Viewing page 140 of 156

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 128 - 

corporate philanthropy, the Institution should be willing to consider at least the possibility of recognizing a major and appropriate corporate gift in this way. Once a public institution has accepted the notion of donor recognition through naming, the distinction between individual and corporate naming is not one in kind but in degree.

That difference in degree, is, however, quite important and argues for the strongest caution in accepting a corporate naming proposal. The particular disadvantages that accrue to a corporate naming suggest the creation of guidelines that modify or deflect those disadvantages. These might include the following:

(1) No bureau or office should ever be given a corporate name. Although some have criticized the naming of national museums after individuals, there remains a principal distinction between the perception of individual philanthropic purpose and commercial "purchase" of a national monument. Corporate naming could work within the framework of a museum, attached, for example, to a gallery within, but never could the entire museum bear this onus. Targeted funds for named curatorships or programs carry the least disadvantage.

(2) Every possible effort should be made to persuade a corporate donor to replace the corporate name with the name of an individual important to that corporation, perhaps as founder, owner, or chief executive. Full recognition can be given to the corporation in all publicity, publications, and even plaques.

(3) The notion of "permanence" should be carefully defined. This might suggest the establishment of a time limit on the duration of the name, perhaps no more than fifty years for a major facility or even less if the corporate name changes. Individual installations or restorations should restrict naming to the life of those projects.

(4) A corporate name should be considered only when over fifty percent of major projects, with appropriate amounts for supporting endowment, are provided. Smaller projects, renovations, and installations of less than $2 million should require two-thirds of costs.

(5) The corporate name should be compatible not only with the goals and values of the Smithsonian but also with the particular purpose of the project to be funded. Incongruity and tastelessness are factors to be assessed.

(6) The Regents should consider retaining the option to revoke a name if the corporate reputation is judged to have become tarnished. There is ongoing discussion among some other institutions about inserting a so-called "good name clause" that would permit this.