Social media and plausible deniability
It's no secret that for years government agencies have used euphemisms such "sources close to the investigation" or "source who asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak for the agency" to leak insider information to the media. This allows the agency to distance itself from any political fallout if the information proves incorrect or if there is public outrage. After all, the information was "unauthorized". However, social media may be putting a new twist on this method.
Last week the state of California's lead investigator for the recent Chevron refinery fire posted comments on his Facebook page critical of the US Chemical Safety Board. The investigator, Clyde Trombetttas, who serves as the Northern California district director for the state's refinery safety program, accused the USCSB of political grandstanding by releasing information prematurely to the media. For example. Trombettas claims that recent statements by the USCSB saying that an idling diesel fire truck was not the source of ignition were made before a physical examination of the vehicle and that suggestions of corrosion in the damaged pipeline that caused the fire were made before any review of plant safety records.
Normally, the posting on social media sites of information related to an ongoing investigation or that could affect inter-agency cooperation is the sort of activity that is expressly forbidden by social media policies. In this case, however, the California Division of Occupational Health and Safety, Trombettas' parent agency, has declined to comment, noting that the comments were made on Trombettas' personal page.
So the question is, is Cal OSHA using Trombettas as a stalking horse to get its problems with the USCSB out in the open or was he acting on his own? Trombettas Facebook page is no longer open to the public but there is nothing yet to indicate that he has been disciplined or replaced as lead investigator. If Trombettas acted on his own, it demonstrates the use of social media as a public voice for those frustrated with bureaucracy. However, if Trombettas acted with the complicity of his superiors at Cal OSHA, it suggests a game change in plausible deniability for government agencies.
Either way, Cal OSHA may want to review its social media policies.