transparency – Paynter Communications

Making the Case for Transparency

“Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints.”

This headline recently caught my eye: “University will sue its own student newspaper for reporting on sexual assault case.” Really? I was intrigued because I’ve helped quite a few schools share news about a staff member accused of sexual misconduct. These are difficult cases, due in part to the tricky balance between revealing enough information to protect students, while respecting the rights of employees accused of behavior that could destroy their lives.

It turns out the University of Kentucky (UK) is suing the independent student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, to avoid releasing documents related to an associate professor, James Harwood, who resigned after an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The Kernel requested both the resignation agreement and the school’s investigative documents. When UK declined to provide the records, the newspaper appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General’s office, citing the Commonwealth’s open records law. According to news reports, the Attorney General ordered UK to release the documents with any identifying information redacted. UK still refused, citing privacy concerns, and is appealing the Attorney General’s decision.

Meanwhile, the student newspaper obtained the documents through other sources and published articles detailing charges filed against Harwood by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity: two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual harassment. Harwood resigned before a disciplinary hearing was held.

I don’t pretend to know whether the University will win its appeal but it has already lost in the Court of Public Opinion by picking a fight with its own student journalists and by not presenting a reasonable justification for withholding the documents. In his statement, University President Eli Capilouto says that, “in a handful of very specific cases, we are faced with the decision of whether transparency is more important than the need to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of our community. It is not.”

He goes on to justify the decision by citing irrelevant examples – patient information, which is legally protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and student information, which is legally protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). He also cites the importance of protecting the privacy of victims of violence, but in this case the Attorney General allowed for redacting identifying information.

Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints. They want the allegations made public so Harwood can’t simply continue his behavior at another university. That’s the dilemma for any organization faced with this choice. Protecting someone who is charged with misconduct gives the appearance of guilt by association. In the Court of Public Opinion, only those who have something to hide will cover up for an abuser.

UK is home to the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, whose mission is “to promote understanding of the First Amendment among citizens of Kentucky, to advocate for First Amendment rights in the Commonwealth and nationally, and to produce internationally recognized scholarship concerning the First Amendment and its related freedoms.” Perhaps the University’s president should pay them a visit.

Meanwhile, the Kentucky Kernel is a finalist for the Pacemaker Award, presented each year for outstanding collegiate journalism by the Associated Collegiate Press. My journalism degree is from the University of Missouri but, this year, I hope UK student journalists take home the prize.

A Crisis of Deception at Volkswagen

Volkswagen is struggling to respond after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused the company of installing “defeat device” software on its diesel-powered vehicles to cheat emissions tests. Essentially, EPA says the cars were programmed to turn on emissions equipment during tests, then turn the equipment back off when the testing was complete. As a result, although the cars performed better on the road, they produced as much as 40 times the allowed amount of pollutants. Latest reports say 11 million diesel cars worldwide are equipped with the software used to cheat on U.S. emissions tests.

Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted crisis. Someone within Volkswagen decided to cheat so they could sell more cars. We don’t know yet who authorized this or even who knew about it. Before resigning, CEO Martin Winterkorn said they will get to the bottom of this and “rebuild trust,” but how reassuring is that coming from a CEO whose role in the scandal is clouded with suspicion?

Let’s face it, the company was caught red-handed violating its brand promise. Many consumers drive small cars like VWs because they want to minimize the environmental impact. Now, consumers feel doubly deceived. They worry about the environmental damage they’ve caused and about the resale value of their cars. Their anger is all over social media platforms.

It will take a while to comprehend the full impact of this crisis but it’s already being compared to the BP oil spill. The lawsuits started almost immediately, with a Seattle firm filing for class-action status within hours of EPA’s announcement. The stock price fell precipitously and the CEO resigned.

Winterkorn apologized for breaking “the trust of our customers and the public.” He unfortunately said they will “reverse the damage this has caused,” but of course they can’t reverse the environmental damage. Michael Horn, chief executive of the Volkswagen Group of America, was more direct. “Our company was dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board, and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally screwed up.” But apologies are not enough.

