Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 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 leave2. Notes or details about the mandatory meetings/hearings with the Chief subsequent to the written appeal3. 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. 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.I'm out of the loop on what the Deseret News did on this. I didn't even know it was in the paper until two or three days later.
sethpayne Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) I have to say, Chief Burbank makes a lot of sense. And given that the officer didn't even appeal? We are not getting the full story. No father essentially just quits his job when he has the opportunity to keep it. Seems really weird. Burbank: "I'm not asking him to do this on his own time. This is on the police department time, representing the police department," Burbank continued, giving emphasis to the last three words. "What the officers choose to do on their own time is one thing. But what they choose to do at work, I'm going to give direction, and you set your personal feelings aside. It's the only way we can function best." http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33605041 ETA: I imagine that at most of our jobs our boss sets the direction and makes the rules. If any of us directly went against explicit instruction from our superior we'd be fired in a heartbeat. Edited March 4, 2015 by sethpayne
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) 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) They weren't booked into jail. They were cited and released. Church security detained them, they allegedly became argumentative and profane, and they were handcuffed. Police were called. According to Moutsos, the first thing he did was to remove the handcuffs. Here's a news story that appeared at the time in the Salt Lake Tribune. I guess the confusion is that you thought "arrest" meant booked into jail. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) I have to say, Chief Burbank makes a lot of sense. And given that the officer didn't even appeal? We are not getting the full story. No father essentially just quits his job when he has the opportunity to keep it. Seems really weird. Burbank: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33605041 ETA: I imagine that at most of our jobs our boss sets the direction and makes the rules. If any of us directly went against explicit instruction from our superior we'd be fired in a heartbeat.Again, I have to point out that, according to Moutsos's account, he didn't refuse to take on the assignment and would have done it after being denied the request to swap assignments had he been allowed the opportunity to do so. Does Burbank deny this? Does he say Moutsos went against explicit instruction? I don't get that from his statement. Perhaps the situation was so utterly intolerable that he and his family decided that pursuing an appeal or going through union procedure just wasn't worth the aggravation; better to pursue employment elsewhere. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
sethpayne Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Again, I have to point out that, according to Moutsos's account, he didn't refuse to take on the assignment and would have done it after being denied the request to swap assignments had he been allowed the opportunity to do so. Does Burbank deny this? Does he say Moutsos went against explicit instruction? I don't get that from his statement. Perhaps the situation was so utterly intolerable that he and his family decided that pursuing an appeal or going through union procedure just wasn't worth the aggravation; better to pursue employment elsewhere. If this were true then it would violate section 15 and 16 of the union contract and so Officer Moutos would be able to sue on those grounds, I would think. But I'm not an attorney. I just play on on message boards. So if I had the chance I'd ask Officer Moutsos few things: 1. Why did you choose not to appeal your suspension and resign? 2. Do you plan to file suit against the SLPD for possibly violating your employment agreement? 3. What support have you received from the union for possible SLPD employment agreement violations? 1
JulieM Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Perhaps the situation was so utterly intolerable that he and his family decided that pursuing an appeal or going through union procedure just wasn't worth the aggravation; better to pursue employment elsewhere.I haven't read through this long thread, but did read some of it. So maybe this has been discussed, but if things were so intolerable that this officer went to work at another police department, why on earth would he be bringing it all up and making it public again? I doubt his fellow officers or superiors will appreciate him doing this. Something just seems off here. I hope things turn out ok for him and his family but I'd think he'd just want to put all of that experience behind him!
teddyaware Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I haven't read through this long thread, but did read some of it. So maybe this has been discussed, but if things were so intolerable that this officer went to work at another police department, why on earth would he be bringing it all up and making it public again? I doubt his fellow officers or superiors will appreciate him doing this. Something just seems off here. I hope things turn out ok for him and his family but I'd think he'd just want to put all of that experience behind him! Time to read the thread. 1
mtomm Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 It has been my experience that employers (public or private) try their hardest to keep quality, hardworking employees. They are also glad when poor ones leave or "resign." I'm sure we've all witnessed managers help move along the resignation process. That's my impression of this situation. I doubt it really has anything to do with this one parade.
JulieM Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Time to read the thread.So this has been discussed in this thread? He's given his reasons for bringing this all up again when at the same time he's working for a different police department? I'll try to find that. Thanks
tonie Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 They weren't booked into jail. They were cited and released. Church security detained them, they allegedly became argumentative and profane, and they were handcuffed. Police were called. According to Moutsos, the first thing he did was to remove the handcuffs. Here's a news story that appeared at the time in the Salt Lake Tribune. I guess the confusion is that you thought "arrest" meant booked into jail. The confusion started with Calmoriah posts. So I googled something along the lines of "gay kiss arrest Tempe square". Several articles indicated there were arrests. The Church statement on the incident claims the couple was arrested. A KSL article states "The couple was arrested July 9..." And this from Deseret News "The church security footage, ... does not show the kiss that led to the couple's arrest."
tonie Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 So this has been discussed in this thread? He's given his reasons for bringing this all up again when at the same time he's working for a different police department? I'll try to find that. Thanks read the opening post, that should address the "why now" question you have.
JulieM Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 read the opening post, that should address the "why now" question you have.Thanks tonie!
tonie Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Perhaps the situation was so utterly intolerable that he and his family decided that pursuing an appeal or going through union procedure just wasn't worth the aggravation; better to pursue employment elsewhere. He talks about in the podcast interview.
The Nehor Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 It has been my experience that employers (public or private) try their hardest to keep quality, hardworking employees. They are also glad when poor ones leave or "resign." I'm sure we've all witnessed managers help move along the resignation process. That's my impression of this situation. I doubt it really has anything to do with this one parade.Thank you. See? Someone agrees with my "unfounded suppositions".
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 The confusion started with Calmoriah posts. So I googled something along the lines of "gay kiss arrest Tempe square". Several articles indicated there were arrests. The Church statement on the incident claims the couple was arrested. A KSL article states "The couple was arrested July 9..." And this from Deseret News "The church security footage, ... does not show the kiss that led to the couple's arrest."As I said, your confusion stems from your understanding of the meaning of <arrest>.
tonie Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) As I said, your confusion stems from your understanding of the meaning of <arrest>. I am pretty sure I understand the term "arrest". What I am unsure about is the "who" did the reporting arresting. Edited March 4, 2015 by tonie
Scott Lloyd Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Thank you. See? Someone agrees with my "unfounded suppositions". There's nothing particularly special or unique about ill-informed faultfinding done under cover of anonymity. It happens all the time.
Recommended Posts