bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘public relations’

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

STRIPPING DOWN FOR THE FBI – PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 8, 2013 at 12:07 am

So you want to report a crime to the FBI?  Then be ready to give up your most private information before you get to speak with an agent.

If you feel you’re an upstanding citizen with nothing to hide, then fine.

But many people who don’t have anything to hide will hesitate to surrender such personal information to a powerful law enforcement agency–simply to talk with one of its agents.

This is even more true in this age of right-wing crusades against the Federal Government–and especially its law enforcement agencies.

At a time when Federal law enforcement agencies need all the cooperation they can get, this is definitely not the way to go about getting it.

It’s analogous to the famous joke about an English-speaking reporter covering a civil war in a foreign country who enters the scene of a massacre and asks: “Is there anyone here who speaks English and has been raped?”

Good detectives know that if you want to establish a bond between yourself and a potential source, you must prove, over time, that you can be trusted.

People who get most of what they “know” about police work from TV crime shows know almost nothing about its realities.

Cases aren’t wrapped up in 45 minutes.  Oftentimes, cops make deals with hardened criminals to solve a case: “You have to use a smaller bum to get a bigger bum,” as a deputy U.S. marshal once said about protecting Mafia informants through the Witness Security Program.

And merely slapping handcuffs on an accused criminal and saying “Book ‘em, Danno” isn’t the same as ensuring his conviction and imprisonment.

As cops know better than anyone, today’s arrest is often followed by tomorrow’s release on bond.  And, still later, by a watered-down sentence under a plea bargain agreement–if not an acquittal by a judge or jury.

Shows like “Hawaii Five-O” and “Law and Order” have proven great hits with the public.  But they don’t reveal the highly mixed feelings that most people actually have about the men and women who enforce the nation’s laws at local, state and Federal levels.

On one hand, many children are taught to believe in Officer Friendly as their protector in times of peril.  They grow into adults who want to believe the best about those sworn to “protect and serve.”

But if someone breaks into your home and steals your TV set, chances are, that’s the last you’ll ever see of it.

The cops aren’t going to put out an APB (All Points Bulletin) for a missing TV set, even if you’ve inscribed your own driver’s licence number on it with an engraving pen for quick identification.

And while “the law is the law is the law,” the quality of the police response depends heavily on the status of the person who gets victimized.

Thtreaten to kill the President of the United States and you’ll instantly get a visit from the Secret Service.  You may be arrested, indicted, convicted and sent to prison.

Or you may simply be added to a “watch list” of those considered possibly dangerous to the President.  If he visits your city, you may be put under temporary house arrest until he’s passed through.

The same holds true–but to a lesser extent–for those who threaten the governor or mayor.  If the threat is deemed serious, you can be certain that official will have a full SWAT team assigned to his protection.

But suppose you’re just Mr. Average Citizen.  If your neighbor thinks you’re trying to horn in on his wife or girlfriend and threatens to blow your head off, the police will take an entirely different tack.

“If he does anything,” will be the standard police reply, “give us a call.”

Odds are that by the time the police arrive, there will be a warm body for them to draw a chalk circle around.

In San Francisco, calls to the regular police number–(415) 553-0123–will usually get you a recorded message (in English, Spanish and Chinese) letting you know what agency you’ve reached.

You’ll then be told that if this is an emergency, hang up and call 9-1-1.  So if it is an emergency, you’ve already lost valuable time calling a number that nobody is answering.

But even calling 9-1-1 isn’t a guaranteed way to get help.  At times you’ll get a recorded message saying that “all calls are answered as quickly as possible.”

That’s small consolation for the caller whose house is burning down or who’s threatened by someone pounding at the door.

Even reaching the police department offers no certainty of assistance.  In cash-strapped San Jose, short-handed police are no longer responding to home burglaries.

Meanwhile, police departments loudly complain they get no support from the public they’ve sworn to “protect and serve.”

Law enforcement agencies–at all levels–need to vastly improve their relations with those whose support they need–and who need their protection.  Until this happens, both the police and public will be the poorer for it.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

STRIPPING DOWN FOR THE FBI – PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on January 7, 2013 at 12:15 am

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has always encouraged Americans to report anything they consider a threat to national security or a violation of Federal law.

But recently the FBI has adopted a practice that is almost certain to sharply decrease the number of people willing to report knowledge of a crime.

A friend of mine named Jim recently visited the San Francisco field office of the FBI to report a violation of Federal computer fraud and harassment laws.

This meant visiting the San Francisco Federal Building (technically named the Phillip Burton Federal Building, in honor of the late San Francisco Congressman).

At 450 Golden Gate Avenue, located close to the Civic Center and City Hall, it serves as a courthouse of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

It also lhouses offices for such Federal law enforcement agencies as the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Marshal’s Service.

