OKC Archdiocese - McAfee & Taft - whoa

[Mr. Blue Sky]

It’s Labor Day weekend, but did anybody see the Oklahoman article on the way too cozy relationship between the OKC Catholic archdiocese and the law firm they hired to do the “independent investigation?” There’s so much wrong with how they are handling this, not sure where to start. Wow.
Definitely worth the read. I can’t believe I’m recommending something at The Oklahoman. But, it IS Ben Felder. I was just complaining how they don’t have any real investigative reporting anymore. This ain’t bad.

https://oklahoman.com/article/564013...-investigation

[Ian Drake]

The Catholic church needs to be shut down and all of the assets sold off to actually, you know, help the poor!! How can anyone even consider being catholic these days? I guess as long as there are republicans there will be Catholics.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ what a ridiculous statement

[5alive]

^^^Agree!

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Yeah, Ian, I don’t think that’s going to happen. I have to agree with the other two.

What gets me is how the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City can turn its looking into sex abuse by priests over to a law firm for an “independent investigation” where the the son of the diocesan Chancellor is a partner! Do they think we are stupid? The timeline where the son, Christopher Scaperlanda, is made partner right before his dad is named Chancellor of the OKC Archdiocese and then a few months later, the Chancellor, Michael Scaperlanda, and Archbishop Coakley announce an “independent investigation” will be conducted by the same law firm where his son was just named partner! I mean, that contract must have been worth a mint and the son is profiting and they tell us there’s nothing to see here.

Especially at this point in time, Oklahoma City Catholic leaders should do everything they can to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Instead, they do something that is just so galling and expect US to feel ashamed that we could possibly think there could be anything askew here! It’s the definition of arrogance.

Will they ever learn?

[Pete]

Ben Felder does a good job but that's not investigative reporting; It's one group making claims about another with a few facts thrown in.

Investigative reporting involves a ton of research, usually over the long-term.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Ben Felder does a good job but that's not investigative reporting; It's one group making claims about another with a few facts thrown in.

Investigative reporting involves a ton of research, usually over the long-term.

You are absolutely right. I got so caught up in the story itself I thought this was an investigation by The Oklahoman. I see now, I feel kinda stupid. But the story itself does tell us enough, with facts, that this conflict of interest is so glaring, and makes me wonder how Archbishop Coakley has any credibility at all after this year-long fiasco. And to find out this so called independent investigation has close family ties. No other group in the world could get away with this kind of duplicity. Makes one wonder what we CAN trust Coakley with. He stood there a year ago and lied by omission!
It’s galling. But Pete, you are right The Oklahoman didn’t engage in any investigative journalism and I’m embarrassed that I gave them credit.

[Pete]

^

Haha... I didn't mean to be harsh.

Just pointing out that real investigative journalism takes months with no guarantee it will lead anywhere.

I have 5-6 stories I've been working for a long time... One over several years now.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

^

Haha... I didn't mean to be harsh.

Just pointing out that real investigative journalism takes months with no guarantee it will lead anywhere.

I have 5-6 stories I've been working for a long time... One over several years now.

Oh no, it wasn’t harsh. You were just correcting me and I’m glad you did. Strange that the best (real!) investigative reporting in years involved this same thing. Boston Globe. Spotlight.

[Pete]

Julie Brown of the Miami Herald worked for years on exposing the truth about Jeffrey Epstein which led to his recent arrest.

Rich people are very hard to pin down due to their massive legal resources which aides their ability to conceal and hide things they don't want seen.

You usually only find out about big schemes once they collapse (like Bernie Madoff).

[Midtowner]

Yeah, Ian, I don’t think that’s going to happen. I have to agree with the other two.

What gets me is how the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City can turn its looking into sex abuse by priests over to a law firm for an “independent investigation” where the the son of the diocesan Chancellor is a partner! Do they think we are stupid? The timeline where the son, Christopher Scaperlanda, is made partner right before his dad is named Chancellor of the OKC Archdiocese and then a few months later, the Chancellor, Michael Scaperlanda, and Archbishop Coakley announce an “independent investigation” will be conducted by the same law firm where his son was just named partner! I mean, that contract must have been worth a mint and the son is profiting and they tell us there’s nothing to see here.

Especially at this point in time, Oklahoma City Catholic leaders should do everything they can to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Instead, they do something that is just so galling and expect US to feel ashamed that we could possibly think there could be anything askew here! It’s the definition of arrogance.

Will they ever learn?

To be fair, it is perfectly possible that this could be handled in an ethical manner. Simply because a managing partner is the son of a high ranking executive means that, ethically speaking, he would simply have to be excluded from any information and decision making regarding this particular task. McAfee Taft is the second largest firm in the State next to the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, so I'm sure they would have the manpower to walk and chew gum, i.e., allow their managing partner to manage the firm while an independent team does their work without involving that partner.

