• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Hadnt thought of that. Then it begs the question....how did they know about the content?

There are a lot of holes in this entire story and probably needed filling in from quite a few people, like the Chief himself, the Mayor, the HR people, etc. etc.

Did someone who got the book (but didn't object to the content) mention it in passing to someone who happened to be offended? Did the Chief tell people he gave out the book? Did someone just decide he has a vendetta against the Chief and used this to have him ousted? (I sound like I'm writing the next version of Clue here, I know :mrgreen:)

There's a lot more that we don't know than what we do know I think.
 
There are a lot of holes in this entire story and probably needed filling in from quite a few people, like the Chief himself, the Mayor, the HR people, etc. etc.

Did someone who got the book (but didn't object to the content) mention it in passing to someone who happened to be offended? Did the Chief tell people he gave out the book? Did someone just decide he has a vendetta against the Chief and used this to have him ousted? (I sound like I'm writing the next version of Clue here, I know :mrgreen:)

There's a lot more that we don't know than what we do know I think.

There is much we do not know. Someone mentioned and it seems that I also read in an article that Cochran was directed not to publicly discuss the issue during his 30 day suspension. Apparently Cochran did violate that directive.

It has also been reported that he did not receive permission from the Mayor to write the book that he published. That appears to be a factor in the chief's suspension and dismissal.

Something I read in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper related that Cochran was put on suspension without pay. That's telling. I interpret that it could mean that between the initial communication between the mayor and Cochran about the issue(s) and the time the suspension went into effect something was said or done that warranted "without pay" while the allegations were being investigated.

As I said in previous post I have been down this road a few times and I absolutely hated every minute of it. Ending someone's career and taking away their livelihood is a very serious matter. You owe them every possible consideration. In some ways they can make their own situation worse. I'm not saying that is what Cochran did, but putting him on 30 days suspension with or without pay was most likely an option. The fact that Cochran got the without pay suspension cannot be ignored. What happened? Who knows. We likely never will know.

Lawyers are all involved and HR is involved and you go to meetings concerning the alleged violations and complaints. You have to meet with and talk to a lot of people. Lawyers and HR, in my experiences, also advise you to look at the possibilities of tangental and even non-related areas of possible wrong doing. Doing so makes you feel dirty. It takes up and inordinate amount of time, but again you owe to the employee and to all employees to do it.

The first time, when I told the HR director that looking at other possibilities made me uncomfortable and that I wasn't going to do it. He responded by saying that I owed it to the employee (a guy I really liked who had almost 20 years of productive employment and a guy who was going to close on a new home 2 DAYS before the scheduled end of his 30 day suspension with pay). HR said, "Look, if you want to help him, and if in other ways he has a clear slate, you may be able to use that to justify something less than dismissal." Unfortunately, I found and documented things I didn't found hard to believe. He was manager and a nice guy. In the end I had no choice.

Lastly, HR and lawyers always advised that I provide a list of reasons why action was taken when other reasons were discovered during the 30 investigation. Think of it like police always arresting people on multiple charges. Often times there is more than one justifiable reason a person is terminated.

As the termination of even someone as prominent in the community as the city fire chief is a personnel matter, the public is not at all likely to know all the reasons or the specifics. Foremost, for me anyway, you want to respect the dignity and the confidentiality of the dismissed person as much as you can. Secondly, a public "he said, she said" benefits no one, including the employer - government or private. Finally, the legal department will tell you that there is always the possibility of being sued and it serves no purpose to say more than is necessary. PR will advise you, often specifically, how to respond and not to belabor the issue; stay on point and repeat when you must.

There is a reason we do not have a great deal of information about the OP. I doubt we will for a long time. What we may hear will be one-sided. Don't look for the City of Atlanta to engage in a "he said, she said". The quickest was to stop the public discussion is not to respond not respond once the issue is concluded.

Sorry for the text wall. ;)
 
Last edited:
<snip>

It has also been reported that he did not receive permission from the Mayor to write the book that he published. That appears to be a factor in the chief's suspension and dismissal.

Yours was an excellent post Risky and I'm not disrespecting it by snipping in this response but that part I snipped out was a really interesting one. I wonder (and maybe this is out there) what would give the Mayor the right to dictate that someone can't write a book without his permission? I know there is no way in hell I would be able to do that but maybe government agencies have some sort of rule?
 
