Louisville's Metro Council -- And Voters -- Just Don't Get It

Sometimes a crisis should be a crisis but isn't. That's the case of Barbara Shanklin and Metro Louisville Council (Kentucky).

The Courier-Journal reported Shanklin's grandson, Gary Bohler, was paid by taxpayers at least three times when he spent the day in jail, and for years while he was a fugitive with active warrants for his arrest. Shanklin at first said her grandson was still working for her, then that he was suspended with pay, and then that he was fired. She handily won her primary re-election challenge last Tuesday.

But the week before the primaries,  Bohler's lengthy arrest record on drug, robbery, and firearms charges, his 2006 felony drug conviction, and his recent arrest on a domestic violence charge over an alleged rampage at the home of an ex-girlfriend should have been a crisis for incumbent Shanklin, who defended her grandson as someone who needed a job to turn things around.

"Also unfolding were embarrassing details of how Mr. Bohler collected a city paycheck on occasions when he appeared to be otherwise engaged — once in jail and another time, as a fugitive from an arrest warrant. Ms. Shanklin, who initially defended her grandson, mercifully ended the spectacle Tuesday by deciding 'to go ahead and release him' from his $25-an-hour job. Now it’s up to the entire Metro Council to avoid future spectacles by adopting a real nepotism policy that bans hiring relatives." (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012305190033)

You would think Louisville Metro Council would have known better about nepotism. I wrote here numerous times about another metro council person, Judy Green. On September 9, I wrote, "The Metro Ethics Commission recommended unanimously Green should be removed from office because she intentionally violated four sections of the city's ethics law. She is accused of a conflict of interest in running the Green Clean Team last summer. This is a valuable initiative that gave jobs to teens for clean-up and beautification projects. However, she has been accused of using her official position 'to secure unwarranted privileges for herself or family; paid family members more than others doing the same job; and had personal involvement in the program to the point that it impaired her objectivity.'"

Nevertheless, the council did nothing about nepotism. It looked the other way when it learned that Shanklin hired a convicted felon, then promoted him without posting the position because "he was most qualified."
And now the Louisville voters have virtually put the Democrat back in office for another term. Judy Green was drummed out of office because she hired family members to pick up trash. Barbara Shanklin is riding high, despite hiring her grandson the felon and paying him about twice as much as my wife receives as a metro employee.

Perhaps this smoldering crisis will rise up to bite Shanklin in the behind. The more likely  scenario, based on her 20-percentage-points primary win, is that Shanklin will avoid a crisis and Metro Council will proceed with business as usual without any nepotism ban.

News Journalism Faster, Ethics Not So Much

It has become a cliche: The more things change, the more things stay the same. Larry Smith, Institute for Crisis Management, pointed out changes in communications in the past 50 years:

"When I began my newspaper career in 1962, I had 24-hours from one deadline to the next. In 1969 I moved to radio news and had a deadline every 30 minutes. In 1976, I moved to TV news and had a deadline about every four to five hours and it took at least an hour to process the film.

"About 1979, microwave technology came along and I could go live from about anywhere. In 1984, I was news director of a TV station in South Bend, Ind., that bought one of the first satellite trucks in the country.

"With all of the technological advancements I have seen in my 50-year career, I am sorry to say the ethics and motivation of today's so-called journalists has not kept up." 

(http://www.pjstar.com/business/x2069499445/Business-Q-A-Larry-Smith?zc_p=1)

Happy Days Are Here Again at JPMorgan -- Or So It May Seem

Honey, everything's coming up roses and daffodils!
Everything's coming up sunshine and Santa Claus!
Everything's gonna be bright lights and lollipops!
Everything's coming up roses for me and for you!
(From Gypsy Soundtrack)

That's the rush I get when I read JPMorgan's website. It's all rainbows and puppy dogs. But those puppy dogs bite. See the company website's anemic releases at http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/releases.cfm?NavSection=.

In my previous blog post, I praised JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon for taking the blame for a $2 billion goof; not a personal blame, but an institutional mia culpa. Hat in hand and head bowed, he saved his job at Tuesday's corporate annual meeting.

