• If a written park naming/renaming policy existed; and,
• If a waiting time was required (after an individual’s death) before consideration of naming/renaming a facility could occur. 

A review of Attachment C indicates that only six of the ten cities surveyed have written park naming/renaming policies. Only two of ten require a specific waiting period as has been used by Sunnyvale. The City of Campbell requires a 2-year waiting period, and the City of Mountain View has a 5-year waiting period. The current waiting period of 5-years in Sunnyvale is equal to the most restrictive of the ten cities surveyed.

With or without a written policy, eight of the ten cities do not have a waiting period prior to considering naming/renaming a park or facility after a deceased person. Consideration of a naming/renaming action without a required waiting period appears to be most typical of nearby cities. Even in the cases where cities have written policies for this topic (six in survey) two-thirds of the cities (four) do not require a waiting period. No waiting period could be considered the standard in our local area.

Why Waiting Periods?

Several reasons have been identified that suggest a waiting period is desirable. An individual’s death is usually followed by a period of heightened emotion. While friends and loved ones seek to honor and commemorate the life of a recently departed individual, these emotions alone should not be the basis for a park naming/renaming deliberation. As the naming/renaming of a park or park facility is one of the highest honors with which the City can recognize the lifelong contributions of a community member, consideration of these requests should be based on a factual and logical foundation. By requiring a significant but reasonable length of time to elapse, the intense emotion surrounding the passing of the person will likely have subsided, and a more appropriate environment will exist in which to make an informed decision.

It can also be reasoned that the accomplishments of a person who merits a memorial naming should “stand the test of time.” In other words, the arguments for the honor will remain valid (and in the most deserving cases, increase in strength) over a number of years after death. As the name of a park or park facility is seldom changed once set, it is most important that Council is certain an honorary naming is appropriate; and, by waiting, the argument for approval, where merited, should become more apparent.

A significant but reasonable waiting period will allow for reflection and evaluation. Those interested in supporting a deceased individual will have more time to prepare the request and may provide a stronger case for the honor, where merited, as compared to a request made more closely to the time of death. Members of Council, familiar with the person or his/her good works, will also be provided with additional time to further study the history and efforts of the person prior to consideration. Because this type of decision is made so infrequently and is rarely changed once made, it is important that all relevant facts become known in advance of the decision. A waiting period should allow for all pertinent factual information to come to light to be used in forming a final opinion.

How Long a Waiting Period?

While the points mentioned above provide support for a “waiting period” as a part of Council policy, the length of the wait is a concern for members of the public (and possibly for members of the Council). As mentioned, the current policy requires that an individual be deceased a minimum of five years before consideration can occur. This length of wait inhibits the process in two ways. After a 5-year waiting period, the availability of supporters who are willing and able to speak on a candidate’s behalf is reduced. Some may have moved away or may have passed away as well. These people have firsthand knowledge of the life and accomplishments of the candidate, and information germane to the merits of the naming/renaming may be lost by their absence in the process.

Furthermore, as the length of wait increases to two years and beyond, it becomes less likely that a sitting councilmember will remain in place long enough to consider individuals for honor who have passed away while the members were in office. A reasonable but significantly shorter waiting period provides that Council may take action on behalf of those who may have passed away while councilmembers hold office.

FISCAL IMPACT

Currently, no fiscal impacts are anticipated, given a moderate change in the policy.

It should be noted that a less restrictive policy might increase the number of naming/renaming requests from the public. Additional staff time would be required in the preparation and presentation of these added Council Reports. Costs for these extra hours, however, can most likely be absorbed into the normal course of operation.

Conclusion

• Six of the ten surveyed cities have written policies for naming/renaming facilities. Four of these cities do not require a waiting period while two cities do require a waiting period prior to naming a facility for a deceased person.
• Two of the ten surveyed cities have a written policy on this topic and require a waiting period prior to naming/renaming a facility for a deceased person.  Sunnyvale’s existing waiting period of five years is equal to the most restrictive policy (Mountain View).
• Eight of the ten local cities surveyed in this report require no waiting period prior to considering a naming/renaming request.
• Naming requests (in memoriam) from the public are generally made soon after a person’s death and are likely accompanied by much emotion.
• The lifelong accomplishments of a deceased individual, who is worthy of a naming honor, should “stand the test of time.” That is, their accomplishments would be just as recognizable in the future as they are immediately following the person’s death.
• Individual naming requests should be considered on a logical and factual basis, rather than on an emotional one. Some waiting period is likely desirable to reduce the intense emotion that may surround the death of a potential candidate.
• As the waiting period is reduced, Council may receive more naming requests for consideration.
• As the waiting period is reduced, it is more likely that a sitting councilmember will remain on Council long enough to consider individuals for honor who have died while the member is in office.
• As the waiting period is increased, it is likely that the number of local supporters available to speak on an individual’s behalf will be reduced.
• A change in the waiting period as directed by this policy in no way requires Council to approve a potential candidate for this honor. Each naming request is evaluated on its own merit as directed by Council policy. The waiting period simply answers the question, “When will the request be considered?”

PUBLIC CONTACT

Public contact was made through posting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Council agendas on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agendas and report on the City’s web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the City Clerk’s office, Library, Parks and Recreation Administration, Community Center and Senior Center.

On September 14, 2005, the Parks and Recreation Commission provided a public hearing of this report during its regularly scheduled meeting.

Notice of Commission and Council meetings regarding this report was also distributed to the “Friends of Parks and Recreation” mailing list (a list of organizations and individuals who have expressed an interest in Parks and Recreation issues).

ALTERNATIVES

1.      Revise Council Policy 7.3.10, Section 2, to provide a minimum 1-year waiting period. The section of the policy will read as follows:

2.       Naming a park for a specific individual will only be considered if that individual has made a significant contribution to the City of Sunnyvale. It is recommended that a park not be named for a living person. If named for a deceased person, that individual must be deceased for at least one year.

2.      Revise Council Policy 7.3.10, Section 2, to provide for no waiting period. The section of the policy will read as follows:

     2.       Naming a park for a specific individual will only be considered if that individual has made a significant contribution to the City of Sunnyvale. It is recommended that a park not be named for a living person.

3.      Implement an alternative waiting period as deemed appropriate by Council.

4.      Take other action(s) as deemed appropriate by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Alternative No. 1, Revise Council Policy 7.3.10, Section 2, to provide a minimum 1-year waiting period. The section of the policy will read as follows:  Naming a park for a specific individual will only be considered if that individual has made a significant contribution to the City of Sunnyvale. It is recommended that a park not be named for a living person. If named for a deceased person, that individual must be deceased for at least one year.

A reduction in the waiting period from five years to one year will make it more likely that a sitting Council will remain in place long enough to consider individuals for honor who have passed away while the members were in office. It will also make it more likely that a larger number of local supporters are available to speak on a candidate’s behalf.

A 1-year wait is sufficient to provide the protections received from waiting periods of greater length and is favored over “no wait” for the following reasons:

• It is more likely that logical consideration can occur absent the intense emotion accompanying death.
• It allows one year for the candidate’s accomplishments to “stand the test of time.” The arguments for the approval of a legitimate candidate should actually strengthen with the passing of time. This should allow Council to make a more informed decision.
• It allows for a period of reflection and evaluation. A waiting period will allow for pertinent factual information to come to light and to be used in forming a final opinion. By providing (requiring) additional waiting time, a stronger case for the honor, where merited, can be made. 

This report was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 14, 2005. The Commission unanimously recommended Alternative No. 2, to revise Council Policy 7.3.10, Section 2, to provide no waiting period.