To enter, you must first show a driver’s license or State ID card.  Then you must remove

  • Your belt
  • Your shoes
  • Your watch
  • Your wallet
  • All other objects from your pants pockets
  • Any jacket you’re wearing
  • Any cell phone you’re carrying

All of these must be placed in one or more large plastic containers, which are run through an x-ray scanner.

Then, assuming you avoid setting off any alarm system, you’re set for your next big screen test.

This comes when you enter the 13th floor office of the FBI.

According to Jim: You walk into a large room filled with several comfortable chairs that sit close to the floor.  Ahead is a window such as you find in a bank–made of thick, presumably bulletproof glass.

A secretary on the opposite side greets you, and asks why you’ve come.

You say that you want to speak with an agent about what you believe is a violation of Federal law.

If you’ve done your homework, you should know at least the general legal area this violation falls under.  And you’re even better-off if you know what division of the FBI is assigned to handle it.

For example: Jim knew the acts he wanted to report were a violation of Federal anti-computer hacking and harassment laws.  He also knew that these violations are handled by the FBI’s Cybercrime Division.

So he asked to speak with an agent from that division.

The secretary said she would see what she could do.  But before he could speak with an agent, he would have to show her his driver’s license or State ID card.

The secretary makes a xerox of this, and then hands the card back.

Then, as if that isn’t enough, you must fill out a single-page form.  In this, you’re required to provide your:

  • Name
  • Address
  • Phone number
  • Social Security Number
  • The reason you want to speak to an agent

Of course, you can refuse to fill out the form.  But then they will refuse to let you meet with an FBI agent to gain help in resolving your problem.

In Jim’s case, his request to speak with an agent specializing in Cybercrime was denied.   He would up speaking instead with the “duty agent”–whichever luckless person has been assigned to deal with the public that day.

Unofficially, the “duty agent” is the one who takes the “nut calls” from, among others, the mentally disabled who claim they’re picking up KGB transmissions in the fillings of their teeth.

In Jim’s case, the “duty agent” he drew specialized in Gang Violence.  While this is definitely a worthy subject for investigation, it had nothing to do with the matter Jim wanted to talk about.

The agent candidly said he knew nothing about cybercrime.  Which meant he couldn’t give Jim even the barest information about what he might expect to happen after submitting his report.

Fortunately, Jim had thought ahead enough to write up a detailed, three-page report of the cyber attacks he had recently experienced.  He now gave this to the agent.

The agent promised to forward it to the Cybercrime Division.

Jim asked when he might hear from someone there.  The agent said this was highly unlikely.

Jim was surprised.  The agent was in turn surprised that Jim would expect anyone to get back to him.

“I would think,” said Jim, “they would want to ask me a few questions.  And give me some idea as to what was going on in my case.”

The agent said that if the FBI wanted more information, they would contact him.  And, no, they wouldn’t give him any hints about what–if anything–was happening in his case.  (Assuming they chose to investigate it.)

All of which means that if you’re a citizen who wants to report a crime to the FBI, you had better be willing to give up a lot of your own privacy beforehand.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THE TRUTH CAN MAKE US FREE

In Uncategorized on August 21, 2012 at 12:05 am

Once in a while, a politician slips up.

He forgets the presence of his PR handlers.  He wanders off his carefully-prepared script.  He gets so angry at reporters that he does something he would never otherwise do.

He blurts out the truth–about what he actually intends to do, or how he actually feels about an issue.

And when this rare event happens, the effect is similar to a train wreck.

For at least a few days, the news media converges on the politician–who rushes to the safety of his PR reps.

They, in turn, quickly issue press releases to “explain” what the politician “really meant to say”:

  • He was “misunderstood.”
  • He was “misquoted.”
  • He’s the victim of a press “vendetta.”

Perhaps the most famous such “here’s-what-I-meant-to-say” statement was issued by Ron Ziegler, press secretary fo President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.

Starting on June 17, 1972, the Washington Post had investigated a series of crimes committed by Nixon operatives to ensure his re-election.

For the next 10 months, Ziegler and other Nixon administration officials had denied any wrongdoing–and viciously attacked the Post as waging a vendetta against Nixon.

Then, on April 17, 1973, Ziegler once again stood before the White House press corps to offer yet another prepared statement: “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”

Ron Ziegler

By which he meant: “The statement I’m making now is the truth.  All the previous ones were lies.”

Once again, the Republican party is facing a “truth-will-out” scandal.

On August 19, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) justified his opposition to abortion by claiming that victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant.

During a TV interview, the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate was asked if he supported abortion in the case of rape.  He replied:

“From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare   If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Todd Akin

Akin won the Republican primary on August 7 and is set to face incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). in November.

McCaskill was quick to issue a response.

