1/12/2009
Maybe stonewalling was bettter
There are a couple of things one looks for in a good, old fashioned, let's-put-this-behind-us damage-control statement. You want an admission that, perhaps somewhere on the edges, mistakes had been made. Boundaries may have transgressed. And you're sorry, even if you have no intention of doing anything to rectify matters. Maybe even add some telling details to prove that although some of these things may look bad, there were perfectly good reasons for doing them.
You need to balance apology and exoneration. To put forward the twin messages that nothing bad was done and that you'll never do it again. A nonadmission of guilt packaged with a sincere but vague statement of contrition. An attack on the partisanship of enemies and the resolve to put this behind us and do great things.
Done right, it restores the public's sense of boundaries without requiring actual corrective measures or, heaven forbid, intervention by law enforcement, special prosecutors or grand juries.
Done poorly . . . well, why talk in the abstract? Why not look at the statements of House Speaker Ray Sansom?
First, he simply stonewalled until he could no longer show his face in public. Then he gave a quick, opaque statement that nothing was wrong but he's resigning his job.
This weekend he wrote an op-ed in his hometown paper that was everything a damage-control statement shouldn't be -- weak, vague and self-pitying, neither admitting error nor attacking his accusers. Sad stuff, really.
It begins:
The position of speaker of the Florida House of Representatives carries with it not only great authority but also great responsibility.
(Just like Spider-man.)
Accordingly, when I became speaker of the House, I fully understood that my actions both in and out of office would be closely scrutinized. I welcome that accountability, as I have welcomed it throughout a career that I have conducted with as much openness and transparency as possible.
(So what about the meetings that were designed to get around the Sunshine Law. Why weren't minutes kept as required by law?)
. . . I fully respect any person's right to hold an opinion on my decision to work at the college, but fairness demands that such opinions be informed by the facts. In my view, the most important fact here is that I have always pursued my duties as a legislator without any regard for my own private interests, including my interest in being gainfully employed and providing for my family.
(That's not a "fact," that's an opinion, a characterization, a mere counterassertion. Nowhere here does he explain or contest any exculpatory facts that might inform a critic . . .)
It's true that earlier this year I supported the college's successful efforts to obtain accelerated funding for construction projects. The money for those projects came from a fund that, by law, can be used only for school construction funding. In other words, there was no choice to be made between the college's projects and, for example, K-12 classrooms, law enforcement or health care for the poor.
(This is true. He took the money from a fund that should have gone to colleges that serve far more students in far more populous parts of the state. Facilities that are seriously overcrowded in some places.)
. . . What is most important, though, is that I've never forgotten the trust placed in me by the voters and by my colleagues. And I've always conducted myself with honor and integrity.
I can only pray that, when passions cool, the truth about my record and about the way I've lived my life will count for more than the cynicism and innuendo that have had such disproportionate influence in recent weeks.
(There's no "innuendo" here. People have come out and said it: Sansom gets $110,00 a year in exchange for bringing wheelbarrows full of money to a community college in the middle of nowhere while the state system of higher ed suffers cuts, delays in construction and layoffs and he did it at the behest of his employer. It makes all the speaker's talk about how we all must tighten our belts a matter of bitter comedy. No innuendo in that. Everybody understands things on a pretty basic level. And that's the big political problem here -- it is very easy to explain.)
A good defense shouldn't insult the intelligence of the reader or make supporters feel foolish. And this was not a good defense.
It's starting to look like this guy is going to be the star of political ads for every Democrat running in every district in the state next year.
Bonus:
+ Herald editorial -- Grand jury should examine Sansom case
+ Palm Beach Post -- Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty used her office to enrich herself. There are plenty of indications that Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom, R-Destin, did the same thing.
You need to balance apology and exoneration. To put forward the twin messages that nothing bad was done and that you'll never do it again. A nonadmission of guilt packaged with a sincere but vague statement of contrition. An attack on the partisanship of enemies and the resolve to put this behind us and do great things.
Done right, it restores the public's sense of boundaries without requiring actual corrective measures or, heaven forbid, intervention by law enforcement, special prosecutors or grand juries.
Done poorly . . . well, why talk in the abstract? Why not look at the statements of House Speaker Ray Sansom?
First, he simply stonewalled until he could no longer show his face in public. Then he gave a quick, opaque statement that nothing was wrong but he's resigning his job.
This weekend he wrote an op-ed in his hometown paper that was everything a damage-control statement shouldn't be -- weak, vague and self-pitying, neither admitting error nor attacking his accusers. Sad stuff, really.
It begins:
The position of speaker of the Florida House of Representatives carries with it not only great authority but also great responsibility.
(Just like Spider-man.)
Accordingly, when I became speaker of the House, I fully understood that my actions both in and out of office would be closely scrutinized. I welcome that accountability, as I have welcomed it throughout a career that I have conducted with as much openness and transparency as possible.
(So what about the meetings that were designed to get around the Sunshine Law. Why weren't minutes kept as required by law?)
. . . I fully respect any person's right to hold an opinion on my decision to work at the college, but fairness demands that such opinions be informed by the facts. In my view, the most important fact here is that I have always pursued my duties as a legislator without any regard for my own private interests, including my interest in being gainfully employed and providing for my family.
(That's not a "fact," that's an opinion, a characterization, a mere counterassertion. Nowhere here does he explain or contest any exculpatory facts that might inform a critic . . .)
It's true that earlier this year I supported the college's successful efforts to obtain accelerated funding for construction projects. The money for those projects came from a fund that, by law, can be used only for school construction funding. In other words, there was no choice to be made between the college's projects and, for example, K-12 classrooms, law enforcement or health care for the poor.
(This is true. He took the money from a fund that should have gone to colleges that serve far more students in far more populous parts of the state. Facilities that are seriously overcrowded in some places.)
. . . What is most important, though, is that I've never forgotten the trust placed in me by the voters and by my colleagues. And I've always conducted myself with honor and integrity.
I can only pray that, when passions cool, the truth about my record and about the way I've lived my life will count for more than the cynicism and innuendo that have had such disproportionate influence in recent weeks.
(There's no "innuendo" here. People have come out and said it: Sansom gets $110,00 a year in exchange for bringing wheelbarrows full of money to a community college in the middle of nowhere while the state system of higher ed suffers cuts, delays in construction and layoffs and he did it at the behest of his employer. It makes all the speaker's talk about how we all must tighten our belts a matter of bitter comedy. No innuendo in that. Everybody understands things on a pretty basic level. And that's the big political problem here -- it is very easy to explain.)
A good defense shouldn't insult the intelligence of the reader or make supporters feel foolish. And this was not a good defense.
It's starting to look like this guy is going to be the star of political ads for every Democrat running in every district in the state next year.
Bonus:
+ Herald editorial -- Grand jury should examine Sansom case
+ Palm Beach Post -- Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty used her office to enrich herself. There are plenty of indications that Florida House Speaker Ray Sansom, R-Destin, did the same thing.
Labels: Legislature, Ray Sansom