"J.P. Morgan’s annual meeting in Tampa, Fla. lasted less than an hour and included little of the drama that some might have expected days after the company took a surprise $2.3 billion trading loss.

Bloomberg News

"As chairman and CEO, Jamie Dimon ran the show, and while he faced a couple questions about his handling of the company’s Chief Investment Office and its $2.3 billion in trading losses, the meeting was generally docile. Dimon, not one to shy away from questions, actually remained silent while shareholders took to their soap boxes, and responded only when directly addressed. And even then the responses were short." (http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/05/15/live-blogging-j-p-morgans-annual-meeting/?mod=google_news_blog)

Typical comments went like this:

“Fifteen months ago, you shared your disappointment at mistakes that your company has made on the foreclosure debacle. ... We’ve heard the same refrain: We have learned from our mistakes; this will never be allowed to happen again. ... Three nights ago, we heard you describe the latest lapse in oversight. On ‘Meet the Press,’ you said there were ‘warning signs’ and ‘red flags,’ yet management didn’t respond until it was $2 billion too late. ... We are all weary of mistakes, and as shareholders we will continue to hold you to a very high standard. I can’t help wondering if you are listening and hearing the many voices that have been speaking out recently.” (Father Seamus Finn, on behalf of shareholders representing the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/dimon-gets-an-earful-shareholder-voices-from-jpmorgan-chase-annual-meeting/2012/05/15/gIQAjwj1RU_story.html)

In the end, Dimon kept his job. The JPMorgan website remains an Alfred E. Newman "What? Me ?Worry?" model, thanks to his loyal board members. Another example:

"The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees proposed that Mr. Dimon resign his post as chairman and that JPMorgan set up an independent chair. Arguing for that position, the union said that it boiled down to preventing “an inherent conflict of interest” where 'Mr. Dimon is monitoring his own performance.'

"The board recommended against the proposal." (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/live-blog-jpmorgans-annual-meeting/)

It's business as usual at JPMorgan. Too bad.

Confessions of the JPMorgan CEO Were Necessary and Welcome

I'm about to do something that pretty much no one else would dare to do. I'm going to say something nice about JPMorgan.

I watch far too many CEOs who add to crises by denying, ignoring, or blaming others. Not so for JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon. When it comes to losing money, he's been there done that, so he should know the kinds of things to say. Maybe he had no options but to take the fall. Whatever, it's worth delving into Dimon's behavior Sunday.

Notice, however, he stopped short of accepting personal responsibility. Still, it's a nice change from the finger-pointing during the banking crisis three years ago.

"'We made a terrible, egregious mistake,' Dimon said in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'  'There's almost no excuse for it.'" (http://news.yahoo.com/jpmorgan-ceo-dead-wrong-trading-concerns-130151271--finance.html)

He messed up by saying "almost" no excuse. Don't be wishy-washy.

"Dimon said the bank is open to inquiries from regulators. He has also promised, in an email to the bank's employees and in a conference call with stock analysts, to get to the bottom of what happened and learn from the mistake....

"Dimon conceded to NBC that the bank 'hurt ourselves and our credibility' and expects to 'pay the price for that.' Asked what the price should be, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said that banks will lose their fight to weaken the (Volcker) rule."

The Volcker rule, in part, would prevent banks from certain kinds of trading for their own profit. The banking industry has been trying to weaken the proposal, an effort that looks fruitless now.

The JPMorgan annual meeting Tuesday should be a real hoot. The first casualty of the $2 billion loss in a bad investment is 55-year-old Ina Drew, chief investment officer and a 30-year employee. She will "retire." (For more on crisis victims who "retire," see my post below about the stage collapse in Indiana.)

The Wall Street Journal said we can expect two more executives to resign shortly. More bodies may hit the floor at the annual meeting.

Only the Crises Are Expensive at Wal-Mart

I bought a new lawn mower at Wal-Mart today. I offered to bribe the clerk with $20 if she gave me a 50% discount. She didn't think that was funny.

