A Footnote To "officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination"

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a footnote to this thread.

 

In a move totally unrelated to the Moutsos matter, the chief of police has in effect been fired.

 

The mayor of Salt Lake City feels the chief was not eager or responsive enough to the mayor's directive in dealing with a case of sexual harassment in the department.

 

The chief, for his part, feels the mayor is playing politics in this election season.

 

There may be some degree of truth on both sides.

[toon]

Here's a footnote to this thread.

 

In a move totally unrelated to the Moutsos matter, the chief of police has in effect been fired.

 

The mayor of Salt Lake City feels the chief was not eager or responsive enough to the mayor's directive in dealing with a case of sexual harassment in the department.

 

The chief, for his part, feels the mayor is playing politics in this election season.

 

There may be some degree of truth on both sides.

 

Given you agreement that this is totally unrelated to the Moutsos matter, I'm at a loss at how this is even remotely relevant to anything ever discussed here.

[bluebell]

The firing of Moutsos is unrelated to the other thread, but Moutsos himself is related to the thread and hence, this development is a footnote (something which provides more information on a topic but is not relevant enough to garner actual mention in the body of writing).

[toon]

The firing of Moutsos is unrelated to the other thread, but Moutsos himself is related to the thread and hence, this development is a footnote (something which provides more information on a topic but is not relevant enough to garner actual mention in the body of writing).

 

No more appropriate than a footnote to an article discussing a Gordon B. Hinkley General Conference talk pointing out that he had purchesed a forged document from Mark Hoffman.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given you agreement that this is totally unrelated to the Moutsos matter, I'm at a loss at how this is even remotely relevant to anything ever discussed here.

The prior thread went on for 20 pages. After that much attention to a matter involving the SLPD and its chief, I just thought some might be interested in this current event.

 

I used the word "footnote" in the thread title to signal that it is only peripherally related. You are free not to click on or read the thread if it bothers you, just as the reader of an article or book chapter is free not to examine the footnotes.

 

I suppose those who care will click on the link and read it and those who don't won't. It doesn't make much difference to me either way.

 

Edited to add:

 

Starting a new thread for it perhaps draws more attention to it than it is worth, but as the prior thread had been locked, I was precluded from simply tacking another post onto the end of it.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

No more appropriate than a footnote to an article discussing a Gordon B. Hinkley General Conference talk pointing out that he had purchesed a forged document from Mark Hoffman.

 

Um, no.

 

Moutsos was a major player in the police force in discussion in the other thread.  That he's been fired from that police force is relevant, in that it continues Moutsos's story (for lack of a better term).  

 

It provides more information for someone who is following that story, and will explain, for anyone who continues to follow it, why Moutsos would no longer be connected with that police force, should someone search for further information at a later date.  It's not a necessary footnote, but it's certainly reasonable.

 

If someone were to try to make a footnote about GBH such as you described, they would not be using them correctly.  

 

I don't mean to harp on this, but i've won awards (nothing big or spectacular or noteworthy in any other topic, just some college stuff) for my academic writing and though i'm no professional (by a long shot) i do have a lot of working knowledge on footnotes.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Um, no.

 

Moutsos was a major player in the police force in discussion in the other thread.  That he's been fired from that police force is relevant, in that it continues Moutsos's story (for lack of a better term).  

 

It provides more information for someone who is following that story, and will explain, for anyone who continues to follow it, why Moutsos would no longer be connected with that police force, should someone search for further information at a later date.  It's not a necessary footnote, but it's certainly reasonable.

 

If someone were to try to make a footnote about GBH such as you described, they would not be using them correctly.  

 

I don't mean to harp on this, but i've won awards (nothing big or spectacular or noteworthy in any other topic, just some college stuff) for my academic writing and though i'm no professional (by a long shot) i do have a lot of working knowledge on footnotes.  

Very well reasoned.

I should clarify though that the police chief's name is Burbank. Moutsos is the officer whom Burbank dismissed for requesting permission to trade shifts with another officer so as not to have to be part of the entertainment in the gay pride parade.

Edited to add: In the interest of accuracy I should add that Burbank technically did not dismiss Moutsos but made conditions so intolerable (immediate suspension, internal affairs investigation) that Moutsos felt obliged to resign.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Very well reasoned.

I should clarify though that the police chief's name is Burbank. Moutsos is the officer whom Burbank dismissed for requesting permission to trade shifts with another officer so as not to have to be part of the entertainment in the gay pride parade.

Edited to add: In the interest of accuracy I should add that Burbank technically did not dismiss Moutsos but made conditions so intolerable (immediate suspension, internal affairs investigation) that Moutsos felt obliged to resign.

