The great debate in Port
Arthur about incinerating VX wastes would make
a good lesson for students of public relations. We could call it, "How
NOT to handle a controversy."
**Anonymous
'Letters to the Editor' will not be included in the print edition of
The Enterprise.
From
the secretive start to the unannounced shipments to the insensitive
remarks from public officials, this thing has been fumbled like a bad
handoff in a rainy football game.
To be honest about it, you
would probably still have controversy. There's just no way to sugarcoat
words like "nerve gas," even if the stuff has been treated and is no
more dangerous than drain cleaner, as Veolia officials put it.
But you'd have less turmoil, and fewer folks in Port Arthur would think
they got the shaft instead of the ore.
-- Mistake No. 1: No news is good news.
No one from Veolia, the city of Port Arthur or Jefferson County said
anything about the shipments until the news had leaked - if you'll
pardon the old journalistic expression - from Indiana, where stuff was
stored during the Cold War.
Technically, they didn't have to.
Veolia burns all kinds of nasty stuff at its facility. It is, after
all, a toxic waste incinerator, not a petting zoo. The facility is
outside of Port Arthur's city limits, and it's primarily regulated by
state and federal guidelines.
All that is nice, and
meaningless. CEOs, mayors, county judges, etc. should remember the
distinction between what they have to do and what they should do.
They should have realized that the incineration of treated nerve gas
wastes would raise an eyebrow or two. They should have gotten ahead of
this story instead of playing catch-up.
-- Mistake No. 2: Bits and pieces instead of the whole enchilada.
In conjunction with the first advice, the best way to handle a story
like this is to tell all you know when you know it. As the news
dribbled out, Southeast Texans learned a new nugget here and there.
Over time, this led to suspicion that Veolia was holding back something
really big and scary.
It probably isn't, but you have to
remember that old perception/reality thing. If people think they are
not safe, you can't make them feel safe by telling them it's all in
their head. You have to address the root of their concern and make them
understand in their own minds that they are safe.
-- Mistake No. 3: Forgetting to choose your words carefully, because
you may have to eat them.
Oscar Ortiz has been a good mayor for Port Arthur. He doesn't want the
people of his town to die from toxic goo. You'd never know that by some
of the comments he made. In a story distributed across the state and
nation by the Associated Press, Ortiz tossed out gems like:
"Why create a big scare thing if there's nothing there to be afraid of?"
"Why do something about a project that's safe and creating a lot of
work?"
And who can forget:
"I've been breathing this air for fifty-some years. I feel fine.
Besides, we all have to die sometime."
Yikes, Oscar! Did you forget to add, "If we lose a few kids or old
people, that's the price of progress."
People don't want to be told that their fears are "nothing" or that
they're gonna kick the bucket anyway. They want to know that their air
and water are safe. They want to know about anything that could
threaten their well-being.
Many officials in the public and
private sectors didn't seem to understand these basic concepts this
time. Next time, they should.