There's a lot less laughter at Wal-Mart these days, especially at headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. Some who follow these issues closely wonder if the bribery scandal, just the latest in a series of attacks on the giant, might be the stone that fells Goliath. It looks to fell some of the top officers who may lose their jobs and go to prison.

Anne D'Innocenzio of the AP wrote an inciteful story about the crisis that has become Wal-Mart. (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/6fcd6058963b4906983c1af6ec1aa0c2/US--Wal-Mart-Reputation/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=Place&utm_campaign=Mexico) It's a case of building goodwill and then overspending it; getting so big there's a target on their backs (I could write "target" with an upper and lower case T and it would be true.); and about corporate greed and arrogance. I hope you'll read to the end, because this a very useful case study.

D'Innocenzio gets off to a good start in her article, echoing a message I deliver regularly: "In business, you’re only as good as your last good deed." 


Wal-Mart has plenty of good deeds. Yet it remains to be seen how all the crises and negative publicity will affect the behemoth. "Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, in recent years has tried to repair a reputation that's been damaged by decades of criticism and legal troubles. Community activists have blamed it for damaging the neighborhoods where it builds its stores. Labor groups have lambasted it for not treating its workers well. And politicians have called it a poor steward of the environment."


Sam's management team does dumb things: "The U.S. and Mexican governments reportedly are investigating the chain. Wal-Mart's stock is down almost 5 percent since the allegations surfaced. The company and top executives are being sued by angry investors. And some shareholders are planning to vote against the re-election of several board members at Wal-Mart's annual meeting next month."


In addition, D'Innocenzio wrote:

• Wal-Mart has been accused by many for failing to pay fair wages and provide adequate health care. 

• Some see the big-box stores as eyesores that crush small businesses and wreak havoc on traffic and commerce in local communities. 

• Environmentalists criticize Wal-Mart for its negative impact on the environment and complain that the company buys too many goods overseas.

• Labor unions ran ad campaigns, toured around the country holding protests, and tried to help organize workers. They attempted to block Wal-Mart from opening new stores in places like New York City, though competitors like Target were greeted with fanfare.

• Wal-Mart was cited during the 2008 election by Presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John Edwards as an example of what's wrong with big business.

• In 2004, Wal-Mart was hit with the largest sex discrimination suit in U.S. history. A group of 1.6 million female workers accused Wal-Mart of paying female workers less than male employees. Last year, the Supreme Court blocked the suit.

"Wal-Mart's size has often made it a target. Critics, politicians and activists have portrayed it as a corporate behemoth that puts profits above its workers and the neighborhoods where it builds its stores. Anti-Wal-Mart sentiment reached a fever pitch around the beginning of the century when several groups funded by labor unions formed to oppose the company."


Wal-Mart stock fell 20 percent from early 2005 to an eight-year low of $42 in 2007.


Wal-Mart responded with good deedism. The company tried to soften its image with shoppers by using the recession to bolster its position among low-income shoppers. In 2007, it created a new slogan, "Save money, live better" to replace its long-time "Always Low Prices."


Criticized for its large carbon footprint, Wal-Mart focused on what it could do for the environment. For example, it worked with its suppliers large and small  to reduce packaging.


"Additionally, Wal-Mart worked on its image with employees. It improved its health care plan and provided coverage to more workers. It started offering $4 prescription drugs. The company also broke with other big corporations and endorsed a mandate that requires employers to subsidize employee health care — a key part of President Obama's health care overhaul.


"When it comes to healthier eating, Wal-Mart announced a plan to lower salts, fats and sugars in thousands of the products it sells. It also agreed to cut produce prices by 2015.

"To address its image with women, Wal-Mart last year rolled out sweeping measures that it says will help women around the world, including offering training of 60,000 women working in factories in places like India. It enlisted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former critic, for a project to help up to 55,000 women in Latin America and the Caribbean build businesses."


All this is a reasonable response to all the criticism. The question is will it be enough to preserve its image and income? Wal-Mart's shares have fallen to about $59. That's off about five percent from when news of the bribery scandal broke, but still above the high $40s where they traded during the recession.


