of each.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/475">Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.</a>
<br>
<br>
Arkansas state representative Dan Greenberg introduced the Edifice
Complex Prevention Bill to put limits on this practice in his state. He
was asked by a fellow state rep, "Now tell me the truth, wouldn't you
like a building named after you?" Greenberg said that he would if he
paid for it, but the practice of "using taxpayer money to build temples
to ourselves as public servants is dangerous."<br>
<br>
It's also a benefit, a gift, because having things named after you is
about as good publicity as you can get. It's doubly an ethics
violation, because it's a gift bought with public funds.<br>
<br>
Such benefits should not be offered and, if offered, they can be
refused. The entry cites the recent example of former Senator Fred
Thompson, who asked that a road not be named after him. "It is entirely
appropriate," he told Tennessee state legislators, "that it remain
Highway 43, the way I remember it was when I was a boy."<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>