A good reputation is built by first doing the right thing. Too many crises can be traced to people and companies claiming to be something they’re not. When the truth comes out, their apologies fall on deaf ears because they have lost credibility.

Volkswagen can’t recover from this self-inflicted damage by saying the right thing. They have to actually do the right thing.

‘All In’

I wrote an earlier blog post about Derek Jeter’s website, “The Players Tribune,” that allows athletes to communicate directly with fans, thereby going around the media filter. Earlier today, Kevin Love used this platform to announce his decision to remain in Cleveland, much to the delight of Cavaliers fans.

His message was simple and direct: “I’m going back to Cleveland.”

The lesson for organization is this: If you want your message to be heard and not distorted, communicate directly with those who matter most. That’s what Kevin Love did today, dispelling rumors created by earlier media reports that had him meeting with the Los Angeles Lakers. Thankfully, there’s no doubt now. After the team’s great performance in the playoffs this year with Love injured in the Boston series and Kyrie Irving injured in game one of the NBA finals, we can’t wait for next year.

Here’s the post:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/kevin-love-cavaliers-unfinished-business/

Privacy or Transparency?

We preach transparency to our clients (“Tell the truth. Tell it first. Tell it all.”) – not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it works to help protect your reputation in a crisis. But in some situations, you have to be very careful about what you say, especially when issues of privacy are involved.

Certainly, you must protect privacy in some situations. It’s a violation of HIPAA laws for healthcare providers to release private health information without patients’ permission, and it’s a violation of FERPA for educational institutions to release private information about their students without their permission.

But what about your employees? Companies often say that personnel information is confidential, but that’s a matter of policy, not necessarily of law. One of the trickiest situations arises when an employee is accused of criminal behavior. For example, we have worked with numerous schools and social service agencies when an employee is accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Our clients invariably struggle with the question of whether to release the name of the employee versus protecting his/her privacy.

We believe it’s important to protect privacy and that everyone deserves fair treatment in the criminal justice system. The problem is that you may be very concerned about the employee’s behavior even if authorities don’t have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case. Or the statute of limitations may have expired. You may decide to terminate the employee and find yourself criticized for suddenly firing a long-time employee without explanation. Should you be transparent and tell the truth? If you don’t, what if the truth comes out?

Every case is different but, in general, it’s important to take the side of the victims. Think about what will happen if you don’t reveal an accused employee’s name – at least internally. Are your other employees at risk? And if you fire the employee, are you just passing the problem along to his/her next employer, potentially placing others at risk?

If the answer is yes, then difficult as it may be, transparency is the right approach.

Six Steps to Building a Good Reputation

There’s a lot of chatter on talk shows and social media about reputation – mostly when something goes wrong. Most recently, the focus is on Patriots Coach Bill Belichick since news broke of deflated footballs in the AFC title game. This isn’t the first time for Belichick, and he can’t exactly draw from a reservoir of goodwill among fans of other teams.

Before those inevitable challenges occur in your organization, we recommend taking steps to build a solid reputation so that your employees, customers – and maybe even the public – will give you the benefit of the doubt when bad news breaks.

A company’s reputation is one of its greatest assets. Even though it may not show up on your balance sheet, you’ll definitely notice a shift in the bottom line if something happens to seriously damage your reputation – and the shift will not be in the right direction.

Your reputation is a reflection what other people say about you. Their perceptions can be greatly influenced by the small things – how people answer the phones at your call center, how visitors are greeted when they walk in the door, how clean your facilities are and what people say about you on Facebook, Twitter and Yelp.

In the simplest terms, a good reputation is built by doing the right thing. The “building blocks” of that foundation include:

A commitment to quality – quality products, quality service, quality people.
A commitment to innovation. Customers are inclined to trust companies that consistently introduce new products and adapt to the changing marketplace.
A commitment to safety – making sure your employees have the proper training and the proper equipment to do their jobs safely, and making sure your facilities are safe for visitors.
A commitment to sustainable practices – not just respecting the environment, although that’s important, but also choosing long-term viability over short-term profits.
A commitment to your community. It’s important to take your neighbors’ concerns seriously because, ultimately, companies operate with the consent of their communities.
A commitment to transparency within your organization so that, if employees see something wrong, they will speak up.

