Does Accountability Help Victims of Tragedy? AC Flight 621-The Impact and Reactions 40 Years Later

By Ruth Sirman, CanMediate International

As human beings, difficult and traumatic events have a way of lingering in our lives – whether it’s an accident, a conflict, a fight or a trauma. I watched the CBC documentary on the Memorial Service for the victims of the crash of AC Flight 621 in Brampton ON where 109 people died held on July 4, 2010. After 40 years this is still impacting on those affected by the crash back in 1970. This was evident by the number of family and friends who showed up for the memorial service and their apparent reactions to the 40th anniversary of the crash.

What do victims and complainants of conflict or tragedy want in this type of situation?
In my experience as a mediator, as the dust settles and people begin to cope they are looking for a genuine
1. acknowledgement of the hurt and impact of the situation on them;
2. assurance that changes are being made and steps are being taken to avoid this type of situation happening again;
3. sense that people are being honest and accountable;
4. feeling that they are being taken seriously.

These are common needs irrespective of whether the situation is one of conflict, tragedy, workplace harassment or criminal acts.

President John Kennedy understood the connection between accountability and credibility. After the Bay of Pigs, he went on national television and took responsibility for the mistakes that were made – genuinely and completely when he said something to the effect of “I made the mistake of acting on faulty intelligence and I take full responsibility.” His ratings went through the roof. We can contrast that with Richard Nixon’s half-hearted comment after Watergate when he said something like “Well it happened on my watch so I suppose it’s my responsibility”. And then there was the impeachment…

When people feel that there is a genuine effort on the part of those in authority to put these four points in place, frustration and irritation are typically replaced by respect. These actions build immense credibility, yet often there is great reluctance on the part of those in authority to even acknowledge the hurt that has been caused let alone to move to address the situation.

As for the actions taken to meet the needs of the families affected by AC621 there were significant differences in the reactions and level of involvement of some of the other players involved – notably Air Canada and those involved in the upcoming development of the crash site in Brampton.

It appeared that– the landowners, the consultants (Candevcon Consulting Limited) and the City of Brampton have put a lot of thought and energy into creating a plan to acknowledge what happened in this field so many years ago. Consultations with members of the victims’ families and discussions about appropriate ways of honouring and remembering victims created a sense in the documentary that they understood the importance of the situation and people’s need for acknowledgment and closure. It is my understanding that Air Canada was invited to participate and declined.

I wonder what discussions went on at Air Canada re whether or not representatives of the airline would attend the memorial service. Initially it appears the answer was ‘no’ followed by a reversal of position to ‘yes’ – but very last minute. So what’s wrong with that? Well I suppose there might be concerns that people would blame the airline for what happened and ask difficult questions - so isn’t it reasonable that they would be reluctant to participate? Why would they want to risk any unpleasantness? On the other hand what benefits might there be to their participation?

Often people fear any level of acknowledgment of people’s pain as an admission of responsibility or guilt. And so people are reluctant to put themselves in a position where things might get awkward and they might be expected to take responsibility. Our legal systems support being very cautious about what we say and who we talk to after an ‘incident’. And there is often a perception that if we just ignore the situation it will somehow just go away. Typically these can backfire and the opposite happens.

There is a link between acknowledgment and visibility. When I acknowledge your hurt or your pain, you know that I ‘see’ you. And I believe that when people feel there has been no acknowledgment of the impact they have experienced, they feel they are ‘invisible’ in the sense of feeling ignored, unnoticed and overlooked which may be interpreted as a sign of contempt and lack of caring. This often results in the victims feeling left out or lost. When these feelings take hold it leads to greater upset - even anger and often a commitment to work to make things right and to bring people to account. So in the long run the attempts to protect oneself or an organization can fail and create even bigger problems that just won’t go away – until that closure is achieved one way or another.

Where do we see this play out?
Whenever people have been hurt and others are going – “It’s not my/our fault”. Look at the credibility issues suffered by many political leaders… corporations… government programs such as Workmens' Safety and Insurance Board or Employment Insurance… employers… insurance companies… respondent in workplace harassment situations…family members… essentially anyone who is perceived to have caused a problem for someone else.

How can this be avoided?
1. Recognize the link between genuine acknowledgment and credibility.
2. Be willing (and take the risk) to talk to people and hear what they have to say.
3. Realize that you can’t fake ‘genuine’. People see through fake attempts at communication virtually instantly and they will not buy it and your credibility will suffer.
4. If necessary, decide in advance what you are comfortable sharing and how you will share it. Keep in mind that accurate, timely and appropriate levels of information will minimize the risks of speculation and rumours taking over.
5. If you have made a mistake or contributed to the situation, take responsibility and indicate what you are doing to fix things – your credibility will increase.

As my grandmother used to say “If you’re going to get run out of town anyhow, you might as well go to the head of the line and make it look like a parade.” She was talking about accountability and responsibility.

Which approach has the greater potential for resolving the problem?

The Conflict Resolution Workout!
Think of times when you may have been reluctant to address a situation constructively.
1. How was the situation addressed? How well did it work? (from your perspective... from the perspective of others...?)
2. Have people truly achieved closure and moved on?
3. What could you have done differently?
4. What could you do now to improve the situation?

Ruth Sirman is a veteran in the world of workplace mediation specializing in assisting groups to find practical and workable solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts. Her professional practice takes her across North America working with federal, provincial and territorial governments, corporations, NGO’s, churches, communities and the courts. She designed and teaches the acclaimed Power to Resolve Program including modules on Discovering Your Resolution Quotient, I’m OK – It’s Everyone Else Who Needs Help!!, Mastering Difficult Situations and People You Find Challenging, From Discord to Dialogue, Organziational Conflict 911. Her website is www.canmediate.com.