|
by Duncan Matheson
published on the Op-ed page of the October 17th Ottawa Citizen
From the moment Solicitor General Andy Scott was blind-sided in the House of Commons question period over his now infamous in-flight conversation, he has dug the hole deeper.
From a crisis communications point of view, and make no mistake about it, for Andy Scott this is a crisis, either his advisors have dropped the ball, or he's not listening to them.
This is a textbook case of an ineffective response which has allowed the other side, in this case the opposition parties, to maintain control of the agenda, and in so doing, keep the story on the front pages and the top of the nation's newscasts.
The first problem, and the one that remains the most serious, is that people didn't believe Scott when he said he didn't remember who he was sitting with on the flight, and then the very next day confirmed that it was a long time friend. It's not unlike Bill Clinton's comment that he tried marijuana, but didn't inhale. If the folks don't believe it, in other words if it doesn't pass the giggle test, and there's no way to convince them, realize this and move on.
The key point is, it doesn't matter whether he was telling the truth; if people aren't buying it, he shouldn't be trying to sell it. In crisis communications, the perception becomes the reality. And it is a perception that he didn't tell the truth that he must now deal with. His credibility depends on it. A sad commentary perhaps, but that's beside the point.
As the crisis built since this scandal first broke, the government's response only got worse. Rather than trying to gain control of this situation with a positive, focused response, the government tried instead to attack the source. In some cases this is an effective response to crisis, but not this time, at least not based on anything that has come out so far.
To draw the perhaps inevitable comparison with Monicagate, an integral part of the White House response has been to attack Ken Starr, and to some extent it has been effective. In Scott's case though, rather than a legitimate attack on the eavesdropper; something that would really make people think twice about Dick Proctor's credibility, we have been witness instead, to nit-picking over insignificant details from the eavesdropper's notes.
For Scott to suggest Procter's notes aren't credible because he confused Michael's with Mary's when he talked about a native reserve, the Solicitor General does more to suggest Procter is onto something than the contrary. The message this sends the public is that these are the most serious shortcomings they could find in Procter's notes. Bottom line is that Scott,. and for that matter Prime Minister Chretien, shouldn't even have gone there.
We can assume Scott's office, or the PMO, is conducting ongoing polling to measure public response to this crisis. It's dangerous to assume what this polling is telling them, but based on gut feel plus the editorials I have seen, (despite the fact the pundits are often desperately out of touch with the rest of we Canadians), my read is that Scott isn't being believed.
He need not be in as much trouble as he is. The opposition criticism can be boiled down to three points: he foolishly discussed a private matter in a public place; he allegedly lied about not remembering who he was with; and he allegedly compromised both the APEC inquiry and the airbus investigation.
His best strategy now, which would have been an even better strategy had it been implemented right away, would be to take responsibility for having a private discussion in a setting where it could be overheard. Forget about attacking Procter, and concede and apologize that he shouldn't have been careless enough to hold a private discussion where anyone, eavesdropper or otherwise could overhear it. He should concede this, and it might help give him much needed credibility to focus on the potentially more damaging part of this crisis, the conversation itself.
Scott should focus on the fact that the airplane conversation was quite ordinary; the kind of discussion any number of professional people with professional confidences have everyday within their circles of close, trusted friends. While what he discussed with his long time friend wasn't meant for public consumption, it was a conversation where people know how far they can go but also where to draw the line. A conversation where the content lies between what one would say publicly and what is confidential information. And there is nothing anywhere in any of Proctor's nine pages of notes to suggest that Scott crossed that line into confidential information.
If the government side would focus on this, supported by points already made, for example that in his position he would not be privy to the kind of airbus investigation information he is accused of divulging, then he could start to take charge of the tone of the reporting on this issue. To be fair, this point about him not being in a position to know details of the investigation has been made, but because the government side is splitting its counterattack on silly side issues such as making a big deal out of the fact Procter admits he didn't hear the word "airbus", the more important and effective messages are being lost in the shuffle.
So when you boil it down, what's he guilty of? Bad judgment in engaging in a private conversation within earshot of an eavesdropper. A lesser sin for sure, than breaking confidentialities, and a sin for which he can be forgiven. Which leaves one problem; his initial comment that he couldn't remember who he was sitting with, followed a day later by his remembrance that it was a long time friend. His explanation that he figured it out after making a call to ask the person who picked him up at the airport who he got off the plane with, has not been convincing. Whether this is true has, as stated earlier, precious little to do with it. This exercise isn't only about telling the truth, it's about being believed. It's about credibility, and sadly, your credibility can go straight into the dumper if the truth that you tell isn't believed.
Obviously, none of us is in a position to know whether Scott told the truth at that moment he was hit out of the blue with Procter's questions. What I do know, is that Scott has a solid reputation for honesty and integrity, and from a crisis communications point of view, this could become his saving grace. That reputation, if nothing else, might earn him the benefit of the doubt. If he lied, that would be inconsistent with everything in his background. If he did though, on this one occasion, he could play the odds that the people of Canada, whom research has shown to be extremely fair-minded, might see this as Scott being human, a man who made a mistake, but not one that should have fatal consequences. Had he taken this step within a day or two of this story breaking, the odds of public forgiveness would have been much greater, but it remains a necessary step.
The opposition of course would go to town on him, that's their job, but they would have to be somewhat measured in their attacks, for fear of being branded the bully. History has shown us that if that happens, the tides can quickly turn.
The apparent government strategy now, is to take advantage of the break in the sitting, and hope that the absence of the daily question period acts as a cooling off period, a kind of "riding out the storm" in hopes that the crisis simply burns itself out. It may work. It has in the past, but even if the crisis fades to the back burner, Scott's credibility will remain a question, and a possible liability. Just because the story is no longer demanding headlines, doesn't mean the crisis has been successfully met.
|
