Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[ALarson]

Sorry, what happened to him strikes me as so harrowing and fraught with such harm, I just can't treat it with fun and frolic.

 

 

I think what many are trying to express is that none of us really know for sure what happened here.  We have some of the facts, but not all of them and only one of the parties involved is speaking publicly about it.  Hopefully the truth will come out.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think what many are trying to express is that none of us really know for sure what happened here.  We have some of the facts, but not all of them and only one of the parties involved is speaking publicly about it.  Hopefully the truth will come out.

I get that.

 

But I think I've made a pretty good case for why I'm inclined  to believe Moutsos: In direct contradiction to what was said about him last summer in a police department statement, he has provided a fairly detailed, sequential report of what happened. His statement as of now stands essentially unrefuted and uncontradicted by anyone from the police department except some general grousing and bluster from the chief about how you can't pick and choose what assignments you do and we're all trying to come together and bigotry isn't going to be tolerated, and how can he send somebody like that out on a call? and how officers will do what he tells them to do when they're on police department time and yada yada yada.

 

Not a thing about whether Officer Moutsos actually did refuse to do an assignment. Not a word of direct confirmation to sustain what the police department put out last summer through its official spokeswoman. If Moutsos's account is inaccurate in any way, I would expect the police department to point that out. They have not as yet done so.

 

So yes, I'm inclined to believe Moutsos's account. And I'm going to do what I can to see to it that it is noticed and considered, not dismissed.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"how can he send somebody like that out on a call"

My problem with an evaluation like this is that Officer Moutsos did prove himself capable of dealing in a potentially difficult situation back when he was involved in the arrest of a gay couple on Temple Square.

I also wonder if any of the recent discussion in church context about religious liberty (wasn't there a video that was being promoted?) might have encouraged him to speak out.

[Scott Lloyd]

"how can he send somebody like that out on a call"

My problem with an evaluation like this is that Officer Moutsos did prove himself capable of dealing in a potentially difficult situation back when he was involved in the arrest of a gay couple on Temple Square.

I also wonder if any of the recent discussion in church context about religious liberty (wasn't there a video that was being promoted?) might have encouraged him to speak out.

Yeah.

 

He did say this in his written statement:

 

I am sharing my experience to unite, not to divide. I want to be part of the solution, not part of

the problem. I ask that the Utah Legislature act now to balance protections for religious liberty

with safeguards for LGBT people, unifying these important interests to the end that all

are protected from discrimination in employment and housing. Through this experience, I

have gained greater compassion and empathy for anyone who has lost their job because of who

they are. No one should be forced to choose between their job and their conscience.

Some have said that I should leave my beliefs at home when I go to work. I couldn’t imagine this

thought. I fear I then would not be equipped to be the best I can be to protect and serve the com-

munity that I have proudly served for seven years.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the recent public discussion in a Church context had a lot to do with his motivation.

 

Furthermore, I would hope others would draw inspiration from his example of courage should they ever have the misfortune to encounter discrimination in the workplace for their faith or religious beliefs.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

Haven't read through all of this but it looks like SLPD may have violated its union agreement in its treatment of this officer.  But I don't see anything related to internal complaints so perhaps the rules don't apply?

 

http://www.slpa.com/docs/contracts/Proposed_2014_2016_MOU.pdf

[Scott Lloyd]

I had another thought on why it is perfectly reasonable for one who has been maligned in the media to want to go public and set the record straight.

 

Once something is published these days, it remains conveniently searchable for many years. As as journalist, I have come to rely very heavily on Internet search capability to obtain background information for pretty much everything I do.

 

Ergo, if a falsehood gets published about someone, it is very much in his interest to put the truth out so that it will be at least somewhat accessible to anyone in future generations who might encounter the falsehood.

 

It seems to me this is Good Sense 101.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Haven't read through all of this but it looks like SLPD may have violated its union agreement in its treatment of this officer.  But I don't see anything related to internal complaints so perhaps the rules don't apply?

 

http://www.slpa.com/docs/contracts/Proposed_2014_2016_MOU.pdf

 

What section? Also, what you link cover June 22, 2014 - 2017. The events at issue in this discussion ocurred at the beginning of June 2014.

Edited March 4, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

"how can he send somebody like that out on a call"

My problem with an evaluation like this is that Officer Moutsos did prove himself capable of dealing in a potentially difficult situation back when he was involved in the arrest of a gay couple on Temple Square.

