What Happens When Organizations Hold Back Information Following a Crisis?

I've been out of town for several days and just now am getting caught up on the local news in Louisville, Kentucky. Two long-term crises I've blogged about often made headlines over the past week, and both, I think, have the same morals to their stories.

First is the Louisville Zoo train derailment early this month, which sent 22 people, mostly children, to hospitals. Twelve people from five families filed suit against the zoo late last week, claiming negligence in operation and maintenance of the train. Two of the plaintiffs weren't even on the train! They join one other person, who I think was dialing his attorney from the back of the ambulance, in suing so far. And again: How can anyone accuse the zoo of negligence when the cause is still under investigation? Anyway, how is the zoo responding? It isn't. It's hiding behind its need to avoid commenting on pending litigation. No one can talk about the suits, certainly. But the zoo isn't talking about a thing, and still hasn't updated its posted news release containing erroneous information on the day of the accident.

Another story in Louisville that has received national attention is the Max Gilpin tragedy. He died last August from the heat after collapsing during football practice at Pleasure Ridge Park High School. I was critical of Jefferson County Public Schools for waiting an entire week before beginning an investigation, which the district says is nearly complete -- 10 months after the incident and half a year after the police completed their investigation and charged Coach Jason Stinson with reckless homicide. The commonwealth attorney's office now has taken JCPS to court because the district refuses to release results of its investigation, which supposedly includes interviews with every football player and coach. Stinson's trial starts August 31, and the JCPS investigation results would be useful, either in getting a conviction or an acquittal.

My point in this post is to question how extensive an organization's gag orders must be whenever criminal and/or civil lawsuits are filed. JCPS, by delaying completion of the investigation several times this spring, and then refusing to cooperate with the commonwealth attorney, makes it appear the investigation condemns Stinson to the gallows, I believe. Does it appear to you that the school district has something to hide after it prematurely cleared the coaching staff of any wrongdoing a day or two after Max was hospitalized?

Then there's the zoo, which did a very good job on the day of the derailment. But where did the spokeswoman go after that? Certainly no comment can be made that would jeopardize the zoo's cases in court. But what about the complete safety inspection zoo Director John Walczak promised members a week after the accident? That should be a transparent process. The public should know who is inspecting, what are their credentials, what is the timing, how is the inspection taking place, etc. The public has heard nothing. Does that instill faith among the zoo's members and benefactors? Does it make the public feel safe on other zoo attractions?

If you allow gaps in information, withhold facts, and hide behind we-can't-say-anything-due-to-litigation, you put yourself in a poor strategic position in the court of public opinion. In both of these stories, I'm left wondering what are the schools and the zoo trying to hide? Maybe nothing. But do you think organizations look devious when they hold back? Let me know what you think.