The New York Law Journal reports that the Public Relations Society of America and its COO Catherine Bolton are pursuing a lawsuit against a former PRSA employee who sent what he or she thought was an anonymous e-mail about Bolton to members of the board of directors.
Though there has been some coverage in subscription-only Jack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, the only other mentions on the Internet are a note by PR executive Ken Kerrigan in a blog posting June 24 that doesn't offer many details, and the New York Law Journal report.
The Law Journal says Bolton won a court action to have a Time-Warner-owned Internet service provider reveal the identity of the person whose e-mail account was used to send the critical e-mail. However, the PRSA as an organization was turned down in its request, so if the suit proceeds, the PRSA is unlikely to be a direct party to it.
The ISP didn't make a court appearance, but a lawyer for the anonymous e-mailer argued against releasing the information.
Says the Law Journal:
The e-mail stated, among other things, that the Public Relations Society of America's director Catherine A. Bolton "is a fast-talking nonstrategic PR person. She cannot manage or lead an organization. Her quarterly reports to staff are garbage, often met with rolling eyes," according to Justice Kibbie F. Payne's decision, Public Relations Society of America v. Road Runner High Speed Online, 116210/04.
Getting the name of the person who controlled the e-mail account is a precursor to a defamation suit, the Law Journal reports.
Comments Kerrigan:
I fail to understand how concerns about the performance of a senior officer at an organization sent anonymously to board members could negatively impact governance, as PRSA has publicly stated as a cause for their concern. Isn't such "whistle blowing" and the response such a communication receives from a board a test of effective governance in the first place?
In an interesting twist, their pursuit of the e-mailer's identity has caused quotes from the e-mail to be published. You would think they would want to limit the distribution of the contents of the e-mail. The PRSA doesn't appear to have any information about the pending lawsuit on its web site, which is similar to the low profile maintained by the International Association of Business Communicators when their former CEO Elizabeth Allen sued acting president Lou Williams for defamation.
I can't imagine a situation where a public lawsuit about an e-mail between an employee of the organization and its board members will improve the PRSA's image. Some organizations encourage feedback on their leadership, and accept the occasional poisoned pen letter as part of the anonymous feedback process.
I guess that's not the case with the PRSA.
Comments