I was also troubled by the "ARE ALLOWED TO" clause, and am glad Amy brought this up.  I can't imagine that the PR office is trying to abrogate the free speech promised by the US Constitution, but rather to present an official voice on an issue of day-to-day university management.  Are there some reasonable, best-practice guidelines for such a situation?  (Besides common sense, I mean.)  If anyone in mass communication and/or journalism can speak to the issue, I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,

JL

I've worked in situations where employees were not "allowed" to speak to the media about anything that affected the workplace. This policy makes sense in a hospital, for example, or in a federal agency. However, the policy was explained up front when you signed on, no surprises.

LVN wrote:

---

This policy makes sense in a hospital

---

That's why VP Cheney was silent for awhile?

LVN wrote:

---

HIPPA is quite strict about patient privacy. You may be going to a doctor or dentist who no longer uses a sign in sheet, for that very reason. When you go into the hospital, you have to give permission before the hospital can even reveal that you're there. Please don't turn this thread into something political. This is an important issue, and we'd all like to know whether the comment Dr. Young posted is some new policy or whether it referred only to the gas leak.

---

LVN, here is the complete email I received:

NOTE: ALL MEDIA CALLS MUST BE SENT TO 4491, THE PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE.
ONLY DESIGNATED PERSONS ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA.
 
1. There was a gas leak at the Trent Lott Center construction site.
A gas line was breached during construction. It has been secured
and shut off.
 
2. All dorms have been reopened including the HYPER building.
The three dorms were safely evacuated: Jones, Roberts and
Panhellenic.
 
3. Wilmut Gas and the Fire department of Hattiesburg are on the
scene assisting at present.
 
4. Students who were evacuated may be late or miss class due to
the dorm closure. We ask for faculty understanding at this time.
 
5. No individuals have been injured or harmed. Classes are
continuing safely on campus. Traffic has be re-routed.
 
Thank you.

That seems pretty ambiguous. I'd like to be charitable and think the "no media" comment referred only to the gas leak, and therefore only applied to staff directly involved in the situation, but it's hard to tell.

As a staff member, I would not want to talk to the media about something like this -- my only comment to them would be, "You'd need to ask my supervisor." But as an instructor, I'd say anything I wanted to. It's all in the context. (And I've been both, btw.)

A simple call to PR would end all of this unnecessary speculation about how to interpret the USM Mailout message. Would somebody on campus please pick your phone, call PR, and let us know what you learn?

When I was in Independent Study we had to pass everything by the University Proofreader. I never had a problem with that. As far as I know, the goal was to ensure quality and consistency in our publications. Not everything that is published is written by a professor, you know. And I have an MA in English and the Proofreader caught stuff.

Did anyone besides me notice the date on the notice?  I received the notice this morning, February 20th, at 8:31 a.m.  The gas leak happened on Thursday, February 16th.

If this is the university's policy, it took someone long enough to inform the university campus.

The university has had a major problem with communicating to its employees. With today's technology, there is no reason that the university community can not be kept abreast and up-to-date on university policies. 

Invictus wrote:

---

I'd be interested in knowing if it's in fact a new policy or something that's been on the books for a long time.

---

As far as I can remember, letting PR only talk to the media has been the policy since the mid-90's (this is as far as my experience goes back).  Anything that was presented to the public had to go through them.  I used to maintain some web pages for campus groups and I was supposed to get them approved by PR...though to be honest, I never did. 

It actually makes sense to me to have one person/office make official comments about USM.  I think all organizations have similar rules.  This helps both the organization and the individual person who might find themselves misquoted and embarsassing the group.  I do not think that the rule is meant to keep people from ever talking to the media, just that any one employee cannot speak for the university. 

