Be prepared: Communicating in a crisis; the success or failure of managing a crisis depends upon the ability to communicate effectively--even within a legislature.

An earthquake centered near Olympia struck two state capitols on the morning of Feb. 28, 2001. Legislators and staff in Washington's capitol found themselves huddled together under tables and in doorways during an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale. The tremors lasted less than a minute, but the quake left more than $1 billion of damage in its wake.

Included in that damage was the Washington Legislative Building. Built in 1926 and "earthquake-proofed" in the 1970s, the capitol sustained several large cracks in the dome, supporting columns were moved out of place and ceilings fell--all while the Legislature was meeting.

Due to the physical damage to the Capitol and most of the legislative offices, many legislators and members were without a place to call home. In the immediate aftermath of the tremor, Washington State Patrol officers and local law enforcement communicated via radio. However, as Washington Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles recounts, while the pieces were being put back together, legislative leaders had to find creative means to communicate with their members. Where would the Legislature convene? How would the public contact their representatives? When would the legislative process begin again?

"The Department of General Administration, along with the secretary of the Senate and the chief clerk's offices were constantly communicating with members, staff and the general public via meetings, phone calls, e-mails, press releases and even Web pages," she said.

Farther south in Salem, Ore., the tremor struck as both the Senate and the House were convened for their daily sessions. The decorum in the legislative chambers changed rather rapidly says Legislative Administrator Dave Henderson. Legislators and staff didn't know whether to evacuate or to stay put. They were [MISSING TEXT FROM ORIGINAL PUBLISHER].

"The chambers for the House and Senate are some of the most earthquake-vulnerable areas in our capitol, so the leaders were looking for direction on whether we needed to evacuate the building," Henderson said. "By communicating via radio, we were able to direct an immediate inspection of the ceilings over the chambers and determine that they were structurally sound. We were able to communicate that to the leaders right away, along with a recommendation that there was no need to evacuate. Session was able to continue uninterrupted."

This is crisis communications. The concept is not a new one. With the advent of new technologies, however, planning for a crisis and knowing what to do beforehand have become more important. The Internet, 24-hour news programs, pagers, cell phones and personal digital assistants have created a way of life where people can receive news virtually any time and anywhere.

Being able to identify a crisis is the single most important aspect. But successful communications depends on several factors, not the least of which is developing a positive communications atmosphere within an organization and devising a plan to put into action when a disaster develops. When that organization is the legislature or one of its subgroups, communications can be very complex, and the potential for calamity can range from natural to political disaster.

CREATING A COMMUNICATIONS CULTURE

The success or failure of managing an emergency begins even before it occurs, says Francis J. Marra, a consultant in crisis management. He theorizes that the amount of flexibility given to public information officers and the "communication culture" within a legislature goes a long way to minimizing fallout.

What Marra means is that there has to be an emphasis on communications throughout the institution whether it is the legislature itself or a legislative caucus, staff office or a specific delegation or caucus within the legislature such as a black caucus or a delegation of rural lawmakers. To create a practical and effective communications culture, it is imperative that legislative public information officers be an integral part of crisis response planning. That way, Marra suggests, presiding officers, legislators, legislative staff and everyone involved with the operations of the institution will know what to expect from the communications team and vice versa. The information professional will know what can be disseminated and what should not, because the institution's philosophy has been predetermined.

CRISIS PLANNING

There certainly doesn't have to be an earthquake to shake a legislature. During the 2000 presidential election controversy, the Florida Legislature was thrust into the limelight to try to protect its 25 electoral votes while the world looked on. Representative Tom Feeney, a Republican, was two weeks away from officially being sworn in as House speaker. He knew he was going to be in the center of controversy.

Feeney quickly put together a public relations team that would help guide the House through the ensuing storm.

"It was three weeks of chaos," says Kimberly Stone, the speaker's communications director. Galls were coming in from not only the state press corps, but from national and international reporters. On the day after Thanksgiving, Speaker Feeney received more than 500 press inquiries--including a personal plea for an interview from Diane Sawyer--and even more e-mails.

Stone and Feeney developed a strict and consistent message based on the legal and constitutional facts surrounding the controversy to reassure the American public that the Florida House was prepared to act with integrity and without partiality. To maintain the veracity of their message, they were to be the sole spokesmen for the House. However, they wanted their message to be backed by experts who could justify the House's actions-a common practice recommended by many communications experts.

"I wanted to look like the umpire who would make official and procedural announcements," says Feeney. "We made sure we got the best advice from the best constitutional lawyers."

Despite Speaker Feeney's attempt to stay above the political fray, the Democratic Party tried to portray him as just another tool of then Texas Governor George Bush, the Republican nominee for president. To counter this strategy, Feeney employed other members of the House Republican leadership to toe the party line.

PREPARATION IS KEY

Florida is not alone. Public policy crises, security breaches, ethics violations, natural disasters and political attacks are all something most legislatures and legislators have been forced to confront at one point or another. The possibilities of crisis situations are endless. So how do communications professionals go about planning for the aftermath of these situations?

In addition to creating a communications culture, many professionals recommend that a legislature, caucus or individual lawmaker have a crisis communications plan. If implemented correctly, it can help minimize any damage that may arise.

"Preparation is a huge key," says the Florida speaker.

The development of such a plan is perhaps just as important as its implementation. Development requires lawmakers to evaluate the operations of the legislative institution. This allows leaders to identify the intended recipients of the communications-the key audience.

Most crises that a legislature deals with are political in nature-an ethics violation, an urgent public policy issue or attacks from political opponents. These particular situations require legislative leaders or other crisis managers to speak to an external audience. Usually the goal of communicating during these crises is to mitigate the negative perception of the institution with the public.

