I've frequently warned organizations and individuals that treat the press with disdain that's it's unwise to argue with people who buy ink by the barrel. Unfortunately, the Risk and Insurance Management Society decided to ignore that sound advice by excluding reporters from one of this morning's sessions at its "RIMS On The Hill" program unless they signed a preposterous gag order.
I couldn't believe my eyes when my Washington office forwarded me the "Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement" RIMS insisted they sign or else be locked out of a briefing by Capitol Hill staffers. I'd never seen anything like it in my 27 years on the job.
The panel was invited to discuss the prospects for legislation of keen interest to risk managers, including bills to set federal standards for states to follow on regulation of surplus lines and reinsurance, establish an optional federal charter, and amend the National Risk Retention Act. All of these issues are very important to this constituency, but certainly none are a matter of national security! What could the staffers possibly have said that would be so explosive it couldn't be made public?
This was not an intimate, private meeting between congressional staffers and a handful of senior officers of RIMS, as some 40 people were present. It was a briefing by those who work for elected officials in return for taxpayer dollars. Such public servants should not be speaking off the record and behind closed doors to a private interest group--especially one, like RIMS, which has championed full disclosure in its members' dealings with brokers and insurers.
Those scheduled to appear were not small fry, either, but some of the Hill's top power hitters, including Kathleen Mellody (Democratic counsel to the House Insurance Subcommittee), Robert Gordon, Sr. (Republican counsel to the House Financial Services Committee), Sarah Kline (Democratic counsel to the Senate Banking Committee) and Andrew Olmem (Republican counsel to the Senate Banking Committee).
Yet we in the press were told in no uncertain terms that unless we agreed to sign the outrageous gag order below, we could not attend the briefing.
"The Media Representative acknowledges that the Program will include a panel discussion featuring Congressional staff members," the agreement read. "The Media Representative warrants that he will not directly or indirectly attribute any comments made by the Congressional staff members at the Program in subsequent media stories about the event. This Agreement shall terminate 2 years from its effective date."
No self-respecting journalist would sign any such agreement.
Besides, what makes these media-shy staffers think statements made in front of dozens of people would remain private in any way, shape or form? No non-media attendees were asked to sign such confidentiality agreements, at least not to my knowledge. That means anyone else who attended are free to pass along what was said to colleagues...and reporters!
I protested vigorously to the RIMS media representative late Friday afternoon, who seemed genuinely sorry to be caught in a tug of war between her general counsel, R. Mark Prysock, and the press--who, after all, had been invited by RIMS to cover the event long before any of this confidentiality nonsense came up. I noted that we cover such Hill briefings all the time, and have never been asked to sign such a gag order.
I gave RIMS the weekend to clear up this "misunderstanding" and do the right thing. But come Monday morning, the status quo remained, the panel went on, and the gag order was still the order of the day.
This goes to show you how badly media relations can be screwed up once you let lawyers get involved. They are short-sighted and tone deaf to the damage they can do to an organization's reputation for openness and fair play among the press.
I've been told the prohibition against being quoted was handed down at the last minute as a condition of the staffers showing up at the RIMS briefing. The fact that the gag order was not presented to us until 4:23 p.m. on Friday afternoon indicates that to be the case.
RIMS should have told these characters to take a hike. If these staffers didn't feel they could speak on the record, they shouldn't have appeared on a public program in the first place.
Ironically, in April, during the RIMS annual conference in San Diego, for the second straight year I led a panel of my insurance journalism peers in a discussion of how risk managers can cooperate with the media to disseminate valuable information while protecting their organization's reputation.
Too bad RIMS itself failed to heed the advice my fellow editors and I offered that day.
Comments (5)
When you think about it, we are all "journalists" in one form or another, as is demonstrated by this and 20 million other blogs.
Over the past 25 years of my career, I have worked with the press, as well as having been a member of the press, and on many occasions shared information with them that was not for public consumption by just making it clear up front that it is "off the record."
Whenever I did it, it was with someone that I knew and trusted, and I never had a problem. I can't say why they chose a different approach to securing the confidentiality of the information being shared, perhaps it wasn't the staff's choice.
Today, with the millions of blogs being posted every day, it's a wonder anything can stay a secret for very long at all, let alone a public meeting of the sort you describe.
Posted by Rick Gilman | June 9, 2008 3:31 PM
Posted on June 9, 2008 15:31
Well said, Sam. This kind of stuff really inspires confidence in the responsiveness to the public of the proposed federal regulator....NOT!
Is there an industry less transparent than insurance?
Posted by Sop81_1 | June 9, 2008 5:23 PM
Posted on June 9, 2008 17:23
Well put, Sam. I have been in and around news for most of my adult life, and once in awhile someone pulls something like this. Whatever is covered rarely stays secret, and no reporters I've ever worked with would agree to such a thing.
When I wear my hat as this association's PR person, I advise our boards and our executive vice president that people will forgive mistakes. They will not forgive or ever forget lies or cover-ups or lame excuses.
By the way, more politicians should heed that advise. Think of all the pain Bill Clinton would have avoided if he had just said to the press, "It's none of your business. This is between my wife, my family, Ms. Lewinsky, and me."
I also agree with you about the congressional staffers present. They work for us--the public--and nothing they do in an official capacity such as this should be private.
I can understand private meetings on policy with their bosses or with others in Congress, etc., but when attending a public meeting, nothing they say is private.
Posted by Gary Wolcott | June 10, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted on June 10, 2008 14:48
Sam, I'd like to know whether the gag order was the staffers' idea, or that of the Senators and Representatives they work for.
Either way, it's a big accountability dodge by people whose salaries we pay.
You can't allow reporters to attend and expect that they won't do their jobs.
I hope some of the RIMS attendees who believe in accountability and disclosure will leak what these self-absorbed staffers said. Not that it would be informative, necessarily, but at least the light would be switched on.
SAM RESPONDS:
All I was told was that the four staffers would not agree to appear unless they were assured what they said would not be reported, directly or indirectly (without direct attribution). I believe the gag order was the idea of the RIMS general counsel, as a way to reassure the panelists.
Posted by William Henry | June 11, 2008 10:18 AM
Posted on June 11, 2008 10:18
I am outraged by the conduct of RIMS and Congressional legislative staff.
As a taxpayer who pays the salaries of congressmen and their staffs, I believe that they have a duty to the public, which includes not speaking behind closed doors to an organization that asks the press to sign a "Non Disclosure and Confidentially Agreement."
This is unacceptable behavior on the part of RIMS and Congressional staff members. Is there anything to do be done about this?
I think Congress should be made aware that the conduct of their staffers reflects on them.
Posted by Karen Cutts, Editor, Risk Retention Reporter | June 27, 2008 10:32 AM
Posted on June 27, 2008 10:32