My last substantive post was around May 9, 2007. On May 11, an event occurred that shocked a lot of people in the Las Vegas legal community. It was the sort of day that illustrates why government agencies must prepare for any communication crisis and demonstrates why disclosure is important, even in delicate situations. It also led to a fundamental question about reputation management: should an organization concentrate on defending itself or the reputation of a person facing scrutiny?

Here is a link to a newspaper story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on May 11, 2007. This was not the initial story, but really a capstone to nearly three months of local media coverage. However, it was this story that led to regional and national news coverage, videos of the judge posted to YouTube, and a number of bloggers commenting about the decisions of the courts, the judges and the electorate. Yesterday (May 29), an opinion piece by Jane Ann Morrison made the front page of the Drudge Report (see headlines at 13:53:04), and nearly 500 people have commented on it. Today the newspaper printed its second editorial cartoon about the matter.

I’m going to avoid much of the details in the case because it’s in litigation before the Nevada Supreme Court, and I’m employee of the Clark County Courts, so my opinions and personal knowledge about the matter should remain to myself. I do, however, wish to talk about the communication strategy and my thoughts in responding to the media and the public.

In this instance, I concluded that it was more important to defend the reputation of the institution rather than defend the reputation of any individual member of the Clark County Courts. And in doing so, I concluded the Courts would remain candid in its responses, good or bad. This meant the Courts would reveal as much as possible about the matter and accept the consequences. I also advised the Court Executive Officer that the public might not fully understand the situation and therefore we would have to spend time explaining our actions and the actions of individuals who work for the Courts. This strategy led the Courts to releasing videos, answering questions about questionable activity by the Judge’s former assistant, and providing detailed information about personnel matters. I have advised leadership to be as open as possible, even when some of the details have been embarrassing to the Courts. (Legal buffs may wish to review documents in Halverson v. Hardcastle).

In complex situations, organizations often come under fire for the actions of their leadership. Ken Lay of Enron, and numerous other examples, demonstrates how organizations often choose to defend the actions of the individual in order to insulate and bolster the reputation of the institution. Obviously that often fails, with Enron again proving that reputation management will collapse under intense scrutiny or insurmountable and often unexplainable problems. So it comes down to this question: Do you defend the actions of an individual at the expense of the organization, or do you conclude you must defend the organization’s reputation at the expense of the individual?

In government, which is responsible to the people who empower it, I believe the reputation of the institution must be guarded and public accountability must be demonstrated. Public trust requires openness and accountability. Transparency must be a cornerstone of any reputation management effort, especially if your vision and mission statement express “access” and “openness.”

Therefore, in revealing as much about the circumstances of the current events as possible, by responding to intense media scrutiny, by revealing potential ethical problems, and developing talking points on the matter, it has been my intention to provide as much transparency as possible and provide the Court an opportunity to defend its reputation as a place for dispute resolution and access to justice. So far the results have been mixed with many publics expressing a disdain for the entire system and pointing to this circumstance as “business as usual in a corrupt court system.” Others are presenting this as a fight between two strong women. Many see this as the expected outcome of allowing the electorate to elect popular judges, despite a candidate’s qualifications or experience.

Overall, the feedback is still being collected and I doubt I will know the full public response to this situation anytime soon. However, I am not deviating from my initial strategy, which is to defend the institution over the reputation of an individual. I believe this is the best course and time will tell if it is the best path.