The Mercer Island School District board held a first reading of proposed Work Policy 1003, a naming policy that would establish criteria and a process for naming district facilities, athletic complexes and other significant structures.

Board members described two core concerns during discussion: some said the district needs an adopted policy to avoid ad-hoc naming requests and to set community expectations; others worried that adopting a standing policy and a permanent committee would create an expectation that naming would happen regularly. Several directors urged a middle path: adopt a framework policy but keep implementation reactive, so a naming committee would convene only when community interest or a major donor request appears.

Specific issues raised included the policy’s treatment of corporate gifts, how to define the scope of “parts of a building” versus whole-school naming, the need for clear guidance on scale (a small plaque versus a large sign), and how to memorialize individuals while capturing community input. One director asked for explicit language stating that entire school names would be excluded from the policy unless the board decides otherwise; another director asked staff to clarify how committee membership and community outreach would work. The board chair asked staff to prepare a revised version that separates a concise policy statement from a detailed procedure the district would only trigger if a naming request is made.

The board did not vote on adoption. Staff agreed to draft a procedure to accompany the policy and bring the pair back for a second reading at a future meeting. The board indicated a preference for a cautious, staged start — for example, limiting naming activity to a biennial cycle or convening a committee only when a community petition or large gift prompts action.

The discussion also referenced precedent in nearby districts and noted Mercer Island is one of the few districts in the area without a naming policy. Several board members said transparency and opportunities for broad community input should be core to the final rule.

No formal motion to adopt the policy was made at the first reading; the item will return to the board with a staff-drafted procedure.