Northwood News ♦ February 2013

Corporations May Be Given Naming Rights for Park Facilities

By Carole Barth

MoCo Parks [Montgomery County Department of Parks] staff has developed a Proposed Corporate Park Naming and Sponsorship Policy.  The idea is that corporations would pay for the right to put their name on facilities (such as ballfields) within county parks.  For example, if “Ginormous Corp.” gave Parks money to maintain the tennis courts in North Four Corners Park, they could then post a sign saying “Ginormous Corp. Tennis Courts.”

While it would be good to see Parks put more resources into maintaining existing park facilities (as opposed to building more facilities only to increase the maintenance backlog), there are a number of problems with the program as currently proposed.

Confusion as to the Extent of Naming Rights

The title (Corporate Park Naming and Sponsorship Policy) leads one to suppose that entire parks may renamed for corporate entities.  One has to read further into the document to understand that the policy only applies to assets within parks and park programs.  A clearer title might be “Policy for Corporate Naming of Facilities within Parks.”  In any case, the document should clearly state up front that parks will not be renamed for corporations.

Confusion as to How this Policy will Interact with the ‘Individual Naming and Dedication Policy’

Civic groups wishing to honor community leaders already face a steep hurdle ($2,000 donation) under the Dedication Policy.  Parks may lose potential donations from communities which feel there’s no way they can compete with corporate advertising dollars.  Both policies should briefly describe how potential competition between the two programs will be handled.  This conflict resolution should happen early in the process, before citizens actually need to raise the funds.  In addition, it needs to be made clear that facilities which have already been named for or dedicated to individuals will not be available for corporate naming.

Potential for Perceived or Actual Conflicts of Interest

The policy’s language (“Naming Rights, Advertising Rights, or Sponsorship Benefits are limited to the promotion or recognition of commercial enterprise and commercial activities that do not impair or conflict with the mission, policies, goals, or operations of the Commission, the park system, or designated Park Assets or Park Programs”) is insufficient to ensure that conflicts of interest will not occur.

To begin with, this language does not address potential ramifications for the procurement process.  For example, what about a ballfield named for the company which supplies artificial turf to Parks?  That would certainly appear to give the sponsoring company a negotiating advantage.  Similarly, although the policy states that sponsorships do not convey any control of programs, certain sponsorships might result in undue program influences over time.

For example, what if a pesticide manufacturer wants to sponsor the weed warrior program or the community gardens program?  Even if the sponsorship doesn’t change how the program is conducted, the program could lose credibility.  “Greenwashing” — using ecological words to sound environmentally friendly — is prevalent in the marketplace and Parks should not appear to be part of that process.  The policy also needs to specify that naming/advertising will be removed if the sponsoring corporate entities are found to be bad actors.

Lack of Transparency

Citizens should be able to see sponsorship proposals on the Parks website so they can comment and/or provide relevant information to Parks.  In addition, Parks should provide specific, documented information on the costs of the programs, maintenance activities, or facilities potentially being sponsored.  Finally, there needs to be transparency for how and where the sponsorship revenue is spent.

Lastly, it would make sense to open up the sponsorship program to nonprofit organizations.  Environmental organizations, preservation groups, and other nonprofits with missions that closely align to Parks may want to advertise where potential supporters spend their time.  Moreover, foundations may want to sponsor park programs just as they sponsor public broadcasting programs.  For example, a foundation with a mission to bring science to citizens might want to sponsor nature exploration programs.

The proposed policy was scheduled to go before the Planning Board on 31 January 2013.  Parks did make changes to the policy language based on the public comments they received and are proposing a revised version for approval by the Planning Board at that meeting.  Here is a link to Parks’ web page on the proposed policy:  www.montgomeryparks.org/team/ppp/sponsorship.shtm, and here is the link to the staff draft:  www.montgomeryparks.org/team/ppp/documents/FINALDRAFT CorporateParkNamingandSponsorship Policy11-27-12.pdf.

The updated staff packet for the 31 January meeting can be viewed at:  www.montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda/2013/documents/20130131_ CorporateSponsorshipProgram_000.pdf.   ■