Where I Stand -- Brian Greenspun: Not a sacrificial Lamb

TAKING IT on the lamb.

Once again, the forces for good and against evil in our community are taking their act on the road. This time they are trying to convince the Nevada Assembly that it should punt the issue of the Floyd Lamb State Park back to the voters in Southern Nevada where the park is located. This is not a hard one. The Assembly should hold the ball until the clock runs out and then kick the do-gooders out of the park.

I'm not writing as an advocate for Floyd Lamb, other than to recall the good he has done for the people of this state. In fairness, he did some bad things, too, which have given cause to a group of persistent citizens to try as they might to strike his name from the park and, I suppose, any other public record that might suggest he was a good man.

The facts, as close as I can recall, are these. Over 30 years ago the city of Las Vegas bought land in Tule Springs for the purpose of making it a public park. Naturally, the city ran out of money and the best laid plans went awry. The city asked the state of Nevada to take over the land because it had the money necessary to make the park thing happen. The state acquiesced and then-Sen. Floyd Lamb was given the assignment of raising the $2 million needed to finish the job. Floyd was just as successful at that effort as he was in other assignments, and soon the money was in hand and the park was open for business.

A grateful city of Las Vegas named the park in honor of its benefactor, a man who had served honorably in the state Senate and honorably as a citizen of Nevada. I cannot recall if there was any dissenting voice raised, but I don't think there was any.

Years later, long after people of this valley had frolicked freely in the Floyd Lamb State Park, he was caught doing something wrong. In 1983, he was convicted of accepting $23,000 in bribes and sentenced to prison where he served for nine months. After he was paroled, the state restored his civil rights. He has spent the last 15 years on his ranch in Lincoln County, basically minding his own business.

Those are the facts.

The argument by those who would change history is steeped in a revisionist theory that requires us to honor those among us on something less than a permanent basis. They suggest that state or other parks should not be named after people who are convicted of such public offenses as those for which Floyd Lamb went to prison. On that I would agree and extend the proscription to all manner and form of public institutions.

The problem, of course, is one of timing and on that score the folks with the eraser are just plain wrong. And by asking the Legislature to send the matter back to the people for a vote ignores the integrity of the decision-making process itself.

When Floyd Lamb was honored by the city of Las Vegas, he had done nothing which would have disqualified him from receiving such recognition. It makes perfect sense to me that if a person was entitled to the honor when it was given, it should not be taken away because of later disqualifying factors. For certain, the argument would have been well put if the city wanted to name the park after Floyd's conviction for accepting a bribe. I doubt that even the most brazen of city officials would have run far with that idea. But to undo what was properly done for proper reasons smacks of ex post facto and other constitutional taboos which are embedded in our American way of life.

If people have a hard time telling the kids who play in the park about the life and times of Floyd Lamb, I suggest that they are missing a golden opportunity to share with them a great lesson. For what better way to talk about right and wrong than to use Floyd's unfortunate fall as a case example? Think of the lesson, though, that we would send our children if we had to explain why parks, buildings, schools and other public institutions were forever changing names because that is the precedent we would set if Floyd's name takes it on the lamb.

And if the Legislature sends the matter to the voters instead of leaving it where it belongs -- with the people who made the decision in the first place -- then it will be hard pressed to explain away its culpability in making a mess where none exists.

The real answer, I suggest, lies not in removing Floyd Lamb's name from the park but in holding those who determine such things accountable for their actions. If the people, for example, don't like decisions to name buildings and parks after citizens who have contributed to the well-being of our community, then they can express themselves at the polls. It won't take our elected officials very long to get that message.

But to undo what, for good and sufficient reason has already been done, is almost un-American. At the least, it is unbecoming.

Assembly Bill 161 -- that's the official name of this effort to strip a man of his last vestige of propriety and honor -- should meet a timely death in some desk drawer or by unanimous vote to deep-six the idea. And for those folks who continue to fight what should be an unworthy cause, find something else to do. Find a good example to emulate and do it all over town. That will more than offset any harm that Floyd Lamb's name may create.

After all, what's in a name? Just a lifetime of good and bad decisions, most of which have been good for the people of Nevada. Floyd Lamb is in the twilight of his life. Common decency says we should leave him and his park alone.

archive