Robert Passikoff is president of Brand Keys Inc., a New York customer research firm that measures the image of companies using an index that rates them based on location and value, range of merchandise, store reputation, and shopping experience. He said Wal-Mart consistently scores at about 90 out of 100 on the index, even in times when its reputation is attacked. A rating of below 70 would mean it's in trouble, he said. He added that low-income Wal-Mart shoppers tend to ignore the crises as long as prices are low. Some well-off Americans who value corporate reputation more have shopped elsewhere when Wal-Mart had image problems.

Remember that the bribery crisis is far from over. If Wal-Mart is found guilty of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars and top Wal-Mart executives could lose their jobs or go to prison. The California State Teachers' Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, asking that any financial damages as a result of its leaders' actions be returned to the company. It holds more than 5.3 million shares, well under 1 percent. Leaders of New York City's pension funds plan to vote their 4.7 million company shares against five Wal-Mart directors up for re-election next month.

"A lot of the goodwill has been jeopardized," Rep. E. Cummings, (D-Maryland), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told The Associated Press.


The more goodwill you deposit into your bank account, the better you will be able to weather a crisis. Reaching out to your key demographics with open communications, charitable donations, and a genuine concern for the people in communities where you fave facilities build support when a wolf knocks at your door. But even a company with stores in 100,000 locations can't be completely immune if it regularly generates controversy and takes too long to deal with it.

How To Lose Your Job, Literally Without Trying

If managers don't want to take the time for crisis planning, including communications during and after,  and don't want to bother with crisis drills, they are risking their entire careers. When a crisis is handled poorly, usually someone loses his or her job. Crises will happen, no matter how well the individual believes he is handling things.

In my blog post below on May 4, I praised Churchill Downs for evacuating thousands of people in an orderly manner until an approaching storm passed. The fans returned safely and racing resumed. I compared that evacuation to the failure to act at the Indiana State Fair last summer, when a storm blow over a stage and killed seven people.

No one will be fired at Churchill Downs. But blood was on the floor in Indianapolis last week when the  State Fair Commission met. "Officials on Thursday quietly announced the retirement of fairgrounds facilities manager Dave Hummel, who was noted in a report that criticized confusion among fair officials over their responsibilities. A news release said Hummel's retirement was 'part of restructuring state fair staff.'" (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UMG3900.htm)

Retirement? How stupid do they think the public is? But that's beside the point.

"A report by emergency preparation experts from Washington-based Witt Associates criticized 'a lack of oversight or responsibility for the ISFC's contracts with its contractors,' including the contract with the company that owned and built the stage rigging that later collapsed. The report said Hummel and other fair officials tried to pin responsibility for the contract on each other during interviews a month after the disaster.

"The report also said that Hummel's position had authority over fair security, and that while he had 'heard' of the fair's existing emergency response plan, he 'was not aware of his position's specific responsibilities in the plan.'"

The board announced the hiring of David Shaw as chief operating officer. One of his responsibilities will be to develop an emergency response plan for various events and venues at the fairgrounds. Investigators concluded that the fair's existing protocol was unclear and resulted in confusion about who was in charge. It now will be up to him to order any evacuations.

If managers think they're too busy to write or practice a crisis operations plan, along with a crisis communications plan, (Ideally the plans are merged.), they should remember the "retirement" of the facilities manager in Indiana. He failed to make good decisions largely because he was unprepared. Hummel has in effect been replaced with three people. Worse, he has to spend his retirement thinking of the seven people who lost their lives because he didn't know what his role was in a crisis.

Athletes, actors, and musicians have to practice. So do crisis teams.

Girl Scouts Continue To Be Under Attack From Catholic Bishops and the Right

We know we have freedom of religion. Unfortunately, the Constitution says nothing about freedom from religion. That's a right the Girl Scouts need. It's in crisis because of a witch hunt led by Catholic bishops and other conservatives.

Bishops have been investigating for two years the Girl Scouts' supposed endorsement of birth control and abortion. They are concerned about the organization's alleged support for Planned Parenthood. But the concern doesn't end there. Some don't even want the scouts to have connections to any organization whose views don't coincide with the pope's.