Thanks for the heads up on that!

[Five Solas]

No more appropriate than a footnote to an article discussing a Gordon B. Hinkley General Conference talk pointing out that he had purchesed a forged document from Mark Hoffman.

The order matters.  Now if it were a book on the Hoffman forgeries and therein described Gordon B. Hinckley's role--a footnote might well include that Hinckley went on to become the head prophet, seer & revelator for the LDS Church. 

 

And said footnote could be spun quite positively by an apologist, e.g.,--

 

It was a blunder that would have sidelined the career of any normal man, but Gordon B. Hinckley was no normal man.  His spiritual gifts were of such magnitude that he swiftly overcame this to become the lead prophet, etc., thereby demonstrating his divine mandate to lead the church in latter-days.  Haters gonna hate, et cetera. 

 

Sorry for that bit of channeling, it's still relatively early West Coast time and I'm fast-walking on the treadmill before the kids wake up. 

;0)

 

--Erik

[tonie]

Um, no.

 

Moutsos was a major player in the police force in discussion in the other thread.  That he's been fired from that police force is relevant, in that it continues Moutsos's story (for lack of a better term).  

 

It provides more information for someone who is following that story, and will explain, for anyone who continues to follow it, why Moutsos would no longer be connected with that police force, should someone search for further information at a later date.  It's not a necessary footnote, but it's certainly reasonable.

 

If someone were to try to make a footnote about GBH such as you described, they would not be using them correctly.  

 

I don't mean to harp on this, but i've won awards (nothing big or spectacular or noteworthy in any other topic, just some college stuff) for my academic writing and though i'm no professional (by a long shot) i do have a lot of working knowledge on footnotes.  

 

Ummm no.

 

The is no connection between.

 

And, yes, Scott has only continued his attack on the now former Police Chief.   It is a pathetic as footnoting that a person committed adultery.    The intent is clearly there, continue the personal attack.

[bluebell]

Ummm no.

 

The is no connection between.

 

And, yes, Scott has only continued his attack on the now former Police Chief.   It is a pathetic as footnoting that a person committed adultery.    The intent is clearly there, continue the personal attack.

 

I'm guessing you're not a trained writer. Regardless, it really doesn't matter.  I'm certainly not going to spend any more time arguing about the proper use of footnotes.  

 

In any case, relaying that the police chief has been fired for improper conduct is not an attack on the man's character.  It's just a fact of interest.  The only one editorializing the fact and placing interpretations on it has been you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ummm no.

 

The is no connection between.

 

And, yes, Scott has only continued his attack on the now former Police Chief.   It is a pathetic as footnoting that a person committed adultery.    The intent is clearly there, continue the personal attack.

Citing and linking to a news story of unusual prominence -- and in doing so providing little or no personal commentary -- is carrying on a personal attack? Classic shoot-the-messenger mentality.

[tonie]

I'm guessing you're not a trained writer. Regardless, it really doesn't matter. I'm certainly not going to spend any more time arguing about the proper use of footnotes.

In any case, relaying that the police chief has been fired for improper conduct is not an attack on the man's character. It's just a fact of interest. The only one editorializing the fact and placing interpretations on it has been you.

I am just providing a footnote, that being, making note of Scott's personal attacks on the Police Chief in the other thread.

[JulieM]

Where is Moutsos employed now? Is he still a police officer on another force somewhere?

Edited June 13, 2015 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

Where is Moutsos employed now? Is he still a police officer on another force somewhere?

Yes. At the time the prior thread was going on earlier this year, he, by his own account, had found employment with another police agency in Utah.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not necessarily a Chief Burbank apologist in this instance, but, to a certain extent, he was caught between a rock and a hard place: take one action and risk sending the message that the police department and the community devalue gays and lesbians; take another action and risk violating his officers' rights to conscience. That having been said, I think the whole controversy have could been avoided by making such duty voluntary: simply tell your officers, "Whether you accept is up to you, but if you want to make some extra money, here's an event that needs coverage."

 

Having said that, if I were a law enforcement officer, I would have taken an oath to enforce the law "without fear or favor, malice or ill-will."  While reasonable minds can disagree on the matter, I think Moutsos's refusal to obey an order in this instance could cause reasonable people to question his loyalty to that oath.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[tonie]

Where is Moutsos employed now? Is he still a police officer on another force somewhere?

He is employed at Sutherland Institute. I am unaware of any indication that he is employed as a police officer with Sutherland Institute.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not necessarily a Chief Burbank apologist in this instance, but, to a certain extent, he was caught between a rock and a hard place: take one action and risk sending the message that the police department and the community devalue gays and lesbians; take another action and risk violating his officers' rights to conscience. That having been said, I think the whole controversy have could been avoided by making such duty voluntary: simply tell your officers, "Whether you accept is up to you, but if you want to make some extra money, here's an event that needs coverage."

