When does recognition become a reward, and when does a reward begin to compromise judgment? Based on a recent email from a reader we’re calling Naoise, it’s a question that highlights how public institutions can earn, and sometimes lose, the trust of the communities they serve.
Naoise, who monitors his local junior college district, emailed that the community had overwhelmingly approved a $400 million bond to repair and build campus facilities. The district, he explained, has had a policy since 1985 that buildings could be named for past directors who had provided exemplary service. By limiting naming rights after those who had already served, it sent a signal that the honor was earned rather than bought or self-awarded. The recognition for past contributions celebrated service already rendered.
But the current board did something different. It decided to name some buildings after current board members. Donors also could buy naming rights: $500,000 for a lobby, $1 million for a residence hall. These were not merely ceremonial gestures. They were public assets, tangible and valuable. The move struck Naoise as wrong not only because it went against a longstanding policy, but because now those charged with overseeing construction, approving budgets and evaluating the college president were publicly associated with specific buildings.
Naoise raised the issue at a bond oversight committee meeting. His concern was that the new naming policy raised a clear conflict of interest. In response to his comments, Naoise reported that the board chair berated him for questioning his motives.
Honoring service can be commendable, although naming buildings after people can often result in unintended consequences. We see plenty of examples of this in the current news, but it’s long been an issue. (I and others spoke about such challenges as it relates to naming college buildings in a segment on "CBS News Sunday Morning" 19 years ago.)
Even if board members genuinely believed they could separate pride from judgment, the optics were clear. By placing a current board member’s name on a building, civic engagement and personal recognition have been intertwined. Members of the public might assume that the board’s oversight responsibilities have been influenced by self-interest. The public’s response might result from its perception rather than the board’s intention, but if that perception eroded trust in the board’s motives that trust would be hard to rebuild.
The right thing is for the board to acknowledge that the longstanding naming policy shift raises the possibility of conflicts of interest. Engagement in public service should be driven by wanting to do good for the community, not to boost one’s ego with public recognition.
The board should also honor the naming policy that has been in place for the past 40 years and stick to limiting naming of buildings only to past board members, if they were deserving. If board members want to stray from that policy, they should review the policy and perhaps set up an independent committee to review future naming rights. Through the process, they should make their decisions and rationale clear to the public.
The board chair should also learn to appreciate the role of members of the community like Naoise. Naoise showed courage by insisting on accountability from the board.
Honoring oneself while in power is hardly commendable. Striving for personal prestige should not get in the way of commitment to doing good public service.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.
Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.
(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
No comments:
Post a Comment