Because it declares a class of people which HR probably has a policy about (I dont know, but sexual orientation is becoming more and more a protected status by HR departments every day, so I think its a safe assumption that the city HR dept has it covered) to be evil or immoral. This creates a hostile or uncomfortable workplace environment.

Thats really all there is to it in this case as far as I can see and its pretty cut and dry.

Did he do it on his time? Or under the cities? I missed that part.
 
Yours was an excellent post Risky and I'm not disrespecting it by snipping in this response but that part I snipped out was a really interesting one. I wonder (and maybe this is out there) what would give the Mayor the right to dictate that someone can't write a book without his permission? I know there is no way in hell I would be able to do that but maybe government agencies have some sort of rule?

Purely conjecture: It was likely in his contract or in city policy that he was required to obtain prior approval. This is the tricky part. I would bet that the city never said that he could not write a book or even that book. From what I have read, however, Cochran did not appear to obtain written formal approval and likely did not provide a manuscript to the city before the book went to press. Therein, methinks, lies the rub.

It wasn't that he couldn't publish or that he couldn't say whatever he wanted in the book, but rather that he referred to himself as the (current) fire chief and then at other points referenced his duties as (current) fire chief and, as we know, expressed some rather descriptive beliefs. It is in my opinion the combination was the problem. I'd envision the city reviewing the manuscript and saying "take out references to your current employment by the City of Atlanta" and the rest would be fine.
 
Purely conjecture: It was likely in his contract or in city policy that he was required to obtain prior approval. This is the tricky part. I would bet that the city never said that he could not write a book or even that book. From what I have read, however, Cochran did not appear to obtain written formal approval and likely did not provide a manuscript to the city before the book went to press. Therein, methinks, lies the rub.

It wasn't that he couldn't publish or that he couldn't say whatever he wanted in the book, but rather that he referred to himself as the (current) fire chief and then at other points referenced his duties as (current) fire chief and, as we know, expressed some rather descriptive beliefs. It is in my opinion the combination was the problem. I'd envision the city reviewing the manuscript and saying "take out references to your current employment by the City of Atlanta" and the rest would be fine.

No I think you may be on to something. I found this in a few spots:

The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership

Reed: Atlanta fire chief terminated following book controversy | www.ajc.com

Granted, it says "publishing" not "writing" but I'm trying to get my head around what would give the Mayor a right to prohibit his fire chief from publishing a book - any book.

As to the 2nd part of Reed's comment, that I support. If Cochran was instructed not to comment during the investigation, and he disobeyed that order, that is subordination. I wonder why they (Atlanta people) didn't just say that. That in itself is cause for termination.
 
No I think you may be on to something. I found this in a few spots:

The mayor said he decided to terminate Cochran not just because the fire chief didn’t consult him before publishing the book, but also spoke out about his suspension despite being told to remain quiet during the investigation into his leadership

Reed: Atlanta fire chief terminated following book controversy | www.ajc.com

Granted, it says "publishing" not "writing" but I'm trying to get my head around what would give the Mayor a right to prohibit his fire chief from publishing a book - any book.

As to the 2nd part of Reed's comment, that I support. If Cochran was instructed not to comment during the investigation, and he disobeyed that order, that is subordination. I wonder why they (Atlanta people) didn't just say that. That in itself is cause for termination.

From the City's perspective why was it important that Cochran use the City of Atlanta in his book? How does doing so benefit the city? Does it imply that the City of Atlanta supports what Cochran wrote in his book?

I can imagine at some point behind closed doors the mayor saying, "I don't give a damn if you write a book. I don't give a damn what it's about. But, you may not and you shall not invoke the City of Atlanta in any way, shape or form in the book. The City is not going to be seen in any way as endorsing YOUR opinions and beliefs. You are free to have them and express them, but you may not connect them to your current employment by the City of Atlanta."

Cochran's expression of his religious beliefs had nothing to do with his job. He brought his job into the expression of his religious beliefs when he wrote the book and his job didn't like it.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/us/atlanta-ousts-fire-chief-who-has-antigay-views.html?_r=0

ATLANTA — Mayor Kasim Reed announced Tuesday that he had fired the chief of the city’s Fire Rescue Department, Kelvin Cochran, after Mr. Cochran gave workers a religious book he wrote containing passages that condemn homosexuality.