Catholic bishops "are upset that the Girl Scouts have materials that provide links to groups like the Sierra Club, Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam, some of which support family planning and contraception." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/catholic-bishops-to-scrutinize-girl-scouts/2012/05/11/gIQAnVDoIU_story.html)

Another complaint came last year when a  Colorado troop had the audacity to embrace membership for a 7-year-old transgender child who was born a boy but was being raised as a girl. On top of that, the Girl Scouts are one of 145 organizations that are members of  the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which favors emergency contraception for women in developing countries.

Nearly a quarter of the 2.3 million Girl Scouts in the U.S. are Catholic, and so is the scouts' CEO, so the organization doesn't want to lose its historic ties to the church. Nevertheless, some bishops and parish priests have banned Girls Scouts from church property.

The Girl Scouts reportedly changed some of its materials in an effort to appease critics. But it denies any partnership with Planned Parenthood and says it doesn't take positions on sexuality, birth control, and abortion.

“'For nearly 100 years, we have partnered with the Catholic Church to support the growth and development of millions of girls,' Anna Maria Chavez, a Catholic who has been the Girl Scouts CEO since last November, told Catholic News Service last month. 'It is a wonderful legacy and we’re grateful for the opportunity to participate in the process that will only enhance our partnership.'

"Chavez told CNS, which first wrote about the bishops’ review, that she and other GSUSA leaders have been meeting with church officials in Washington and around the country to resolve any concerns."

From my seat on the sidelines, this sounds like an appropriate strategy to deal with this crisis. I hope they also are communicating with parents to garner their support and keep their daughters in scouts. But when it comes to the Catholic church, there is no compromise, even though many of its own devout members use birth control and have had abortions.

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, claims “important questions still remain and need to be examined.” He asked bishops to continue communicating concerns and reports they have heard about the Girl Scouts. "There is a strong push among the bishops to ensure that no church organization has even remote connections to doctrinally problematic groups. And conservatives do not seem assuaged by the reassurances.

“'A collision course is probably a good description of where things are headed,' Mary Rice Hasson, a visiting fellow in Catholic studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, told The Associated Press this week. 'The leadership of the Girl Scouts is reflexively liberal. Their board is dominated by people whose views are antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church.'”

I'm tempted to expound on the un-Christian and un-American attempt to force values on non-Catholic organizations and individuals. But I'll stop short of doing that and end with this thought: the Girl Scouts indeed are in crisis and is better off not to tick off the Catholic church.

On the other hand, the organization needs to study what happened to Susan G. Komen for the Cure early this year when it tried to cut off funds for Planned Parenthood. There was such an outcry from the public and some employees that the policy was rescinded days later. The attempt to dictate moral values continues to haunt Komen's fundraising. Girl Scouts leadership must be careful to keep all its members and families in mind before it tries to appease the religious right.

CEOs Must Get Out More To Improve Reputation --And the Bottom Line

Bob Irvine, founder of the Institute for Crisis Management, tells about the early days of the firm in the '90s. He called on CEOs to discuss how he could help them and their businesses. When he got to the part about enhancing corporate reputation, he said their eyes glazed over and he lost them.

He ultimately discovered that CEOs aren't interested in reputation. All they care about is the bottom line and they don't see the connection. When Bob's presentations revolved around dollars and cents, he had CEOs on the edge of their seats. But he couldn't resist bringing up corporate reputation, their eyes glazed over and he lost them.

Aaron Perlut, founder of Elasticity and contributor to Forbes.com, had something to say about CEOs in Bulldog Reporter's Daily 'Dog.:

"When you think of attacks lobbed at corporate America, fairly or not, they quite often focus on the chief executive. To wit, consider:

"•      By the time Lee Scott retired, he'd entered Jack Welsh territory — but early on in his tenure as Wal-Mart's CEO his leadership was being questioned by most analysts and media pundits.

"•      With every little tweak that is made to Facebook or for each personality flaw people think they uncover, Mark Zuckerberg has been quite the whipping boy for a company that has fundamentally altered the global media and cultural landscape.