Good marketing and public relations are designed to build positive impressions and, by reaching enough people with strong marketing messages, you’ve taken the first step. But, because people make decisions based on trust, marketing and public relations aren’t enough if you don’t do the other things. Whether customers and visitors have a good experience will determine whether they return and recommend your company to family and friends, or whether they post negative comments online.

You can build up a reservoir of goodwill by doing the right thing, and that goodwill can be invaluable if something bad does happen.

A Sense of Mistrust in Ferguson

By Barbara Paynter, APR

September 1, 2014

As the Missouri National Guard withdraws from Ferguson, Mo., the thought of quiet in the streets must be welcome news to residents after nearly two weeks of protests and violence following the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old by a police officer. Based on media reports, blogs and social media posts, it will be difficult for community leaders to rebuild trust after nightly stand-offs between protesters and law enforcement. Will residents trust the outcome of the investigation into the shooting? Will the officer be prosecuted? What will happen if he’s cleared?

As crisis communications experts, we are not qualified to analyze how law enforcement should have responded on the ground. But there is no question they could have handled communications much better.

Attorney General Eric Holder referred to a “sense of mistrust” in Ferguson. In our experience, trust is earned by first doing the right thing, and then communicating effectively about what you’re doing. That has not happened in Ferguson. Three serious missteps come to mind:

Transparency is the best way to maintain credibility in a crisis: Tell what you know when you know it. For several days after Michael Brown was shot, the police department released very little information. They refused to name the officer out of concern for his safety and they wouldn’t reveal how many times Brown was shot. Lack of information fueled more anger in the community.
Six days after the shooting, we finally learned – not from the police, but from a former medical examiner hired by the family – that Brown was shot at least six times. The news contradicted an earlier statement by St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar that Brown was struck by gunfire “more than just a couple (of times) but I don’t think it was many more than that.” We always advise clients not to minimize events or speculate. If Belmar knew how many gunshot wounds the victim suffered, why not release the information rather than sound dismissive? And if he didn’t know, why did he speculate?
We’ve heard it many times: Actions speak louder than words. Photos from earlier this week showed officers lined up in front of the Justice Center in St. Louis, surrounded by police tape keeping everyone else out. What message does that send about access to justice? If your words and actions aren’t consistent, no one will believe what you say.

These are just a few of the many crisis communications lessons we can learn from Ferguson.

The wisdom of sharing bad news first

Earlier this week, a high school teacher from the public school district where I live was arrested in a local park and charged with sexual battery. He is accused of having sexual contact with a student.

First, let me clarify that we are not working on this situation but have worked on many other cases where someone in authority is accused of inappropriate behavior with children. And since friends and neighbors know what I do, several have approached me over the past few days to ask my opinion about the school district’s response. I, in turn, ask what they think.

What’s interesting is the difference in perception. Those who do not have children in the high school tend to be satisfied with the district’s response. But parents of high school students have expressed frustration about the lack of information from school officials. This reinforces two primary principles of good crisis communications:

Communicate first with those who are most affected by the situation. If at all possible, share the news with them before they learn about it in the media. This will increase your credibility with these critical audiences.
Humanize your communication. Provide opportunities for face-to-face interactions and two-way conversations. It’s important for students, parents, faculty and staff to ask questions and share their concerns. Even if you can’t answer many of their questions – and there are limits to what you can say in a criminal case – share what you can and explain that you can’t share details without jeopardizing the investigation. And, of course, do everything you can to protect the privacy of the victim(s).

There is no “one size fits all” strategy in a crisis. However, it’s important to think beyond the media and remember that you have spent decades building relationships with your stakeholders – in this case, the victim, parents, faculty & staff, students, alumni, and so on . When something bad happens, finding ways to address their concerns must be a top priority. You may not be able to answer every question but at least give them an opportunity to be heard.