Part of an on-going effort to encourage those speaking with reporters to avoid the dreaded “no comment”
This week we visit Lansing, Michigan were a government official was placed on paid leave a month ago after an investigation suggested she had given taxpayer money to non profit groups with whom she was associated. This is a clear conflict of interest (on both sides). Last week she resigned abruptly and the news media went out in search of council member comment.
That’s the wrong answer. Council members CAN comment even when there’s an investigation underway. It’s both a dodge to use “no comment” under this circumstance and, more importantly, a missed opportunity.
Try this on for size and consider whether it has any negative or positive impact on the investigation.
“While we’re committed to letting the investigation into Ms. Jackson Johnson play out, we also believe that it’s important for residents to know that we are committed to living within ethics rules that are in place to ensure that taxpayer funds are treated with special care.”
That’s called an aspirational statement. You can’t talk about the investigation, but you can talk about the issue being investigated and reinforce a commitment to the right way of doing things. That reassures your stakeholder group(s) and turns the negative of “no comment” into a positive statement.