Mr. Reed had suspended Mr. Cochran for a month without pay in November, opening an investigation into whether Mr. Cochran’s authorship and distribution of the book to workers violated the city’s nondiscrimination policies. That move sparked a debate about religious liberty and freedom of expression: Last month, the 1.4-million member Georgia Baptist Convention began an online petition that called for Mr. Cochran’s reinstatement and suggested his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The matter also presents a challenge for Mr. Reed, a second-term Democrat who presides over a metropolis whose social mosaic is defined by strong expressions of Christianity and large and politically powerful gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual groups.

snip...

Homosexual Agenda strikes again




Was he against all gays or just the Flaming Gays?
 
From the City's perspective why was it important that Cochran use the City of Atlanta in his book? How does doing so benefit the city? Does it imply that the City of Atlanta supports what Cochran wrote in his book?

I can imagine at some point behind closed doors the mayor saying, "I don't give a damn if you write a book. I don't give a damn what it's about. But, you may not and you shall not invoke the City of Atlanta in any way, shape or form in the book. The City is not going to be seen in any way as endorsing YOUR opinions and beliefs. You are free to have them and express them, but you may not connect them to your current employment by the City of Atlanta."

Cochran's expression of his religious beliefs had nothing to do with his job. He brought his job into the expression of his religious beliefs when he wrote the book and his job didn't like it.

I haven't read his book (I suspect I would have to take a shower immediately after doing so) so I don't know what mentions he makes of the City of Atlanta in it. What did he say?
 
I haven't read his book (I suspect I would have to take a shower immediately after doing so) so I don't know what mentions he makes of the City of Atlanta in it. What did he say?

LOL! There's no way I'd read his book either. He has been quoted as saying in the book that he is (was) the fire chef for rescue (and something I can't recall) for the City of Atlanta and also that as the fire chief Cochran wrote that his "job description" is to "cultivate the department's culture for the glory of God," as well as to focus on the mission of saving lives and property.

Here again his job has zip connection to his religion, but Cochran connected the two for some reason in his book. I suspect he used his title and connection as a way to lend credence to the author and thus the book.
 
i keep hoping to find THE authentic reason for the fire chief's firing. thus far it appears be this:
Alex Wan, the only openly gay member of Atlanta's City Council, released a statement on Reed's decision:
I support the administration's decision to terminate Kelvin Cochran's employment with the City of Atlanta. His actions made it a difficult work environment for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender employees within the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department. This sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.
I pledge my full support to Interim Fire Chief Joel Baker and LGBT Community Liaison Robin Shahar in implementing whatever programs and steps they recommend to create a safe working environment for all employees within the department.
[emphasis added by bubba]
Atlanta Fire Chief fired after publishing book calling homosexuality ?unclean,? ?vulgar? - Atlanta Business Chronicle


shirley, there must be more to have caused cochrane's termination than what he wrote, as there is nothing in his screed which would place anyone in harm's way, such that there is now a call for safe working conditions

and if there is truly nothing more than his words that instigated this termination, then we should sound the alarms, because this man's right to free speech has been very much violated

if one's new supervisor shows up wearing unadorned, understated clothing, with her skirt well below he knees, the frequent dress of those who subscribe to the southern baptist religion, do we also fear her ... because we now have reason to believe her own moral viewpoints are near identical to cochran's. they share the same religious ideology. so, even tho she has not written/published a treatise, we might well conclude that she, too believes that homosexual acts are sinful and to her, aberrant

how about if she arrives in a burka. does that indicate a personal openness to a hedonistic or homosexual lifestyle. so, should her subordinates be scared of her, as the LBGT staff of atlanta fire were scared of their supervisor

and if you respond, 'no of course not', to my above questions, as in neither example did the supervisor write/publish such intolerant views, then does that not tell us that the difference was only that the fire chief exercised his right of free speech in a way that they did not

so, maybe there is more to this than we have access to, but by withholding it, the government of atlanta does not hold itself in good stead. it appears to have fired a very moral man for advocating his personal morality and having the temerity to exercise his right of free speech to articulate his personal views
 
i keep hoping to find THE authentic reason for the fire chief's firing. thus far it appears be this:
[emphasis added by bubba]
Atlanta Fire Chief fired after publishing book calling homosexuality ?unclean,? ?vulgar? - Atlanta Business Chronicle


shirley, there must be more to have caused cochrane's termination than what he wrote, as there is nothing in his screed which would place anyone in harm's way, such that there is now a call for safe working conditions

and if there is truly nothing more than his words that instigated this termination, then we should sound the alarms, because this man's right to free speech has been very much violated

