Explainer: Why the D.A. is Losing in the Court of Public Opinion

Lately, we've been hearing a lot about Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice. Unfortunately, based on how the D.A. has handled the issue, there's going to be a lot more talk.

Here, you'll find no political spin. No ax to grind. No arguments for or against family, women, nor women with families. Simply an educational turn for those wondering why, in a day and age where news changes every minute, this issue with the woman D.A. continues to have legs.

There was the news story in Newsday, telling the tale of how the newbie D.A. was ushering out the office's old-time management style which, ironically enough, was actually a progressive flex-time policy for working mothers. That announcement ushered in plenty of public reaction, which basically dubbed the D.A. to be "anti-family" and "anti-woman." The editorial in this past Sunday's New York Times echoed that theme, then noted it will take "inventiveness" to attract quality employees to work in Rice's office. Yesterday, there was an op.ed. in Newsday, written by Rice herself, which only succeeded in spawning more outcry.

The piece by Rice could have been, and should have been, the definitive manifesto of how she was creating a culture of positive change within her sphere of influence. Instead, it was a paint-by-numbers piece that clearly illustrated two things: Rice not only has completely missed the point of why she's caused a backlash against herself, she's even missed the public relations opportunity of a lifetime.

Here's the play-by-play of how Rice missed her own spin cycle, in three easy steps.

Lesson #1: Prove Your Point.

First, Rice addresses the issue of what happened. (That's good.) It's in the second paragraph of her piece, so it's high enough to be stumbled upon by most readers, even those barely interested. (It would be better if it was in the first paragraph, but in this instance, the opening paragraph serves as a prelude to the second graph.)

She then addresses her critics' charges, and denies being "anti-family" and/or "anti-woman."

"Nothing could be further from the truth," she said.

The problem?

She doesn't then, nor at any point within the piece, prove it. So, while it's admirable she's put verbiage to paper, there's really no evidence presented to convince the reader she is, in fact, pro-family or pro-woman. She does mention she's hired more women than her predecessor, but doesn't show why (could it have simply been circumstance?) or explain the importance of it.

What the reader's left with, so far, is the feeling that this woman doth protest too much.

Lesson #2: Illustrate Due Diligence.

Next, Rice chooses to explain her reasoning for eliminating flex-time schedules, and summed up her action by pointing out that "criminals do not work part time." Now, I don't know if that's true or not, and the average reader would probably shrug that one off, too, and hand the point to the D.A.

But I strongly doubt criminals punch a clock, to report in from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. If they could, they should, because that would be very convenient for the D.A.s office, under the new setup. If crime is anything like news (there are so many parallels to this one that we'll save it for a rainy day), then we know it happens at the most inconvenient times.

So the D.A.'s assertion that staff can't work part-time because criminals don't work part-time really doesn't hold much water, does it? Especially since there's no evidence, no numbers, no antidotes to show that the part-time thing just wasn't working well. More importantly, there's no evidence, no numbers and no antidotes to illustrate anticipated improvements by changing the flex-time schedule to full-time.

We do know that, human behavior being what it is, humans tend to take as much time as is given to complete a task. Therefore, it's plausible that full-time schedules won't make the office more efficient or more successful. What's missing is the argument that proves why the change will, indeed, affect positive change and is not simply the doings of a manager unskilled at managing people.

Lesson #3: The Blame Game. Just Don't Go There. Ever.

Ah, in the third and final portion of Rice's missive, we find she's saddled with problems from her predecessor's reign as well as limited by the county's fiscal predicament. Playing the Blame Game is inexcusable. When someone writes, "I do not have the luxury of hiring more staff," what the reader reads is, "Don't you feel sorry for me?" In this case, the reader's response is, "No."

Why?

The D.A.'s response focuses on keeping the scales of justice balanced, not on the humanity of the people involved in the justice system itself. In essence, humanity has taken her to task for failing to show her own humanity, and rightly so. After 700 words, it's still missing in action.

Small wonder the backlash continues to gather steam.