 |
|
Did you ever issue statements to the press on behalf of the parties? Under what circumstances?
|
|
Martin Walsh
[Full Interview] [Topic Top]
We would be the spokespersons in the dealings with
the media. The administrators and the students would not talk to the media during the
negotiations.
| Efrain Martinez
[Full Interview] [Topic Top]
For
example, in this issue in Houston, the media finally got a hold
of it because I made it public with the consent of the parties.
I did a presentation for a national panel. I knew that it was
going to hit the paper. I told them about the process and told
them we were making progress and it's going to take us another
month and right now the media is not allowed in the discussions.
But they will be fully briefed. Especially one reporter. She'd
been following the story, and at the request of one of the
leaders she didn't reveal it any sooner. There has to be
cooperation and some trust. They've got a job to do, and we've
got a job to do. We just kind of negotiate, but they can be very
helpful, the eyes and the ears of the community. Also the voice.
The people read the papers, so it's best that they get the story
right and a lot of times they don't. When they don't, they might
cause problems.
Dick Salem
[Full Interview] [Topic Top]
So we had all the issues there, everything was neatly typed up
and now we're going to have the signing ceremony. I did call the media and tell a reporter what
was happening. So in the morning paper, there would be an article in the Star or the Tribune.
The morning paper said that an agreement has been reached on ten issues and included this and
that, and didn't mention rugs or televisions. We did talk about some other things and the
important things, such as the review of disciplinary procedures. I arrived at the reformatory
found that very few people wanted to bother with the signing ceremony. The administration was
there, but the Indians boycotted it. That meant the Hispanics are boycotting it. Reluctantly, the
blacks sent one guy and one of the support groups was there.
Question:
Now why were they boycotting?
Answer:
The Indians? Because they felt it was useless, they didn't get what they wanted despite the
logic of their argument. Hispanics are their supporters. The Hispanics had only one issue. A
room had been promised them for arts and crafts. They had a kiln which had been donated, and
they wanted a crafts room. It had been promised to them prior to mediation, but somebody
reneged on the promise. I believe there were only three or four Hispanics at St. Cloud at this
time. So nobody came to the signing ceremony, and with as much grandeur as I could muster, I
walked over to the one black in there, out of the eight who were usually there, and his advisor
who was there and he signed. And the whites were there, and they signed, with the
administration and the guards and me as a witness. Then I got a call from the afternoon paper
asking me, "Did it really matter that everybody didn't sign?" The residents had been talking to
the press. I said "Absolutely not, the agreement stands." We actually delayed the signing for two
weeks because of the state’s gubernatorial election. We signed after Election Day. That's
because no governor wants either corrections or mental health in the newspapers. They just don't
want any publicity on those issues at election time. I didn't have to be told that.
Dick Salem
[Full Interview] [Topic Top]
Answer:
Well, when we went into formal mediation we would address the
press issue and it might be that all statements will be made by the mediator, by representatives of
each party, or we will jointly put out a statement after each session. Very often they would say
why don’t you talk of that and then when the agreement is announced, if there is one, have the
parties step out from the background. You don’t want to be taking their space. It’s their
victory, it’s not yours and it’s easy to want to be there.
Question:
You mentioned yesterday that reporters are often a good source of information...
Answer:
Oh, good reporters and good newspapers know what’s going on. When I was in Chicago
doing the Skokie/Nazi case, I learned the dimension of the problem at one point when Larry
Green, who was a Chicago reporter for the Los Angles Times, told me that two thousand people
had chartered seats through a travel agency to come to Skokie. That was real. People had
already reserved seats on the plane and were ready, or had put their money down, and you begin
to multiply that by the potential problem and that was important information. Or, when Doug
Kneeland of the New York Times told me that he had heard of some dissension within the ranks
with the Neo-Nazis, over whether they wanted to go to Skokie or find a way out of it. Reporters
can go in and ask questions that other people can’t. It’s impossible for me to go in and ask
them things that he could. So, as sources we would trade information and he would respect my
need for confidentiality. He was also there when I wanted to be identified when the case was
over; it didn’t do any harm to get a little bit of recognition at that point its part of helping the
agency get some visibility, too. That seldom happened in CRS because of the confidentiality and
the fear of individuals without experience working with the media. A lot of the staff just shied
away from of the press. They stayed away from the press and wouldn’t talk to them. So to me,
the most important thing other then protecting confidentiality was not being seen as taking
media space away from the parties.
I used the media strategically during the Skokie-Nazi case at the
height of the conflict when it appeared that in two weeks tens of thousands of people were going
to be converging on Skokie. We were in negotiations and I was confident the protest in Skokie
would not occur. I arranged a story through a friend who was a lawyer for the Chicago Sun
Times. He had called the managing editor and said I would give them an exclusive interview.
They one of their star reporters to my office and I gave her a story that ultimately read "A Justice
Department official who was trying to mediate a settlement in the Skokie case is confident the
matter would be settled without a demonstration at Skokie.” That sort of set a tone that
encouraged the parties to work for a solution and also discouraged people from coming into
Skokie.
Question:
Now why did you think that was going to help, as opposed to inflame things further?
Answer:
To say there's going to be a settlement?
Question:
Yeah, I could see where the Nazis had gotten up to that point with that statement.
Answer:
Well, then an alternative would be found that would satisfy them. They did want a
settlement, but they didn't know what was going to happen. I didn't either at that point. Not only
did it ease tensions of people who thought there were going to be real problems in Skokie, but
the people involved in negotiations gave a positive twist to that too.
| Leo Cardenas
[Full Interview] [Topic Top]
Sometimes the mediator will obtain permission
to be the spokesperson all the way through to a resolution. And typically say nothing. Other
than, "We met today and we looked at issues," and "We're making progress," or, "We're not
making progress." And that,
eventually, when we come to an agreement, when there is an agreement, we will help them,
through our media specialist, for a news release, or help them do a news conference. At the same
time, they will handle the interviews and we will also counsel them as to how much to say
and how much not to say.
|
|
|
|
|