However, as we saw in Washington and Oregon, legislatures are also required to communicate internally. A natural disaster or breach of security would require an effective communications plan to keep members of a legislative "family" safe and informed during a crisis.

By identifying these key audiences, public information officers and legislative leaders are able to establish the nuts and bolts of the communications plan:

* Designate a crisis manager: Appoint someone who will serve as the spokesman to the media and the public. A crisis manager must not only be able to communicate the message effectively, but also should have a level of credibility that is reassuring.

* Establish lines of communication: How will the information get to the crisis manager?

* Determine your resources: What other resources are available to communicate with members of the media, public, legislature? Internet, e-mail, etc.?

* Create general guidelines: Pay special attention to those even more likely to occur than others--such as political attacks, ethics violations or breaches of security.

Although a crisis communications plan can be a valuable tool, it's no good unless it's tested, according to Larry Smith, president of the Institute for Crisis Management.

"A crisis communication plan is only as effective as the person who is going to execute it," he says. "We like to see a table-top exercise of the plan before it is actually implemented."

A dry run will allow the communications team to work out the kinks and mend the breaks in the chain of communication or increase response time. Practice also allows plan developers to understand the necessity for flexibility.

The Oregon Legislative Assembly was prepared for a crisis such as the earthquake because it had developed a plan to deal with the potential problems with the Y2K computer issue, which it could follow equally as well for a natural disaster. So when the 2001 quake struck, Dave Henderson "was on the radio right away to the risk management officer, who directed the inspection of the facilities."

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Openness, accessibility, responsiveness and trust-these are all qualities that constituents have come to expect from their legislatures. During a crisis, it is critical that these qualities drive the information that gets to the public. Otherwise, the crisis will have a dramatic effect on the credibility of the legislative institution.

In Washington, citizens wanted to be assured that their Legislature was going to be able to carry out its business. In Oregon, legislators and staff needed to know that it was safe to continue the process. And in Florida, everyone in the world had to be certain that the next president of the United States was going to be selected fairly.

When a disaster strikes, the crisis management team is responsible for developing the message that is going to be communicated to other legislators, staff, the public and the media depending on the crisis. This doesn't mean playing fast and loose with the facts. Quite the opposite, good communication involves laying it all on the table. The public wants to know who, what, when, how and where. And they want to know as soon as possible.

Developing a core message and speaking with one voice is vital, but it is equally important to tell people what is going to be done to fix the problem. Personnel changes or the introduction of new legislation, whatever the remedy may be, needs to be done swiftly and surely.

"It's not about saying the right thing. The challenge is doing the right thing," Smith says. "If you've got a problem, you've got to fix it."

RELATED ARTICLE: GIULIANI: THAT'S ITALIAN FOR JEWEL OF NEW YORK 

When most people hear the name Rudy Giuliani, they think of 9/11. For me, his defining moment occurred a month later on Oct. 11 That's the day he refused to stomach Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal's critique of America's support of Israel in exchange for a $10 million check.

Until then he had proved himself to be perhaps the best crisis manager in history since Churchill, calmly taking command of the response and recovery initiatives within his control while resisting the temptation to wring his hands and waste time over matters beyond his control.

Within minutes after the attack on the World Trade towers, he became a whirling dervish, holding press briefings to reassure us that we'd get through this, then directing security and rescue operations, as well as visiting hospitals to comfort families of the injured and missing.

But that was not all. He wanted New Yorkers and the whole world to see that, while bloodied, New York was not about to bow to terrorists. The mayor prodded the New York Stock Exchange to resume trading and major league baseball to "play ball." It was time to get on with our lives, and who better than Rudy Giuliani to say so?

Here was a guy with more than enough on his plate in early September: lame duck; tabloids brimming with tales of his marital problems; the trauma of prostate cancer; and the agony and exhaustion stemming from his radiation therapy. After the tragedy, people all over the tristate area considered him an inspiration. If he can attend hundreds of wakes and funerals and serve as the poster child for our grit and fortitude, we said, then the least we can do is prove him right by showing the world that we are everything he claims us to be.

So we followed his lead, overcoming our shock and numbness and fear as we redefined the meaning of normalcy. He helped us shed decades of cynicism and allowed us to enjoy the adrenaline rush of patriotism. Which brings me back to the turning point--Oct. 11 .That's the day that transformed him from one of the world's extraordinary mayors into the world's mayor. And it's the day he stopped being just a superb crisis manager and became a global leader.

I'd go so far as to say that by telling the prince what to do with his check, Rudy Giuliani set in motion a series of actions that have led Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah in recent days to extend an unprecedented olive branch to Israel. Now that's leadership under fire with crisis response management results galore to show for it.

Having dealt with scores of client crises during the past 30 years, I've witnessed a lot of situations handled well and some not so well. The key to success usually involves decisive action--gathering facts quickly, laying out a plan of action and communicating with key audiences, rapidly, accurately, and over and over again.

That's what enables organizations, whether governmental or business, to avoid the single biggest pitfall of crisis communications--an information vacuum. There's a perishable time following any crisis when the affected organization has the opportunity to brand itself as either the victim or villain of the piece. By showing that you've reacted responsibly, quickly and sensitively to the situation, people will be inclined to consider you as the former. By fretting and delaying and refusing to take center stage, you can be sure that others will. And you can bet they won't be your friends.

So if you're looking for a crisis communications standard to live by, put a picture of Rudy on your office wall and consider him as your muse whenever trouble strikes. And whenever future "princes" come calling to tell you how you should have handled your crises don't be afraid to tell them what to do with their advice--and their checks.

Peter S. McCue, Fleishman-Hillard, New York

William Wyatt is NCSL's public affairs officer in the Washington, D.C., office.