Viewing page 30 of 164

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 11 -

Introduction

The May 1991 meeting of the Board of Regents considered draft guidelines for corporate naming of Smithsonian facilities in recognition of major support. In an extensive discussion, the Regents made several suggestions for the refinement of the draft guidelines and the Secretary agreed to bring back to the September meeting a set of revised guidelines reflecting their discussion. Those revised guidelines, with changes to underscored, are presented below.

It bears repeating here, as it had been made clear in the Regents' most recent discussions (both in February and May 1991), that management understands and upholds the longstanding position of the Regents that the naming of any Smithsonian facility is and shall be a matter for the Board's action. These guidelines are offered, as the Board had earlier suggested, simply as a contextual aid to the Regents when they are next asked to consider a proposal to name a facility in recognition of a corporate donation.

Recommendations

The Smithsonian should not adopt a policy of absolute refusal of corporate naming. With the changing funding climate and the increased role of 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 corporate naming suggest the creation of guidelines that modify or deflect those disadvantages. These should 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 might work within the framework of a museum, attached, for example, to a gallery within, but even here the danger of commercialism must be recognized and the strongest caution exercised. Targeting funds for named curatorships or programs carries 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 in accord with Smithsonian policies on donor recognition.

(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

Transcription Notes:
Added notation of underlining to show revisions from previous guidelines, as per paragraph 1. OK?