"•      Despite being handed an implosion sandwich served with a side of customer upheaval, former AOL Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons was eaten up like Mike Tyson on an Evander Holyfield earlobe.

"Much of this is of course relative to the exorbitant salaries that today's CEOs garner. It comes with the territory. But it's also far easier to lob grenades at people you don't know. And what you find is that once critics get to know the objects of their attacks, the tenor changes, and often softens."

CEOs need to be visible and active in the community. In this case, familiarity doesn't breed contempt. Business leaders have to make the time, then take the time to get out and mingle. This will help the CEO's image and, with it, corporate reputation. Companies with a good reputation and a well-known CEO will have a bank account of good will, which they can withdraw from in a crisis. And that's the link to the bottom line.

You don't want the first time people hear of the company and CEO to be in the heat of a crisis. When that happens, there's no good will in your bank account to draw from. My theory is that business leaders who focus on people and processes -- including crisis communications planning -- make their organizations more successful, and the bottom line will take care of itself.

ICM Consultant Says To Remember the People During a Crisis

I wrote here about the so-called pink slime in ground beef. (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1573781346072455735#editor/target=post;postID=1400037249839429278) But I like what Larry Smith said about the crisis in an article on PJStar.com out of Peoria. Smith is senior consultant with the Institute for Crisis Management. Here's what he had to say:

"Never lose sight of the 'people' - employees, their families, suppliers/vendors, customers/clients/patients, investors, and don't try to operate in a vacuum. You must 'do the right thing' and be prepared to communicate stakeholder-specific information to each of those important audiences. If you drag your feet and avoid or take too long to communicate with those critical groups someone else will control the 'messages' and most likely you will end up looking like you're guilty, afraid or incompetent. This is what happened in the pink-slime case. The meat industry took too long to react." (http://www.pjstar.com/business/x2069499445/Business-Q-A-Larry-Smith?zc_p=0)

Smith's blog is well worth following. On his April 27 post, he praised the beef industry for its much better response to recent a case of mad cow disease in California. (http://www.crisisconsultants.blogspot.com/)

How to Handle Big Crowds in a Storm -- Watch Churchill Downs

This is Kentucky Oaks day at Churchill Downs in Louisville. It's the Run for the Lillies, a lot like the Kentucky Derby but staged more for the locals than the rich and famous, which the Kentucky Derby will attract tomorrow. My home office is just a few miles south of the famous track.

The race schedule was interrupted late this afternoon by thunderstorm warnings. This comes less than a week after opening night at Churchill Downs when races were delayed because of a severe storm with damaging hail, lightening, and wind. The track moved people in the grandstands under cover. No one was injured.

Today's storms drifted south of Jefferson County and missed Churchill Downs. But the Downs were challenged because of the large number of people in attendance. At 4:30, they evacuated the entire infield and the stands again to get people under shelter and into safety. Even though the storm didn't materialize, Churchill Downs took no chances and moved tens of thousands of people to safety.

Compare Churchill Downs' two responses to potentially dangerous weather to the lack of response at the Indiana State Fair last summer when the stage collapsed in a storm and killed seven people or Kilroy's Sports Bar tent in St. Louis that left one dead during a storm last week. The Downs stopped racing and evacuated people to get under cover. Today the migration started some 30 minutes before the storm arrived --  fortunately with nothing more than a whimper this time.

Congratulations to Churchill Downs for erring on the side of protecting some 112,000 people at the historic track. I'll bet few patrons will complain about the inconvenience and caution.

FAMU Students Face Jail Time, FAMU Faces Civil Suit

I wrote here November 23, 2011, about the Florida A & M (FAMU) band hazing incident. (http://crisisexperts.blogspot.com/2011/11/death-of-famu-band-major-appears-to-be.html) FAMU was in crisis mode back then -- a crisis mode that became more clearly defined this week.

"Now that 13 people have been charged in the hazing death of a Florida A & M University drum major, the future is murky for a famed marching band that has performed at the Grammys, presidential inaugurations and Super Bowls. The band was suspended immediately after Robert Champion's death in November, and even the governor says it's far too soon for the Marching 100 to take the field again. Champion's mother, Pam, took that even a step further: She said the band should be disbanded so the university can 'clean house.' She and the family's attorney contend there is a vast effort among students and others to cover up who is responsible for her son's death....