I also wonder if any of the recent discussion in church context about religious liberty (wasn't there a video that was being promoted?) might have encouraged him to speak out.

 

We do not know what he said, and we do not know how he said it. What we do know, by his own admission, is that what he said and how he said it, lacked a certain level of diplomacy.

 

The Internal Investigation concerning his conduct was closed when Moutsos resigned.

[tonie]

My problem with an evaluation like this is that Officer Moutsos did prove himself capable of dealing in a potentially difficult situation back when he was involved in the arrest of a gay couple on Temple Square.

 

 

In Moutsos interview on "The Cultural Hall", he made no mention of arrests. KSL reports the men were arrested. Moutsos makes is sound like he and the two other men just talked it out. Moutsos gave no suggestion that arrests were made. 

[tonie]

<derail>

Scott,  the individual's name is Moutsos, not Coustos as you have used a few times.

</derail>

Edited March 4, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

We do not know what he said, and we do not know how he said it.

No, we don't. But we do have a record of past actual interaction with individuals belonging to the group....and a positive evaluation from that experience.

I tend to predict people's future behaviour from past behaviour. It is often easy to get the wrong idea from just using how people describe things.

[Scott Lloyd]

In Moutsos interview on "The Cultural Hall", he made no mention of arrests. KSL reports the men were arrested. Moutsos makes is sound like he and the two other men just talked it out. Moutsos gave no suggestion that arrests were made. 

The arrests are a matter of public record. The incident and its aftermath were extensively covered in local media for several days.  I doubt Moutsos intended to convey the impression there were no arrests. It's a matter of common public knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

<derail>

Scott,  the individual's name is Moutsos, not Coustos as you have used a few times.

</derail>

Arrgh!

 

Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

 

Edited to add:

 

I'm having a terrible time with that name. When I went back just now to try to fix all the errors, I found that in some places I had spelled it "Moustos."

 

I tried to catch everything, but if you spot any that I've missed please bring it to my attention.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

In Moutsos interview on "The Cultural Hall", he made no mention of arrests. KSL reports the men were arrested. Moutsos makes is sound like he and the two other men just talked it out. Moutsos gave no suggestion that arrests were made.

So this is notable because?

[sethpayne]

What section? Also, what you link cover June 22, 2014 - 2017. The events at issue in this discussion ocurred at the beginning of June 2014.

The site has the old agreement as well.

Posting from my phone but it looks like complaints are discussed beginning on pg 40 or so. But like I say I don't know if these rules apply to external complaints only. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers has worked in this area?

[tonie]

So this is notable because?

 

It is notable because it tend demonstrate a mischaracterization of an issue; if there were arrestes, this might be another example of a "mischaracterize" events - such as he did about the florist in Washington.

Edited March 4, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

The site has the old agreement as well.

Posting from my phone but it looks like complaints are discussed beginning on pg 40 or so. But like I say I don't know if these rules apply to external complaints only. Perhaps one of our resident lawyers has worked in this area?

 

Ok. Link the you posted was a direct link to a pdf.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is notable because it demonstrates his willingness to mischaracterize issues; it is another example of his willingness to "mischaracterize" events - such as he did about the florist in Washington.

This assumes an intent on his part to do so. I seriously doubt there was. Rather, I suspect, as I said earlier, that he was expecting most of his listeners to recollect the essentials of the incident -- including the arrests -- as it was so extensively covered.

[The Nehor]

Sorry, what happened to him strikes me as so harrowing and fraught with such harm, I just can't treat it with fun and frolic.

 

As Shakespeare wrote for the character Iago:

Yet you are willing to do the same to the police chief. At least there is symmetry I guess. Though maybe not. If we have slandered them they should get to slander us. How about the officer makes some insinuations about my unnaturally close relationships with sheep and the police chief frames you for cooking meth. Then it should all even out.

[sethpayne]

Ok. Link the you posted was a direct link to a pdf.

 

Old contract:

 

http://www.slpa.com/docs/contracts/Policecontract2012.pdf

 

From what I can tell this doesn't differentiate between internal/external complaints/investigations.  Pg. 37 indicates that the officer should have the transcripts of all discussions/hearings.  If so, i wonder if he'll release them or authorize the dept. to do so.  I wonder if pg 38, "Limitations of Investigations" applies here.  Also I wonder what the officer did given his rights outlined on page 39.  Did he use all of those appeal options?

