Editorial: Lexington County shouldn’t back down on naming restrictions

FOR A BRIEF moment there, it looked as though the Lexington County Council was going to become a shining example of how not to abuse the public trust, by ending the self-serving practice of naming buildings and roads and other public facilities in honor of their fellow politicians and patrons.

Unfortunately, with disgraced former Sheriff James Metts’ name stripped from the county’s law enforcement complex, the council is already forgetting its hard-learned lesson. Which is this: No matter how honorable people might seem, there is always a possibility that they will do something disgraceful before they die — particularly if they’re still holding office, which gives them more opportunity than others have.

Not so surprisingly, after ordering state agencies to remove Mr. Metts’ name from a boat landing, our Legislature appears to have lost whatever little interest it might have had in imposing a similar moratorium on itself.

We suppose it’s comforting that the council seems to be getting cold feet over the dead rather than the living: Last week, council members decided to hold off on prohibiting themselves from naming public facilities for people who haven’t been dead for at least five years because of concerns that it would prevent them from honoring longtime county Coroner Harry Harman, who passed away last year.

And frankly, simply limiting the christenings to dead people would be a big improvement, because once dead, they’re unlikely to embarrass us. But the council didn’t amend its proposal to apply it merely to the living; it delayed the whole thing.

Beyond that, there is much wisdom in that five-year prohibition, because it gives us the benefit of time, and perspective, and turns what might be an emotional decision into one that is more reasoned.

Someone who might seem upon death like the epitome of public service could look in retrospect like someone who simply did his job. There’s nothing dishonorable about that — in fact, it is quite honorable. But to the extent that we name public facilities for people, it should be for people who have done extraordinary things for the public good. Not merely for people who have managed to get elected and reelected. Not merely for people who know or knew the right people. Not merely for people to whom the namers want to ingratiate themselves.

The council’s hesitation is even more disappointing since any prohibition it approved would always be subject to modification or repeal. What a prohibition would do is slow down any rush to rename buildings and roads and other things that either have perfectly fine names or else don’t need names, by requiring an additional step of amending or repealing the ordinance first. That would give the public an opportunity to weigh in, and the council members the opportunity to think things through.

We hope the council will reconsider its reconsideration, and put these very modest limitations on how it uses public resources. And we hope that other governing bodies will follow suit — starting with, but certainly not confined to, the Legislature.

This story was originally published March 30, 2015 at 5:00 PM.