"FAMU President James Ammons — who did not respond to multiple phone calls requesting comment the past two days — has still not said publicly what he plans to do about the band."

 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-opt-hazing-charges-famu-case-16267452)

The future of FAMU, and Ammons along with it, looks bleak. There is an ongoing criminal investigation into the finances of the band, as well as a probe by the state university system into whether top officials at the university ignored past warnings about hazing. The Champion family has already announced its plans to sue the university. Internally, FAMU itself set up a task force to look at hazing, but it hasn't met since an argument over whether it should follow the state's open meetings laws. Several members have since resigned.

What's happening at FAMU isn't crisis damage control. It's what's known as CYA.

My sources last November indicated, "And now it apparently has happened again, raising concerns by police (and) administrators ... that FAMU officials haven't done enough to prevent hazing in the tight-knit marching band. According to news accounts, the Marching 100 has a long history of hazing incidents and has been the subject of at least seven formal investigations into hazing in the past decade." (http://savannahnow.com/stories/112001/LOChazing.shtml)

If that's shown to be true, FAMU will have trouble defending itself in civil court. "Hundreds of pages of records reviewed earlier this year by The Associated Press showed years of repeated warnings about brutal hazing passed without any serious response from the school's leadership until Champion's death. Police files show that since 2007, nearly two dozen incidents involving the band, fraternities and other student groups had been investigated." ( (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-opt-hazing-charges-famu-case-16267452)

If the allegations are true -- and the silence of FAMU's president would lead one to believe they are -- this is a classic case of a smoldering crisis. Someone knew there was a potential problem, but no one did anything about it. Now the smolder has become a four-alarm fire.

Blogger Offers Good Advice for Athletes in Crisis

I'm regularly disappointed by professional and college athletes who mess up their lives off the field. These are men and women that young people look up to and emulate. Just as bad is how so many of them lie and otherwise respond poorly to their personal crises. I could give dozens of examples, and you probably can too. I've analyzed a number of these fallen stars on this blog through the years.

The latest came yesterday (May 2). "Four past or present New Orleans Saints players were suspended Wednesday by the National Football League for their roles in the 'bountygate' scandal involving bonuses for trying to hurt opponents. The league announced that Scott Fujita, Anthony Hargrove, Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma were suspended without pay for varying lengths of time (ranging from three games to one year." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/sport/football/nfl-saints-suspensions/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)

Derede McAlpin, vice president with Levick Strategic Communications, among other things served as a contributor for the Washington Post’s "The League" providing crisis counsel on issues affecting the NFL and its players. (http://www.levick.com/vice-president/derede-mcalpin-esq) She offered on her The Locker Room blog some pointers for athletes in crisis that I want to share: (http://lockerroommag.com/when-in-crisis-watch-your-blind-side-the-first-48-hours/)

Perception is reality. As soon as an incident occurs, consider how the issue will be received by all potential stakeholders. The fans are armchair jurors that will drive the public’s perception of any alleged wrongdoings.

Assemble your team and the gather needed intelligence. The issues management team should be comprised of legal counsel, the agent, in-house or outside communications professionals, and the coach or manager closest to the situation. Once assembled decide what is the issue. Who is involved? Why did it happen? Is the media aware of the situation? Who needs to be informed? Once the battleground has been surveyed, it is then crucial to reexamine any skeletons still in the closet.

Define the desired end game. The intelligence you’ve gathered will enable you to determine whether the goal of the crisis campaign is outright vindication, the quiet settlement of a lawsuit, or a public display of repentance. Each objective requires different communications strategies.

Assess, control, and treat. Managing a crisis early is the key to success. It is a concept that is easily broken down into a three-pronged imperative: assess the potential negative impact on reputation; quickly take steps to control the message; and consider the likelihood of litigation or penalties.

Treasure your online reputation. When it comes to the exchange of ideas and thoughts via social media, some professional athletes fail to manage their brands when it comes to defusing controversy or managing the dream careers they have worked for all of their lives.

