D-093 - Adjudication Board Decision

Peer-to-peer filing sharing programs were installed on the computer of a manager who headed an information technology section as well as on the computers of two of his subordinates with the member's knowledge and consent. The file sharing activity that resulted significantly increased the amount of data being transmitted across the Internet, to the point that the Force was billed an additional $12,000 for Internet services. When informed of the bill by his supervisor, the member chose not to tell him about the fact that file sharing programs were being used. He proceeded to delete the programs and modified the computer registry in an effort to conceal the fact that the programs had previously been used. However, an investigation by the Force eventually did uncover that fact and disciplinary proceedings were then initiated against the member. At the hearing before an RCMP adjudication board (the "Board"), the member acknowledged his misconduct and apologized. However, he insisted that he would not have tolerated the use of file sharing programs had he known that this could result in additional costs to the Force. He also stated that his own use of those programs had been minimal and that he had been unaware that his subordinates were downloading movies and making them available for uploading by program users from outside of the Force. There was no evidence available as to how much Internet traffic was attributable to each computer because the member's supervisor had neglected to replace a defective router. Furthermore, it was possible that some of the increase in Internet traffic could be blamed on other computers that were part of the same network but that possibility had not been explored by the Force's investigation. Uploading of files could have been prevented by installing a firewall but the member's supervisor had deemed the cost to be prohibitive. The member's explanation for trying to conceal his activities is that he had been in a state of shock. However, the Board concluded that he had been deceptive and that was one of its reasons for ordering him to resign. It also stated that expertise in information technology meant that he was expected to display a very high degree of integrity and propriety on matters such as protection of copyright but that his actions showed that he could not be trusted to do so. While acknowledging that it was not possible to ascertain precisely to what extent the member had contributed to the increase in Internet traffic, the Board indicated that he was at least partly responsible given that he had himself downloaded files through the file sharing programs, including a graphics software package.

In support of his appeal of the order to resign, the member maintained that the Board had misinterpreted the facts and that he was being dealt with more harshly than other members for similar misconduct. The member submitted that his expertise in information technology should not have been regarded as an aggravating factor, especially since he had limited knowledge of peer-to-peer file sharing programs. He considered that it was unfair that he should be held responsible for activities associated with his subordinates' computers, such as downloading and uploading of movies, when he had not even been aware that such activities were taking place. Furthermore, the Board's criticism of him for being deceptive by trying to conceal what had transpired failed to do justice to his explanation that he had been concerned that he and his subordinates might lose their jobs and that he would be required to pay back the $12,000 bill.

The Board's understanding of the facts appears to have been correct and its decision was justified. The member was in a position of trust as the manager of an information technology section and that trust was broken beyond repair by his actions. Previous cases that have resulted in more lenient sanctions for similar misconduct can be distinguished due to the fact that they did not pertain to managers of information technology sections. The member turned a blind eye to activities that he knew to be inappropriate and the fact that he may not have realized the financial consequences that could ensue for the Force is immaterial. The breach of trust was made worse by his attempt to conceal what had happened. His concerns at the time about potential job loss and having to reimburse the $12,000 bill did not outweigh his responsibility as a manager to display leadership and accountability. The supervisor's failure to install a firewall and repair a defective router are irrelevant considerations for the purpose of deciding upon an appropriate sanction. The gravity of the member's misconduct is the same regardless of what is the extent to which his use of file sharing programs, and that by his subordinates, contributed to an increase in data transmission across the Internet.

The appeal should be dismissed.

The Commissioner has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his personnel:

On November 27, 2005, the Commissioner concurred with the decision of the Adjudication Board as well as the recommendations of the External Review Committee and denied the appeal.

In making his decision, the Commissioner not only considered the Appellant's misconduct, but also the way he handled himself once the misconduct was discovered. His conduct, which was one of participation, condonation and deception, destroyed the trust relationship between him and his employer. The Appellant deceived his supervisor by offering an explanation that he knew was untrue and he failed to act with integrity and to be accountable. The conduct of the Appellant over a prolonged period of time was so contrary to the core values of the RCMP that he could no longer continue to work within the organization. Dismissal was therefore the only appropriate sanction.

Accordingly, the Appellant was ordered to resign from the RCMP within 14 days, and in default of which, be dismissed.