 

Anyway, I'm shooting from the hip here as perhaps this agreement has no relation whatever to the officer's case.  But if it does, I think he's got good reason to go after the SLPD based on the fact that his supervisor made disparaging public comments about him etc...  

[Scott Lloyd]

Yet you are willing to do the same to the police chief. At least there is symmetry I guess. Though maybe not. If we have slandered them they should get to slander us. How about the officer makes some insinuations about my unnaturally close relationships with sheep and the police chief frames you for cooking meth. Then it should all even out.

I've slandered no one.

 

I've pointed out that a police department statement given to the mass media last summer has been contradicted by the officer who was the subject of it and that the statement has not yet been confirmed in the wake of that contradiction, therefore its accuracy is in question.

 

I've called the police chief to account for the veracity of the statement and the action associated with it, but a public official and department head should expect to be accountable for things that are said and done on behalf of his department.

 

Also, a public official should expect to encounter occasional criticism of his performance. That goes with the job.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

This assumes an intent on his part to do so.

 

Considering that about 8 days ago he mischaracterized the situation about the florist in Washington.

 

About the Temple Square incident, Moutsos says "I walked them off the property. I didn't go 'hands on', you know, as far as detaining them. We talked for 20 minutes. This is what the property owner wants."  He also mentions that he issued them a citation.

 

If the two men were arrested on site by SLC PD why would Moutsos make it sound like all the men only recieved a citation?

 

 

(one police jargon website describes "hands on" as a very unpleasant situation)

Edited March 4, 2015 by tonie

[The Nehor]

Yet the police officer was also a public official and I challenged his statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yet the police officer was also a public official and I challenged his statement.

You did more than challenge. With no other reasoning than your own suppositions you have repeatedly maligned him here.

 

An early example:

 

 If I had to guess I am guessing the officer has a pattern of trying to beg off assignments and this one finally broke the camels back. I have nothing to support this other then knowing the type of person who tries to beg off of doing work for any reason they can think of. These people are annoying to work with. If this is a larger pattern then I am in sympathy with the chief.

We only got one side of the story as the police department wisely chose not to comment and I suspect that anyone who is fired as a possible unreliable narrator. My gut instinct is that he was either not as polite and reasonable about this as he claims and/or that he has a habit of doing things like this.

 

(Emphasis mine)

[sethpayne]

I've slandered no one.

 

I've pointed out that a police department statement given to the mass media last summer has been contradicted by the officer who was the subject of it and that the statement has not yet been confirmed in the wake of that contradiction, therefore its accuracy is in question.

 

I've called the police chief to account for the veracity of the statement and the action associated with it, but a public official and department head should expect to be accountable for things that are said and done on behalf of his department.

 

Also, a public official should expect to encounter occasional criticism of his performance. That goes with the job.

 

Scott, did the DN review this union contract and request transcripts or appeal records from the officer?

 

http://www.slpa.com/docs/contracts/Policecontract2012.pdf

 

It would be interesting to see the officer's:

 

1.  written appeal to the Chief's office within 10 days of being put on leave

2.  Notes or details about the mandatory meetings/hearings with the Chief subsequent to the written appeal

3.  The official decision from the Chief that was due within 30 days of the appeal

 

See pg. 41

 

The agreement says the Chief's decision is final  and binding, though.  So after that the officer wouldn't have many options.  

 

From the quoted article it sounds like the officer didn't appeal.

 

Moutsos' life changed dramatically in the days leading up to last summer's gay pride parade. He had been talking with his bosses about resolving his objections while still helping out during the parade when he was informed that he was being put on leave for discrimination — a move that shocked him.

The story became public after police issued a news release saying an unnamed officer had been put on leave for refusing the gay pride parade assignment. The department said it does not tolerate bias and bigotry, and it does not allow personal beliefs to enter into whether an officer will accept an assignment.

Burbank said it is inappropriate for Moutsos to come out now with his story. Moutsos forfeited his right to defend himself during a police internal investigation when he resigned before they ever talked with him, Burbank said.

 

 

I wonder why a father of four would resign without taking advantage of his appeal options AND union representation.  Gonna go check out his 6 page statement to see if he covers that.