Recognize the power of the court of public opinion in legal matters. Prejudicial information is going to obtrude on a case whether the court bars it or not. Jurors cannot turn off their memories like a spigot, and, as a practical matter, limiting exposure to the internet is impossible.

Deploy third party allies. Identify and recruit potential third-party advocates. Third-parties are very important because they are perceived as more credible than someone with a direct interest in the outcome of the case or issue.

Anticipate problems. Use peacetime wisely and develop a playbook for all anticipated problems before an issue rises to the level of a crisis.

In summary, those in the public limelight need to have a crisis communications plan. It's not a case of cost, but a case of ignorance. Pro athletes need a crisis communications plan as much as nonprofit and for-profit organizations do.

Rupert Murdoch Called 'Not a Fit Person' to Run His Empire

Rupert Murdoch became a media giant by purchasing such U.S. outlets as The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and Fox News. All have become outlets for conservative viewpoints and anti-Obama rhetoric. Moderates and liberals are rubbing their hands together in glee as Murdoch drops deeper and deeper into crisis. Belonging to the far right or far left can lead individuals and their organizations into trouble.

"Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch is 'not a fit person' to run a major international company, British lawmakers investigating phone hacking at his tabloid News of the World reported Tuesday. The ruling could prompt British regulators to force him to sell his controlling stake in British Sky Broadcasting, a significant part of his media empire." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/world/europe/uk-phone-hacking/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Ofcom, the British media regulator with authority to force Murdoch out of  British Sky Broadcasting, said it is "reading with interest" the report from Parliament. That report accused Murdoch and his son James of showing "willful blindness" to phone hacking at News of the World, and said the newspaper "deliberately tried to thwart the police investigation" into the illegal activity. "The agency noted that it 'has a duty under the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting license is, and remains, fit and proper to do so.'"

The paper's publisher, News Corp. subsidiary News International, had a great strategy to deal with the crisis. It tried to buy silence and pay to make the problem go away, the Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee found.

"Police have arrested dozens of people as part of investigations into phone hacking, e-mail hacking and police bribery, while two different Parliamentary committees and an independent inquiry led by Lord Justice Brian Leveson are all probing aspects of the scandal. Testifying before the Leveson Inquiry last week, Rupert Murdoch admitted that there had been a 'cover-up' of phone hacking at News of the World."

Murdoch insisted he was a victim of the cover-up, not the perpetrator He apologized for not paying more attention to the scandal, which he called "a serious blot on my reputation."

Tom Watson, the Labour lawmaker who has long been a fierce Murdoch critic, used a news conference announcing the Parliamentary findings as his soapbox. "These people corrupted our country. They have brought shame on our police force and our Parliament. They lied and cheated -- blackmailed and bullied and we should all be ashamed when we think how we cowered before them for so long."

Reactions to the report and scandal are different for conservatives who see the world through Murdoch's slanted news media. Louise Mensch, a Conservative member of Parliament who is on the committee with Watson, said the report went too far.

"She was one of the four Conservative MPs who dissented from the amendment to the report finding that Murdoch was not a fit person to run a company. She called the amendment 'faintly ridiculous' given Murdoch's decades in the business, and accused the Labour members of the committee of pushing through a 'nakedly political' statement.

"'The amendments were so far out of left field they made a mockery of the whole thing,' she said.

The section declaring Murdoch 'not fit' passed by a vote of 6 to 4, with support from Labour and Liberal Democrat lawmakers, over opposition from Conservatives."

News Corp. made a bid to take full ownership of British Sky Broadcasting, but that bid collapsed because of the phone-hacking scandal. News Corp. has been forced to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation to the victims of phone hacking. Murdoch and his son James have been hammered during the past year about what they and people working for them knew about phone hacking. Police say the hacking could have affected thousands of people, including celebrities, politicians, crime victims, and war veterans.

The bigger they are the harder they fall. And the more political they are the more vulnerable to attack they are. Make sure your CEO or president knows what can happen if he/she follows the Murdoch model of management.