Syracuse University officials keep comments about 2005 investigation report to a minimum
Expert says publication of report could have negative effects
Syracuse University officials continue to withhold comment after the publication of the university’s 2005 investigation into child molestation allegations against Bernie Fine.
The 15-page report, which SU officials announced would not be released, was obtained by The Post-Standard and published on June 10. It was discovered that the length of the investigation was shorter than originally indicated and multiple names in the investigation were misspelled.
In December, Chancellor Nancy Cantor said the university would not release the document in efforts to protect the privacy of those involved, to not impede ongoing investigations by authorities and to allow an external review of the investigation by a New York City law firm to be carried out.
Kevin Quinn, senior vice president for public affairs, said in an email on behalf of Richard Thompson, chairman of the Board of Trustees, that he could not comment on the issue because a special committee of the board is currently reviewing the way in which the university investigated in 2005.
Cantor appeared on “The Jim Reith Show” on WCNY-TV on June 11 and was asked about the publication of the 2005 report. From her perspective, she said, protecting the confidentiality of the people involved in the university’s 2005 investigation was important.
“We can’t really do investigations thoroughly and comprehensively if people don’t feel they can discuss with us in candor and straightforwardness, so that’s the bottom line,” Cantor said.
As a learning institution, Cantor said, SU officials also want to learn from what was done and figure out where to go.
Jim Haggerty, president and CEO of The PR Consulting Group and an expert in litigations and crisis communication, said in an email the release of the investigation could negatively affect the university’s reputation.
“If it appears that only public pressure or a leak made you release the report, and the report is critical, there will be a reputation stench that is hard to overcome,” he said. “In many, many high-profile cases, it is the cover-up, not the crime, that causes the real damage.”
The PR Consulting Group advises those conducting internal investigations to do so carefully and thoroughly to uncover the truth, Haggerty said. The mistakes in the 2005 report could bode badly for the university.
“Mistakes and misinformation regarding basic facts may not change the substance of an investigation, but it certainly changes the way the investigation is perceived,” Haggerty said.
He said there is no steadfast rule for when such internal investigations should be released to the public and that for confidentiality reasons, such reports often should not be released.
“But organizations should err on the side of transparency ― particularly in the age of the Internet, where it is increasingly difficult to keep information from public eyes,” he said. “If it’s going to come out eventually, better to make sure it comes out on your terms.”
Published on June 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Contact Casey: cffabris@syr.edu | @caseyfabris