I am not quite sure what is so offensive about the email, even IF the statement is intended as an "all the time" rule. PR is about managing the image of (in this case) the University. If WDAM or the HA calls and asks for a comment on Topic X, one should refer the caller to the PR Department, which keeps a list of experts on campus. The PR Department should refer the caller to the appropriate expert(s) on campus for comment. While this may not allow some faculty to avail themselves of some of their fifteen minutes of fame, it would allow the most knowledgeable individual(s) to speak for the University, which would allow the University to be portrayed in the best possible light.

As USM transitions from the Thames Administration to the "next phase," it would serve faculty well to remember that a sense of normalcy must be reestablished on campus. Continually sniping at every administrative action (or, as in this case, reading meanings into emails that simply are not there) merely makes faculty look disgruntled. At a normal university, the process I described above would prevail. More importantly, local media should be in the habit of calling the PR Department first, which would allow the process to work more smoothly and would exclude unnecessary faculty from pushing their way to the front and center of the spotlight.

What's really going on here is that some of you do not like the idea that Dr. Thames and his cabinet might make a perfectly defensible decision to control who speaks for the University. From a PR perspective, there should be one voice, one stance, and one image projected from the University's perspective. Of course, dissent should be heard but not as the voice of the University. The problem lies in that very few faculty have any idea that the Thames Administration can make a good decision. You're not really mad about the idea that PR should be handled by PR, you're still angry at Dr. Thames for the sins of his past. I'm here to tell you that the next president of USM would be a fool to listen to anything said by any of the hundreds of agenda-pushers on USM's campus.

Madison Ave. wrote:

---

 While this may not allow some faculty to avail themselves of some of their fifteen minutes of fame, it would allow the most knowledgeable individual(s) to speak for the University, which would allow the University to be portrayed in the best possible light.

---

"Fifteen minutes of fame?" Your knowledege of what we are all about is seriously lacking. Most faculty in my area avoid reporters like the plague out of fear of being misquoted.

".....which would allow the University to be portrayed in the best possible light?" How about simply portraying the facts without the spin?

Madison Ave. wrote:

---

I am not quite sure what is so offensive about the email,
 
It's "e-mail" and if you were a good writer, you'd know what's wrong with it.
 
...even IF the statement is intended as an "all the time" rule.
 
It's "all-the-time" rule
 
...PR is about managing the image of (in this case) the University.
 
Exactly, which means the image of the university (lowercase "u") is that its own PR department knows nothing about the first skill a PR professional should have, which is good writing. Ask Dr. Mayo - he'll tell you.
 
If WDAM or the HA calls and asks for a comment on Topic X, one should refer the caller to the PR Department, which keeps a list of experts on campus. The PR Department should refer the caller to the appropriate expert(s) on campus for comment. While this may not allow some faculty to avail themselves of some of their fifteen minutes of fame, it would allow the most knowledgeable individual(s) to speak for the University, which would allow the University to be portrayed in the best possible light.
 
The purpose of the experts guide is so that when a reporter calls, PR can direct the caller quickly to the person (oh, and it's one person, many people, not "persons") who could give the most accurate information to the reporter. It's not a matter of the list being one with those with permission to speak. Or it shouldn't be.
 
 

Outside Observer wrote:

---

I think the point was that the email said "all communications" with the media must be approved by PR.  A faculty member with a terminal degree in a specific field, who is contacted by the media for a comment on something in his/her field, has no duty to get it approved by some administrative office first.

---

Wrong. If there is a policy, the professor has the duty to follow it, regardless of how much she dislikes it. If she chooses to ignore the policy, then she should be ready for the consequences.

Madison Ave. wrote:

---

Outside Observer wrote:  A faculty member with a terminal degree in a specific field, who is contacted by the media for a comment on something in his/her field, has no duty to get it approved by some administrative office first.

Madison Ave. wrote:  Wrong. If there is a policy, the professor has the duty to follow it, regardless of how much she dislikes it. If she chooses to ignore the policy, then she should be ready for the consequences.

---

Madison Ave., are you trying to invoke the SACS academic death penalty for USM? That's what its called in football. SACS would administer it much swifter than the NCAA.