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape.  The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.”

This is not the first time Akin has “misspoke” on abortion.

On August 8, he said during a radio interview: “As far as I’m concerned, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion, and I think we just shouldn’t have abortion in this country.”

But the firestorm of outrage that greeted his “legitimate rape” comment caught Akin by surprise.  So he did what politicians do when they’ve mistakenly told the truth.

With the help of his PR handlers, he “clarified” his previous statement:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue. But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action.”

Mitt Romney, the all-but-anointed Republican Presidential candidate, also bitterly opposes abortion and wants to make it illegal once again.

But Romney also didn’t expect a firestorm to erupt over Akin’s truth-blurb.  Thus, on the day Akin revealed his true feelings about women, Romney’s spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, told the Huffington Post:

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Clearly, Romney believed that would be enough.  The press would move on to another issue and he would be off the hook once again.

Only the press didn’t move on to another issue.  Akin’s comment obviously recalled to voters the libelous statements made earlier this year by Rush Limbaugh against Georgetown University Law student Sandra Fluke.

Rush Limbaugh

In these, Limbaugh–America’s porcine version of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels–called her a “slut” and “a prostitute”  because she had urged Congress to make insurance companies cover contraception expenses.

Desperate to make the issue go away, Romney told National Review Online: ”Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong.  Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”

What Romney and his fellow Republicans truly find offensive is this:  Akin’s candid statement now threatens to deny them the power they seek to rule Americans’ lives.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

YOUR CALL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US–PART TWO

In Bureaucracy, Self-Help, Social commentary on May 27, 2010 at 10:35 pm

So you’ve spent the last half-hour or more on the phone, listening to one recorded message after another (and probably a symphony of bad music). And you’re no closer to solving the problem that caused you to phone the company/agency in the first place.

What to do?

(1) Go on the Net and look up the company’s/agency’s website. Look for links to their Board of Directors. Often enough you’ll get not only their names but their bios, phone numbers and even email addresses. A good place to start looking is at the bottom of the website page. Many companies/agencies put this information there–and usually in small print.

(2) Look for the names of officials who can help you. That means the ones at the top–or at least high enough so you can be sure that whoever responds to your call/letter/email has the necessary clout to address your problem.

(3) If you call, don’t ask to speak directly with Mr. Big–that’s not going to happen. Ask to speak with Mr. Big’s secretary, who is far more accessible.

(4) Keep your tone civil, and try to make your call as brief as possible. Don’t go into a lot of background about all the problems you’ve been having getting through to someone. Just tell her (yes, it’s usually a woman) the gist and ask her to refer you to someone who can help resolve your problem.

(5) If she says she needs more time to study the problem before referring you to someone else, be patient. Answer any questions she asks–such as your name, address, phone number and/or email.

(6) Tell her–specifically-what you want the company to do to resolve your problem. If you want a refund or repairs for your product, say so. Too many consumers don’t specify what they want the company to do–they’re so caught up in their rage and frustration that this completely escapes them.

(7) But be reasonable. If you want a refund, then don’t ask for more money than you paid for the product. If you want to return a product for an exchange, don’t expect the company to give you a new one with even more bells and whistles–unless you’re willing to pay the difference in price. If you want an agency to investigate your complaint, don’t expect them to drop everything else and do so instantly. Give them time to assess your information and that supplied by others.

(8) Remember that it’s usually possible to get one agency to sit on another–if you can make a convincing case that it’s in that secondary agency’s best interests to do so. For example, if you’ve been roughed up by local police for no good reason, you can file a complaint with that department–and you can ask the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office (federal prosecutor) to investigate. That doesn’t guarantee they will. But if you can show that the cops have violated several Federal civil rights laws, the odds are that someone will take a serious look at your complaint.

(9) If a company/agency official has acted so outrageously that the company/agency might now be held liable for his actions, don’t be afraid to say so. But don’t threaten to sue–just point out that the employee has acted in such a way as to befoul the company’s/agency’s reputation for integrity/efficiency and that the organization is not well-served by such behavior. Whoever reads your letter/email will instantly realize the legal implications of what you’re saying–and, in most cases, will take quick action to head off a lawsuit by trying to satisfy your request. The foremost priority of every bureaucracy is to ensure its own survival.

(10) Give the CEO’s secretary at least one to two days to get back to you. Remember: Resolving your problem isn’t the only task she needs to complete.

If you’re writing the CEO, make sure you use his full name and title–and that you spell both correctly. People don’t get to be CEOs without a huge sense of ego. Nothing will turn him off faster than your failing to get his name and title exactly right.

As in the case with his secretary, be brief–no more than a page and a half. Outline the problem you’re having and at least some (though not necessarily all) of the steps you’re taken to get it resolved. Then state what you want the company to do. Again, be fair and reasonable.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

YOUR CALL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US

In Bureaucracy, Social commentary on May 27, 2010 at 9:55 pm

How many times have you called a government agency or company and instantly found yourself put on hold?