if one's new supervisor shows up wearing unadorned, understated clothing, with her skirt well below he knees, the frequent dress of those who subscribe to the southern baptist religion, do we also fear her ... because we now have reason to believe her own moral viewpoints are near identical to cochran's. they share the same religious ideology. so, even tho she has not written/published a treatise, we might well conclude that she, too believes that homosexual acts are sinful and to her, aberrant

how about if she arrives in a burka. does that indicate a personal openness to a hedonistic or homosexual lifestyle. so, should her subordinates be scared of her, as the LBGT staff of atlanta fire were scared of their supervisor

and if you respond, 'no of course not', to my above questions, as in neither example did the supervisor write/publish such intolerant views, then does that not tell us that the difference was only that the fire chief exercised his right of free speech in a way that they did not

so, maybe there is more to this than we have access to, but by withholding it, the government of atlanta does not hold itself in good stead. it appears to have fired a very moral man for advocating his personal morality and having the temerity to exercise his right of free speech to articulate his personal views

And what if he had written the same way about blacks or women? Blatantly racist or misogynistic? Knowing the hate and disgust your manager or co-worker felt for you, realizing that it would very possibly affect your chances for advancement? His personal morality can affect his judgement...that's a fact. I wrote earlier that govt agencies....school boards and counties...fire teachers and judges, etc for the personal things they post on social media and the personal morality that they display.

Keeping someone like that in their position....who's responsibility is it to protect those that are dependent on him to be treated fairly in the workplace? Their families depend on their making a living.

Btw, I dont always agree, at all, with those decisions about what's been posted on social media.
 
And what if he had written the same way about blacks or women?
not a bit different. unless you want to pretend that there are no active managers out there who are misogynist and/or racial bigots. would you establish a litmus test for thought?
Blatantly racist or misogynistic?
would you rather the bigot be covert than overt? someone who hides their bigotry instead of someone who is candid about it? that concealment makes it much more difficult to align their actions with their beliefs. my preference would be to know who holds such - to me, backward - beliefs, rather than having to put the puzzle together
and like most, i would prefer someone not to hold misogynist or racially biased views. but look on this board, and it is obvious that would be a fantasy to expect such reasonableness in the workplace
Knowing the hate and disgust your manager or co-worker felt for you, realizing that it would very possibly affect your chances for advancement?
what's next? if the manager is someone who watches his weight, works out and is selective about what he puts in his mouth, will that cause him to be found to have a bias against fat people. can't have that, get his ass out of that leadership position so that he is no longer in a position to intrude on the prospects of fat subordinates
His personal morality can affect his judgement...that's a fact.
you are right, it could affect it. but here's the rub, it should not. and we should not assume that it will. we should instead act on fact, and get rid of him IF his actions demonstrate that he is acting on his unique sense of morality, rather than by the shop rules
I wrote earlier that govt agencies....school boards and counties...fire teachers and judges, etc for the personal things they post on social media and the personal morality that they display.
ok, share with us examples of what you insist and let's scrutinize them to see if those were reasonable actions
Keeping someone like that in their position....who's responsibility is it to protect those that are dependent on him to be treated fairly in the workplace?
i agree with you that we must treat every employee fairly. then why do you defend firing this very moral fellow only because of the courage of his convictions and not his biased actions against subordinates. i have seen NO proof he acted inappropriately towards any subordinate employee, peer, or supervisor. there is no record that any coworker was inflicted by this man's moral beliefs. so, where is this profound sense of fairness, now?
Their families depend on their making a living.
show me an instance when that is not the case. that tidbit has no bearing on this matter

Btw, I dont always agree, at all, with those decisions about what's been posted on social media.
good to know. i am assuming you see the particulars surrounding the termination and question the legitimacy of the firing action. well, that's what i am doing here
 
Indication is he involved city employees when he distributed the bpok

It doesn't really matter who he involved. Did he give it to them on his own time? Or not?
 
And what if he had written the same way about blacks or women? Blatantly racist or misogynistic? Knowing the hate and disgust your manager or co-worker felt for you, realizing that it would very possibly affect your chances for advancement? His personal morality can affect his judgement...that's a fact.

I had a supervisor in Los Angeles who was openly lesbian, placed discreet, but still very noticable, "rainbow" themed decorations in her office and made it known that she was an atheist. In personal conversations to me, she let me know she had a dim view of the social role of orgainized religion- of any sort.

Since by local standards, I was a very conservative Christian (active church goer), could I demand her removal based on the possibility that she might be hostile to me as an individual and then might seek to punish me for my views by hindering my advancement?