Do remember though that the Archdiocese is the client of McAfee Taft, and the firm has no duty to disclose their findings to the public and no duty to have any sort of independent investigation. Those words carry zero legal impetus. If I were to advise the Archdiocese, this is exactly what I would advise them to do--perform an independent investigation, get the results, then make decisions on what to do with those results. One option would definitely be to conclude that there are no results as far as the public is concerned. There may be that there is never a written report because it would be problematic to create such a thing when it might be obtained in discovery at some point through the crime-fraud exception to the attorney client privilege.

But really, this story isn't evidence of anything. It's just some outside groups, not necessarily privy to any information, gritching that they don't think this process is independent or transparent. They're entitled to their opinions. Other than that, aside from the fact that McAfee Taft has been hired to do some kind of internal investigation of the Archdiocese and that outside groups don't like the setup, what other information is there here?

It is important to remember that McAfee Taft's legal responsibility is to their client. Not the public. Not victims of abuse.

And let's attempt to be fair to the Catholic Church. While yes, some children and adults have been abused by predators who were able to use the apparatus of the Church to perpetrate their crimes and get away with them, the Church probably spends more than any other Church in the country for charitable works and organizations like Catholic Charities, Knights of Columbus, etc.

[Of Sound Mind]

To be clear, a quick check of their website shows that the son is neither managing partner/director nor on the board of directors managing the firm. In fact, he's not even listed among the Practice Group or Industry Group leaders.

There seems to be a lot of "facts" being thrown around as "factual" when they may not be factual at all.

[Plutonic Panda]

Will this affect the church being built at SW 89th and Shields? I hope not.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

To be fair, it is perfectly possible that this could be handled in an ethical manner. Simply because a managing partner is the son of a high ranking executive means that, ethically speaking, he would simply have to be excluded from any information and decision making regarding this particular task. McAfee Taft is the second largest firm in the State next to the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, so I'm sure they would have the manpower to walk and chew gum, i.e., allow their managing partner to manage the firm while an independent team does their work without involving that partner.

Do remember though that the Archdiocese is the client of McAfee Taft, and the firm has no duty to disclose their findings to the public and no duty to have any sort of independent investigation. Those words carry zero legal impetus. If I were to advise the Archdiocese, this is exactly what I would advise them to do--perform an independent investigation, get the results, then make decisions on what to do with those results. One option would definitely be to conclude that there are no results as far as the public is concerned. There may be that there is never a written report because it would be problematic to create such a thing when it might be obtained in discovery at some point through the crime-fraud exception to the attorney client privilege.

But really, this story isn't evidence of anything. It's just some outside groups, not necessarily privy to any information, gritching that they don't think this process is independent or transparent. They're entitled to their opinions. Other than that, aside from the fact that McAfee Taft has been hired to do some kind of internal investigation of the Archdiocese and that outside groups don't like the setup, what other information is there here?

It is important to remember that McAfee Taft's legal responsibility is to their client. Not the public. Not victims of abuse.

And let's attempt to be fair to the Catholic Church. While yes, some children and adults have been abused by predators who were able to use the apparatus of the Church to perpetrate their crimes and get away with them, the Church probably spends more than any other Church in the country for charitable works and organizations like Catholic Charities, Knights of Columbus, etc.

Midtowner, With all due respect, you are mistaken on several things in the above.

The Archdiocese was fulfilling a promise to make all files of priests viably accused of sexual abuse to be made public. The question of whether it was going to be made public was never a question. The Archdiocese contracted with McAfee & Taft one year ago to do a review and further investigation. This was all for the expressed purpose of handing it all over to the laity and the public. It was promised within 12 weeks. It has now been 53 weeks since the announcement on 08-28-2018. Nobody was expecting M&T to release anything, laity and the public-at-large was expecting the Archdiocese to release the information, as promised. Archbishop Coakley said they would do so on a special web page made for that purpose.

For you to try and make sense of the selection of M&T for this "independent review" is appaling. This entire crisis which has swept the country and the world, has been met with efforts to stonewall all of the chicanery used in shuttling abusive priests around, pay off accusers with hush money, the list is endless. When they are supposed to be doing things to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, selecting the law firm where the Chancellor of the Archdiocese (top legal peron) has a son who is partner, and was made partner just months before the contract was given to M&T for this purpose, is hardly anything that anybody can justify. They could be totally on the up and up and it still doesn't pass the test of appearance of impropriety. There are a LOT of law firms in OKlahoma City.

It's not "some kind" of investigation. It was all laid out publicly one year and one week ago.

Let's be fair to the church? Are you kidding? Maybe the single largest, richest entity in the world is not the victim here. Laying out good things the church has done has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Why would you say this? Should any criminal who has raped 15 children (hypothetically) expect for people to be "fair" to them because they volunteered at a hospital or food bank or gave lots of money to charity? We should be fair to him because of that? Misdirection. No passes are given on child rape and molestation because the orginization has done some good things before. Here is a link that I just received word of a little bit ago that might bring you up to speed. It's clear there were some things you didn't understand before you wrote your post. That's ok, but now that you do know, I would hope you could be fair to the victims of sexual abuse and not make excuses for the Catholic Church. This story hit me hard, because I am one of those people. Long time ago, misuse of authority, in the name of all things holy, and it's caused me pain for years. I've only told a few and I have never sought money. I only expect to see justice. Why is that so hard?
https://justpaste.me/okcarchtruth

[Mr. Blue Sky]

To be clear, a quick check of their website shows that the son is neither managing partner/director nor on the board of directors managing the firm. In fact, he's not even listed among the Practice Group or Industry Group leaders.

There seems to be a lot of "facts" being thrown around as "factual" when they may not be factual at all.

There is a digital trail these days. https://www.mcafeetaft.com/mcafee-ta...eholders-2018/

[Of Sound Mind]

There is a digital trail these days. https://www.mcafeetaft.com/mcafee-ta...eholders-2018/

I didn't say he wasn't a shareholder. However, shareholder does not mean managing the firm.

But when you are looking for a conclusion when there is little more than conjecture at this point betrays your overt bias.

So I won't bother trying to dedicate the effort others have made to try to help put context to the whole picture.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I didn't say he wasn't a shareholder. However, shareholder does not mean managing the firm.

But when you are looking for a conclusion when there is little more than conjecture at this point betrays your overt bias.

So I won't bother trying to dedicate the effort others have made to try to help put context to the whole picture.

He is a partner in the firm. Period. Everything else is gloss. Just the fact they chose a law firm where the Chancellor’s son is a practicing attorney is bad enough.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

And for non-Catholics, who may not know, the Chancellor of an Archdiocese is the top legal adviser and counsel to the Archbishop. That’s for context that makes this all so egregious. And the fact that Scaperlanda the son over at M&T has personally done work for Coakley before. There’s so many red flags here, I am actually shocked there are people trying to defend the indefensible. What part of “avoid even the appearance of impropriety” mean if it doesn’t include the Archbishop and the Chancellor handing over the sex abuse “independent investigation” over to a firm where Chancellor’s son is partner? I mean, really!

@Plutonic Panda, no worries. One has nothing to do with the other. The shrine will be beautiful.

[Plutonic Panda]

@Plutonic Panda, no worries. One has nothing to do with the other. The shrine will be beautiful.

I am glad to hear about the Shrine. I am excited for this development just as much as I am for projects like OAK.

[Rover]

Why don’t we see what is in the report before we damn it and everyone associated with it.

[Dob Hooligan]

Why don’t we see what is in the report before we damn it and everyone associated with it.

I would suggest that any benefit of the doubt is no longer available to the church. And it is based solely upon their actions over the last half century.

[Rover]

I would suggest that any benefit of the doubt is no longer available to the church. And it is based solely upon their actions over the last half century.

Lol. There have been people wanting to shut down the Catholic Church for centuries, not decades.

So, if we are to shut down institutions that contain bad actors, let’s shut down schools, political parties, all churches, many, many companies, the NRA, virtually every government (including our own Pres) and on, and on, and on.

[TheTravellers]

Lol. There have been people wanting to shut down the Catholic Church for centuries, not decades.

So, if we are to shut down institutions that contain bad actors, let’s shut down schools, political parties, all churches, many, many companies, the NRA, virtually every government (including our own Pres) and on, and on, and on.

Not being Catholic (or really religious, for that matter), I'd say that the Catholic Church has been one of the most egregious of them for decades, if not centuries, so yeah, not much benefit of a doubt is going to be forthcoming from a lot of people. They're leagues beyond the "bad actors" of the NRA, schools, etc.

[Rover]

Not being Catholic (or really religious, for that matter), I'd say that the Catholic Church has been one of the most egregious of them for decades, if not centuries, so yeah, not much benefit of a doubt is going to be forthcoming from a lot of people. They're leagues beyond the "bad actors" of the NRA, schools, etc.

Don’t know if they are leagues above. They certainly have had more attention thrown on them and more people vested in bringing them down. The abuse issue is serious and needs rooted out in the Catholic Church and everywhere. No way can the bad actors be defended. They deserve the harshest punishment possible. But there is a big difference in getting them out and shutting down a faith, which many of their enemies would like to see happen. But that would be like shutting down the Baptist faith because of their followers in the south historically being KKK members.

[jerrywall]

Not being Catholic (or really religious, for that matter), I'd say that the Catholic Church has been one of the most egregious of them for decades, if not centuries, so yeah, not much benefit of a doubt is going to be forthcoming from a lot of people. They're leagues beyond the "bad actors" of the NRA, schools, etc.

Exactly. And it's not just having bad actors, but that the church as a whole spent decades and millions protecting and covering up for these bad actors. If I was Catholic that fact that money I had donated to the church likely contributed to covering for sex abusers would be enough for me to completely walk away.