The Ethics of Naming Public Buildings, Etc. After Serving Officials

In my recent entry 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 entry by John Fund placed up on Huffington Post today focuses on this part of the story.

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.

Click here to read the rest of this blog entry.

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."

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.

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."

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---