This could get interesting
From today's O:
Foxworth contends he did nothing wrong because there is no city rule that prohibits personal relationships with co-workers, and that others in similar senior positions, including the top chief's job, have had their own romantic relationships with other bureau employees and were never disciplined.Mark Kroeker? Nah.His claim does not identify which police chief or other police brass engaged in romantic relationships with co-workers, but suggests that Foxworth is willing to drudge up other dirty laundry in the bureau to defend himself.
Charles Moose? Penny Harrington? Ron Still?
Comments (14)
One person's perk is anothers scandal. Smacks of discrimmination, eh?
Posted by genop | October 12, 2006 9:28 AM
Ben Canada
Posted by Steve | October 12, 2006 9:45 AM
Sounds like a pretty risky strategy, one that could in turn bring some civil lawsuits by these people who he willing to drag through the mud, no?
Posted by Dave J. | October 12, 2006 9:53 AM
Tom Potter? ;)
Posted by Aaron B. Hockley | October 12, 2006 10:21 AM
Bill Clinton.
Posted by John | October 12, 2006 10:24 AM
So, we have a veiled threat to "out" the Mayor's dirty laundry in an effort to settle out of court.
And we have the Mayor saying the city is going to fight this case with its full resources.
We don't know if either side will blink, but we do know this: Foxworth has tossed the last bit of dignity he had on the funeral pyre.
This isn't about breaking a taboo for a black man and a white woman. It is about a vicious and unstable woman hitting back at a man who has scorned her. And she chose to do it in the most public forum she could find.
The truth is, after all of this personal information was held out for public ridicule, Foxworth was made impotent in the Chief's role.
Derrick should be suing her and her attorney for destroying his credibility, not the city. That's what they sought to do, that's what they did. The city just has deep pockets.
Posted by Tom | October 12, 2006 10:38 AM
If you read attorney Victor Calzaretta's April 11, 2006 letter to Potter, it specifically states the claim in NOT about sexual harassment. It was about Foxworth refusal to use his chief's power to have police bureau employees stop harassing Oswalt for details about their relationship.
Further, in the letter, Oswalt and her attorney sought to keep the complaint quiet, but Potter did not have the city answer the tort claim for more than 19 days. It's only because of Potter's calculated delay that Foxworth's e-mails to Oswalt (to prove their relationship) were made public.
Potter saw a way to remove the strong-willed Foxworth as chief with a scandal and he took it. Potter just wanted assurances that no one would investigate his past absues, and a city investigation rather than an independent one, would keep his sordid secrets.
Perhaps we'll finally learn who were the employees in the police bureau digging into a 6 year old Foxworth-Oswalt relationship? and Why?
Posted by Shadow | October 12, 2006 11:19 AM
I should have seen this coming, but please don't post accusations of sexual misconduct against particular individuals here unless you are willing to back them up by giving your real name. I'm sure Commander Foxworth's attorney would be happy to hear from you privately.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 12, 2006 12:38 PM
What, you want I should end up the victim of a police "accident" like that poor man who fell victim to Potter's "clean up downtown" directive.
Want to buy a bridge?
Foxworth's attorney received the information months ago. No doubt it supports what Foxworth and many others knows to be true about your Grampy.
Posted by Shadow | October 12, 2006 3:14 PM
If you're right, this will all get settled out of court.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 12, 2006 3:23 PM
Yes, but being settled out of court means that WE, the taxpayers are ultimately paying the bill. As far as other people getting away with having affairs with other bureau employees, perhaps they showed better judgement and didn't leave a trail of "evidence". I'm disappointed in Foxworth for using the "race card". Tacky and inappropriate behaviour is tacky and inappropriate behaviour no matter what color you are.
Posted by Lily | October 12, 2006 6:05 PM
And his attempt to justify it by saying "other people did it too" is so childish. My mother would say to him "Yeah and if everybody else jumps off a bridge are you going to as well ?" (she used that one on me quite a few times during my teenaged years.)
Besides, look who he chose to "misbehave" with- one look at her and you should see trouble coming your way. It is too bad they can't just duke it out legally between the two of them.
Posted by Lily | October 12, 2006 6:12 PM
She's just a front for some other, much larger issue that somebody had a beef with Derrick over. The mayor started out defending him, but after one meeting with the union, that was the end of that.
Posted by Jack Bog | October 12, 2006 6:30 PM
From the start, the union was demanding an independent investigation, which would have included Foxworth's contentions that other chiefs, like Potter, and precinct commanders were also having sex with subordinates.
Once Potter was able to get the union leaders to back down on their demand for an outside review, he showed his true color and removed Foxworth from the job. He had avoided himself being incriminated with evidence of the same behavior.
Think about it! An investigation under Potter's control that set the scope and limits to the search for the truth, was the saving grace for Potter.
Again, why were people in the Police Bureau -- after Potter took office -- harassing Oswalt about a six-year old relationship with Foxworth?
She NEVER claimed any sexual harassment against Foxworth. This fact seem to be lost on people who assumed it was so, thus the public anger. His lover emails to his "girlfriend" were private from his home computer to hers.
When it comes to Black people, we all know the deep down truth: that conclusions are jumped to well before any facts are made clear. It's called racial profiling.
Posted by Shadow | October 13, 2006 8:21 AM