As if that weren’t bad enough, you usually wind up serenaded by recorded music that would be totally forgettable if it weren’t so unforgivably irritating. And every 30 seconds or so a recorded voice comes on to assure you: “Your call is very important to us.”

Have you ever wondered: “If my call is so important to you, why aren’t you answering it?”

The truth is that most companies and government agencies don’t want their employees speaking with the customers who make their existence a reality. To have you get your questions answered by another human being requires the company/agency to hire and assign people to do just that.

Most hiring managers don’t want to hire any more people than they absolutely have to. They want to siphon off as much of the company’s profits for themselves as possible. And assigning people to answer customers’ calls means that many of those calls will take time to answer, because some problems can’t be solved in a matter of seconds. To a bean-counting executive, time is money.

Even government agencies like police departments don’t want to spend any more time than necessary taking the calls of those who need to reach them. Even calls to 911 can wind up with you talking to no one, with only a recorded message telling you to hang on until someone comes on to speak with you.

That’s why so many bureaucracies make certain that when you call for help, the first–and sometimes the only–response you get is a recorded message telling you to visit the company’s or agency’s website.

This assumes, of course, that you have a computer–and that, if you do, you also have Internet access. If you don’t have a computer, or you have a computer but don’t have Internet access, or you do have Internet access but the service is down, you’re flat out of luck.

And the agency/company couldn’t care less.

But it need not be this way. Companies and agencies can treat their customers with respect for their time and need for help.

That’s why companies that genuinely seek to address the questions and concerns of their customers reap strong customer loyalty–and the profits that go with it. One of these is LG, which produces mobile phones, TVs, audio/video appliances and computer products.

LG actually offers an 800 Customer Care number that’s good 24-hours a day. Its call center is staffed with friendly, knowledgeable people who are willing to take the time to answer customer questions and guide them through the steps of setting up the appliances they’ve bought.

Such an approach to customer service is not new–just rare these days. In his 1970 bestselling primer on business management, Up the Organization, Robert Townsend offered the following advice to company CEOs: “Call yourself up.”

“When you’re off on a business trip or a vacation,” writes Townsend, “pretend you’re a customer. Telephone some part of your organization and ask for help. You’ll run into real horror shows. Don’t blow up and ask for name, rank and serial number–you’re trying to correct, not punish. Just suggest to the manager (through channels, dummy) that he make a few test calls himself.”

So how do you cope with agencies/companies that don’t care enough to help their customers?

I’ll address that in my next column.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LIE, BABY, LIE

In Bureaucracy, Politics, Uncategorized on May 20, 2010 at 10:12 pm

….Men in general judge more by the eyes than by the hands, for every one can see, but very few have to feel. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are….
–Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Thus Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine patriot and father of modern political science, summed up the art of spin-control. And we are all fortunate that British Petroleum (BP) CEO Tony Hayward has thoroughly forgotten–if he ever knew–the truth of that statement.

In doing so, he has unintentionally opened a window on the true character of the oil industry.

On April 20, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded and sank about 40 miles southeast of the Louisiana coast. The resulting oil spill has pumped millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, with no end in sight.

And how has BP CEO Tony Hayward responded? Judge for yourself:

April 29: “What the hell did we do to deserve this?”

May 14: “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is very tiny in relation to the total water volume.”

May 18: “Everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest.”

And on May 19, when CBS tried to film a beach with heavy oil on the shore in South Pass, Louisiana, a boat of BP contractors, and two Coast Guard officers, told them to turn around, or be arrested.

“This is BP’s rules, it’s not ours,” someone aboard the boat said. Coast Guard officials told CBS that they’re looking into it.

Since the Coast Guard is a branch of the United States Armed Forces, it raises questions about collaboration between the government and BP to prevent the truth of the disaster from coming out.

The unintentionally telling statements of CEO Hayward and the Stalin-like efforts by BP to censor news about the ecological disaster it has created make this pure-water clear: It’s past time for President Obama to place tight controls over BP and its sister oil companies.

For the oil industry, fattening its pocketbook comes first and foremost. All the PR propaganda churned out by its highly-paid corporate shills counts for nothing when compared with the sheer tonage of violence done to the land, the ocean, the fishing industry and the lives of those who are entertwined with all three.

Interestingly, those who cheered on Sarah Palin in her chant of “Drill, baby, drill” during the 2008 Presidental race have fallen unexpectedly quiet. Perhaps they’re waiting for news of the oil spill and its monumental damage to go away. But that will happen only when the disaster itself fades from memory. And that isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 49 other followers

%d bloggers like this: