By Jamieson Gordon

There’s a reason that we always say in our trainings that it’s not a matter of if a crisis will come, but when it will. Norfolk Southern learned that lesson this month and their response suggests that they weren’t ready.

 After a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio that contained toxic chemicals, the rail company was nowhere to be found. At a town hall meeting for residents, Norfolk Southern first said they would attend, but then they cancelled. They issued a statement afterwards that was tone deaf:

 “Unfortunately, after consulting with community leaders, we have become increasingly concerned about the growing physical threat to our employees and members of the community around this event stemming from the increasing likelihood of the participation of outside parties.”

 We talk about the need to put the human element into crisis communications. They missed the mark; it sounds like a ChatGPT AI robot wrote it. Too many jargon-y, non-human words. Also, instead of expressing any amount of concern for the physical safety of East Palestine residents after the derailment and controlled burn of chemicals from their train, they instead talked about the physical safety of employees at a town hall. This not only implicates the residents as violent, but it does the opposite of what they’ve hoped: this instead foments more anger.

 Norfolk Southern took the old, tired, tactic of addressing a problem by bringing up another problem, instead of trying to find a solution. Instead of issuing this statement, they could’ve easily hired a security team for their representative, or approached the local police about concerns of violence. All of this makes their statement seem not only disingenuous, but just really a veiled attempt at avoiding any responsibility for this accident.

 They also set up a fact page – NSMakingitRight.com. This page has information on what they’ve done so far, press statements, and constant updates. We give credit where it’s due. This is a good idea, but it came far too late. For days, even a week past the crisis, this page was nowhere to be found. Timeliness matters when responding in a crisis – both for the community involved and your organization’s reputation.

 When we do training, we emphasize four very basic principles of crisis communications. First, it’s crucial to listen. This isn’t even crisis communications best practice, it’s common sense. Why would anyone want to listen to you if you won’t listen to their concerns? The second is to act quickly. People in a crisis need to be first or fast. If someone else is out there talking, the public opinion starts to cement. It’s not like the media stopped covering the story – it was one sided and that was Norfolk Southern’s fault. Third, be transparent. Hiding the ball or lying in any way will only further the damage done to your organization’s reputation in a crisis. The last point is maybe the most important: do the right thing. This will look different in every situation, but is crucial if you hope to rebound from a crisis.

 It's safe to say that, so far, Norfolk Southern has ignored most if not all of these basic principles. They’ve avoided listening, took weeks to act, and have been opaque. Time will tell if they correct their response – but what they do for the residents of East Palestine and communicating with the public.

 What does this mean for you? Take a lesson from Norfolk Southern’s response in East Palestine. When (not if!) the crisis comes to your organization, make sure you remember these four principles and put them into action! It’ll save you and your organization weeks of bad press and put you on the right path. And a shout out to Governor Mike DeWine, Congressman Bill Johnson, and East Palestine Mayor Trent Conaway – they’re doing the hard work of ensuring that the citizens of East Palestine are taken care of and get the answers they deserve.

February 20, 2023, Ohio Capital Journal, Ryan Stubenrauch quoted

Long criticized by members, the executive director of the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio on Thursday failed to win a confidence vote by the system’s board. The board instead voted 5-5 when they asked if it had confidence in the director, Bill Neville.

Criticisms of the system include big salaries and “alternative” investments that have underperformed the stock market — as well as stagnant benefits for retirees whose $90 billion the system manages. The group that represents retirees, the Ohio Retired Teachers Association, has for years pressed for change over those concerns.

During Thursday’s meeting, frustration seemed to boil over.

“I feel like everything is a battle,” member Julie Sellers said in a video recording provided to the Capital Journal. “We can never really feel like we’re coming to a consensus. I do not believe we can keep on doing what we’re doing and move forward. I feel like we need to have a change at the top. The problems have been here for years and I just feel like we need to have a direction forward.”

She also accused system executives of not responding to member concerns.

“Look at how every comment has been a negative comment except maybe two or three people and nothing is ever addressed,” Sellers said, gesturing to the audience. “It’s just like we get a dog and pony show.”

Among the retirees’ complaints has been that last year they got a 3% cost-of-living increase — their first since 2017. An STRS spokesman has explained that the freeze was due to new rules set down by the legislature in 2012. 

However, retirees are frustrated that so many retirement system employees have salaries that seem lavish compared to Ohio’s average public teacher salary of $67,000.

At least 200 of the retirement system’s 500 employees make more than $100,000 a year. And, with bonuses, in the 2021-2022 fiscal year 33 of the system’s employees made more than $300,000. Nine made more than $500,000.

STRS justifies the salaries by saying that it needs to pay well to attract top talent for its investments. Instead of having all of its money invested in funds indexed to the markets, STRS also makes a number of alternative investments in things like private equity and hedge funds.

Despite paying top dollar for investment savvy, those investments haven’t done as well as the market as a whole. Over the past decade, the market has provided a 14.8% return on investments, while the system’s alternative investments have provided 11.84% once fees are subtracted, an STRS spokesman said last year.

In addition, many retirees were infuriated with the way the STRS board handled staff bonuses last year. In August, it awarded $10 million in bonuses even though it estimated that it would lose $3 billion in an environment that was brutal for investors. 

Two months later, the actual numbers for alternative investments came in and losses were 77% higher than original estimates — $5.3 billion. 

To be fair, the losses follow $22.3 billion in gains a year earlier, according to the system’s financial statements. But the retired teachers association said bonuses should be based on performance — and not awarded before the results of employees’ most arcane investments come in.

Asked for a reaction to Thursday’s tied confidence vote, an STRS spokesman sent a statement from Chairwoman Carol Correthers.

“Bill Neville has my complete confidence,” she said. “During the two-and-a-half years Mr. Neville has led STRS, retirees have received a 3% COLA; STRS retiree health care plan enrollees have received premium rebates of $250, $300 and $600, and 95% of enrollees are paying less in premiums in 2023 than they did in 2022; additionally, active teachers will no longer be required to work to age 60 to receive their pension. Importantly, STRS has maintained strong funding in both the pension fund and health care fund.”

However, Ryan Stubenrauch, a spokesman for the retired teachers association, said Neville can’t be expected to last if he can’t get more than half of his board to express confidence in the job he’s doing.

“Over the past four months we’ve seen piece after piece of information come out,” Stubenrauch said. “We see that the director doesn’t have the support of the board anymore. If he doesn’t have that, he probably won’t last very long.”

By Mark R. Weaver

June 6, 2020

On Sundays, in churches across the United States, people turn their focus to ministers of the gospel, whom they trust to do what's right. On other days, in the local courthouse, county residents have similar expectations of a different kind of minister—the district attorney.

In Georgia and every other state, district attorneys are governed by ethics rules that identify them as "ministers of justice." While their enterprise is secular, we still rely on them to walk their talk. When they fail to do so, our faith in the legal system is shaken.

These ethics rules apply in the Rayshard Brooks shooting case. Some may cheer the speed with which District Attorney Paul Howard brought charges. Others may wonder why he didn't wait for the results of the independent investigators at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, or bring the matter in front of the citizens who comprise the grand jury.

No matter which of these positions one holds, we can all agree that the district attorney ought to take great care to do his work properly. Yet, in at least three instances, Mr. Howard appears to have already violated state ethics rules.

One ethical rule requires prosecutors to refrain from making public statements that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the person accused. This doesn't mean prosecutors can't announce and describe criminal charges, but it does mean they must be particularly cautious, in outlining the facts, to avoid igniting animus against the defendants with the public and potential jurors. By showing crime scene photos and detailing alleged admissions from the officers—before any judge has ruled such evidence allowable in court—Mr. Howard violated this rule at his news conference.

Similarly, legal ethics regulations require prosecutors announcing charges to specify in their press statements that all defendants are presumed innocent. The rule literally prohibits public announcement of criminal charges "unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty."

For two decades, I taught a law school course on what lawyers and prosecutors can ethically say to the press. We covered this basic concept in the first few weeks. But the full video of Mr. Howard's news conference shows that he didn't comply with this rule.

The district attorney also claimed that officer Devin Brosnan will testify against former officer Garrett Rolfe. Even when confronted by a reporter with a denial by Brosnan's attorney, Mr. Howard doubled down. Telling potential jurors watching at home that one defendant is about to cooperate and testify against another defendant is almost a textbook violation of the rule that lawyers can't make press statements that have a substantial likelihood of material prejudice. Imagine if officer Brosnan doesn't testify, either at his trial or the Rolfe trial. Jurors who heard Mr. Howard's declaration will understandably wonder what happened, and such confusion could undermine their deliberations.

District attorneys are elected, so the substructure of politics is constantly underneath them. This is why prosecution decisions made just weeks away from an election must be undertaken with prudence. This case could have been handled by an outside special prosecutor, who would act without the taint of political calculus. Such judiciousness would enhance the credibility of the prosecution effort and send a message of gravitas to the 12 jurors in the court of law—as well as the millions of judges in the court of public opinion.

I've served as special prosecutor in several cases, and my work was aided by the fact that I didn't have to worry about voters or campaign donors questioning my judgment. Given that Mr. Howard is embroiled in a runoff campaign against an aggressive challenger, it's fair to inquire if his haste in bringing charges was fueled by politics rather than justice.

In 2006, a prosecutor in Durham, North Carolina faced a similar debacle. Fearing a looming election defeat, he acted impulsively and violated ethics rules in charging Duke University lacrosse players with rape. His overblown press conference and subsequent media circus ran afoul of the legal rules. All charges were later dismissed.

As a prosecutor, I've spoken to the press on many occasions. And early in my career, when I was the spokesman for federal prosecutors who were bringing police brutality charges, I briefed countless media outlets. Yet, in each press encounter, I reminded myself of the special duty prosecutors have to be circumspect in commenting.

These rules aren't optional. Violations can lead to disbarment. In fact, the prosecutor who acted unethically in the Duke lacrosse case was both disbarred and sent to jail.

The charges in the Brooks shooting are serious. Yet, in order to ensure justice for the defendants and the Brooks family, prosecutors have an obligation to bring their case properly. Indeed, those who want to see these officers convicted ought to insist that Mr. Howard scrupulously avoid missteps at the beginning of his prosecution, lest they lead to a dismissal, mistrial or overturned verdict.

We trust our ministers of faith to meet a higher standard and be guided by higher principles. They must be held accountable when they fall short. District Attorney Howard, a minister of justice, should be held to that same high standard.

This article originally appeared in Newsweek.