 

Having said that, if I were a law enforcement officer, I would have taken an oath to enforce the law "without fear or favor, malice or ill-will."  While reasonable minds can disagree on the matter, I think Moutsos's refusal to obey an order in this instance could cause reasonable people to question his loyalty to that oath.

 

Agreed.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not necessarily a Chief Burbank apologist in this instance, but, to a certain extent, he was caught between a rock and a hard place: take one action and risk sending the message that the police department and the community devalue gays and lesbians; take another action and risk violating his officers' rights to conscience. That having been said, I think the whole controversy have could been avoided by making such duty voluntary: simply tell your officers, "Whether you accept is up to you, but if you want to make some extra money, here's an event that needs coverage."

 

Having said that, if I were a law enforcement officer, I would have taken an oath to enforce the law "without fear or favor, malice or ill-will."  While reasonable minds can disagree on the matter, I think Moutsos's refusal to obey an order in this instance could cause reasonable people to question his loyalty to that oath.

 

 

Agreed.

Stop the presses!    Hold the phones!  Thesometimesaint and I actually agree on something?!!  Has somebody been monkeying with the Mayan calendar in order to buttress a prediction that the end of the world is nigh ... again?!

 

[Kenngo1969]

He is employed at Sutherland Institute. I am unaware of any indication that he is employed as a police officer with Sutherland Institute.

I don't know.  You could be right that he's employed full-time at the Sutherland Institute (maybe a source you consulted says exactly that) ... or maybe such involvement is less of a vocation than it is an avocation?

 

The Sutherland Institute's Web site really doesn't make clear who's employed full time (or part-time, for that matter) and who might be offering his or her services.  I've done a lot of volunteer work in the last few years: as rewarding as it might be, one still needs to pay the bills.

[tonie]

I don't know. You could be right that he's employed full-time at the Sutherland Institute (maybe a source you consulted says exactly that) ... or maybe such involvement is less of a vocation than it is an avocation?

The Sutherland Institute's Web site really doesn't make clear who's employed full time (or part-time, for that matter) and who might be offering his or her services. I've done a lot of volunteer work in the last few years: as rewarding as it might be, one still needs to pay the bills.

google moutsos sutherland institute

as a footnote, Moutsos employ with Surherland Institute was dicussed in the News forum on this board.

 

FYI re: previous comments-- if you continue to board nanny you will be removed from thread.

[bluebell]

I am just providing a footnote, that being, making note of Scott's personal attacks on the Police Chief in the other thread.

Whatever makes you happy.

[Kenngo1969]

google moutsos sutherland institute

as a footnote, Moutsos employ with Surherland Institute was dicussed in the News forum on this board.

I don't doubt what you say.  As I said, you, apparently, are more familiar with how the Sutherland Institute operates than I am.  Congratulations!

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not necessarily a Chief Burbank apologist in this instance, but, to a certain extent, he was caught between a rock and a hard place: take one action and risk sending the message that the police department and the community devalue gays and lesbians; take another action and risk violating his officers' rights to conscience. That having been said, I think the whole controversy have could been avoided by making such duty voluntary: simply tell your officers, "Whether you accept is up to you, but if you want to make some extra money, here's an event that needs coverage."

 

Having said that, if I were a law enforcement officer, I would have taken an oath to enforce the law "without fear or favor, malice or ill-will."  While reasonable minds can disagree on the matter, I think Moutsos's refusal to obey an order in this instance could cause reasonable people to question his loyalty to that oath.

Are you acquainted with the other thread? Moutsos didn't refuse to obey an order. He arranged with another officer to trade shifts and asked the chief to OK it. He even said he would go ahead and do the motorcycle maneuvers if no one else was availabile to do it. Burbank had a meltdown because Moutsos even raised the issue in the first place, summarily suspended Moutsos and launched an internal affairs investigation pursuant to his dismissal. Then, the SLPD put out a false story about an officer's failure to obey an order. Moutsos denied this, and in subsequent public statements, Burbank never sustained the earlier statement from the SLPD.

All this was hashed out in the prior thread.

I don't agree that Burbank was placed in a difficult spot. He could have quietly approved the shift trade without the matter ever having been made public. Or he could have simply denied the request. Moutsos apparently would have complied.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Okrahomer]

google moutsos sutherland institute

as a footnote, Moutsos employ with Surherland Institute was dicussed in the News forum on this board.

The Sutherland Institute website shows Eric Moutsos as its "Manager of Development."

http://sutherlandinstitute.org/about/our-staff/