Or, would I have needed to wait until she actually did something that I could prove?
 
shirley, there must be more to have caused cochrane's termination than what he wrote, as there is nothing in his screed which would place anyone in harm's way, such that there is now a call for safe working conditions

and if there is truly nothing more than his words that instigated this termination, then we should sound the alarms, because this man's right to free speech has been very much violated

Though I am very sympathetic to Cochrane, I dont think we need to sound the alarm bells. At the end of the day, he occupied a very senior position. He was not a line employee, nor was he a line supervisor. As such, his employment was probaby "at the sole discretion of the mayor".

Though his termination was not fair, and had say, an outspoken lesbian chief been terminated under similar pretense, left wing authoratarians would have a fit, his termination was with in the powers of the mayor and with in the lawful excersize of his discretion.

In short, the higher up one goes in public office, the more discretionary continued employment becomes, regardless of one's socio political views. Had Cochrane been a line fire fighter, then yes, the alarm bells would need to be sounded loudly.
 
Last edited:
LOL! I don't think he was really 'against' Gays at all but, to the Gays, that doesn't seem to matter.

Huh? Perverts, filthy, pedophiles, animal ****ers? Those are terms of endearment and acceptance? How about wops, paddies, chinks, niggers, kikes, lazy, drunks, smelly and cunning? How about mackerel snappers, papists and sand niggers?
 
It doesn't really matter who he involved. Did he give it to them on his own time? Or not?

According to reports and statements by City of Atlanta officials he gave the books out at work to subordinates. And it does matter who he involved in that he reportedly referred to the City of Atlanta in his book.
 
LOL! I don't think he was really 'against' Gays at all but, to the Gays, that doesn't seem to matter.



As soon as I hit the "Submit" button, I was afraid that I would be pilloried for that reference.
 
not a bit different. unless you want to pretend that there are no active managers out there who are misogynist and/or racial bigots. would you establish a litmus test for thought?

would you rather the bigot be covert than overt? someone who hides their bigotry instead of someone who is candid about it? that concealment makes it much more difficult to align their actions with their beliefs. my preference would be to know who holds such - to me, backward - beliefs, rather than having to put the puzzle together
and like most, i would prefer someone not to hold misogynist or racially biased views. but look on this board, and it is obvious that would be a fantasy to expect such reasonableness in the workplace

what's next? if the manager is someone who watches his weight, works out and is selective about what he puts in his mouth, will that cause him to be found to have a bias against fat people. can't have that, get his ass out of that leadership position so that he is no longer in a position to intrude on the prospects of fat subordinates

you are right, it could affect it. but here's the rub, it should not. and we should not assume that it will. we should instead act on fact, and get rid of him IF his actions demonstrate that he is acting on his unique sense of morality, rather than by the shop rules

ok, share with us examples of what you insist and let's scrutinize them to see if those were reasonable actions

i agree with you that we must treat every employee fairly. then why do you defend firing this very moral fellow only because of the courage of his convictions and not his biased actions against subordinates. i have seen NO proof he acted inappropriately towards any subordinate employee, peer, or supervisor. there is no record that any coworker was inflicted by this man's moral beliefs. so, where is this profound sense of fairness, now?
show me an instance when that is not the case. that tidbit has no bearing on this matter

Absolutely they should keep their opinions of all kinds to themselves. The fact that their beliefs are strong enough to publish is an indication of their strength and committment to them. We all have known employers/managers that were prejudiced against women or blacks or seniors, etc. And HR departments and individuals need to document instances of biases in the workplace. And all of us probably have suffered from such unprovable allegations.

But we have anti-discrimination laws for a reason and have a system of dealing with it. If we CAN deal directly with those using illegal bias against those in the workplace, we should. The fact that this was written out is a slap in the face to every LGBT person working for him. How often does a manager make blatant verbal comments like that? Not only does it affect them, it can cause others in the workplace to pity or look at the LGBT people differently, even take advantage of that bias with the superior.

One does not have to act...the damage has already been done to LGBT employees. They often do prove racism and misogyny in the workplace...it just has to be properly documented. The supervisor that writes that women are too emotional to do their jobs, cant do math, and belong at home and publishes it? He is not fit for the job because his **ignorance** proves it. The fire chief in this case wrote things that altho his belief, are also incorrect. LGBT people are not perverts, damaged, sinners, etc. That is incompetance. That shows he believes unfounded dogma rather than fact. He's not moral. He has judged unfairly LGBT people. Even God says that's wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom