Discussion Post: "The Mayor's Public Relations Dilemma"
The mayor of a large Midwestern city appoints all members of city commissions, which must then be approved by the city council. A few months after being appointed, one appointee was charged and subsequently convicted of having taken a bribe to vote for giving a very lucrative contract to a particular bidder. Now the mayor is running for reelection. The mayor's opponent has used the case of the bribe taking commissioner to accuse the mayor of having run a corrupt administration. What action seems most appropriate to winning re-election?
• Place the blame on the city council for approving the appointment.
• Ignore the charge, but do point out that the mayor has appointed many commissioners who have been accused of no wrongdoing.
• Publicly declare that the mayor thought the appointee was honorable.
• Do nothing; to respond will only give more credence to a rather unsubstantiated charge.
• Point out that the mayor started the investigation that led to conviction of the corrupt commissioner.
• Or what?
The response should include a reference list. Double-space, using Times New Roman 12 pnt font, one-inch margins, and APA style of writing and citations.