Kim Bolan (Vancouver Sun) – RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told Postmedia news Thursday that current legislation actually makes it harder for the force to get rid of officers engaged in disreputable conduct like former Alberta Mountie Sgt. Donald Ray.
And Paulson slammed Ray’s behaviour, which was revealed only after leaks in Alberta about an adjudication board into his conduct.
Paulson called Ray’s conduct a ”sorry, sad and shameful set of facts.” And the RCMP commissioner said the case underscores a need to revamp the RCMP’s disciplinary system, which requires legislative changes to be made.
Here’s the full Postmedia story:
It has been a bad week for the RCMP, with more charges revealed against a former Merrit Mountie who has quit after being accused of stealing cocaine from a storage locker.
A Coquitlam Mountie who assaulted a motorist got a conditional discharge Thursday – here’s the Province’s story on that:
But the Ray story is the talk of the town – not only because of the serious conduct, but also because he got transferred to the Lower Mainland where allegations of sexual misconduct have already led Cpl. Catherine Galliford and others to file lawsuits against the force.
[Source]
Really, an open letter to the members spoken in a sternly disappointed tone of voice and that’s going to start the process is it? Good luck with that. There are so many registered complaints about the RCMP that trying to deal with the real “dark hearts” goes on and on. What about all those RCMP members who had an application sent to Ottawa to have them dealt with- those applicaions go no where apparently and the dark hearts keep working with the Canadian public. How does a national treasure , a national tradition become so corrupt, so dirty in how public are dealt with? When did this really begin? I don’t agree that it was 25 years ago. Rural Canada has changed in certain ways perhaps that is part of it- rural policing hasn’t changed at all. I appreciate the commissioner’s letter and his credibility has not decreased or diminished at all- that’s a tough job he’s accepted.
Especially for promotion, you write your own examples up for promotion now and only have the supervisor concur.
LP
———————————————————-
RCMP members should be encouraged to work together. The above process that is mentioned by LP only serves to encourage members to work as individuals.
“I need examples therefore I don’t have time to work with you” attitude develops.
When accurate assessments are not done the message is; what RCMP members do everyday is meaningless.
Assessments are just a small part of the problem.
I don’t think that we will have to wait very long before another high profile case of sexual exploits is exposed.
As Dr. Phil says; “Past behaviour is a prediction
of future behaviour”.
This applys to RCMP members as well as the public.
I’m finally glad we are zeroing in on the mechanics of how the force works.
Took allot of time to get here.
I just laugh inside when I see how these members of our trained elite police force called the RCMP have turned this federal police force into a Mockery of Justices without consequences. It’s even hard to fire a member of the RCMP when he kills another police officer in the line of duty, go figure. Are they in the police protection racket as well? Are they not suppose to be the best of the best the elite of the elite so how come they come out way below their pumped up media standards falling short and way below those of our Canadian Security Guards in nature? They are not in a mess like these guys are and they have allot less to work with.
If you apply what you have read to the entire operation of this federal police department and some of their so called investigations through the years then maybe you will start to understand that they are far below what we have been led to believe they really are in this country.
If this game is allowed to continue, in stalling for time, by leaking to the public through various means, that their hands are tied, they will most certainly never change or be dealt with properly.
My hat off to those who want to see real change happen in this police force and shame on those who strive to confuse these most serious issues.
The struggle goes on to see real Justice happen in this country. Time for change guys!
Hey johnnyG, I think you hit a nail with the assessment thing. The older system that was in place, if followed, was better than this system now. Especially for promotion, you write your own examples up for promotion now and only have the supervisor concur. The old system took into account your last 5 years assessments, a score on 25 areas of concern, service, and the OIC’s prioritization list (in E Division), to put you on the Division list. Subsequent to that system there was the change to an example based exam plus an interview. That wasn’t too bad either. Now its just a crock. The assessments now do nothing for promotion. Just look at dear Monty who was written up as not promotable from his last supervisor in the interior as a prime example of the assessment not influencing promotion. A promotion board is not able to look at the personnel file of any of the candidates. How ludicrous. When I sit on them as a SME, I would like to have more information. Cant get it.
In the old days staffing did the promoting and could look at your entire file from day one to see a complete picture of your service. Some suggest now that we add in a 360 degree assessment scored outside of the Force. Not a bad idea, seeing as how it has a good track record.
Hey gord, good reference there. Case law runs everything these days. The big one is substance abuse. Cant just up and fire somebody without the old RAGs. Got to follow steps like you outline in one form or another. VPD have a bit simpler system that seems to work quite well for them. We could learn from that.
I would like to hear some of DTs questions answered. Simple yet direct. It would certainly show something is happening.
Even when the assessments were actually done in the past, too often the supervisors would give the lazy, unmotivated as well as the troublemakers a free pass. This wasn’t fair to the workers in other detachments who earned their pass from competent supervisors.
Whenever you give the undeserving a break, you often take away the break from the deserving.
I guess the new promotional system kind of took much of the importance of the assessment away.
Dr. Joe Dietrich an International Specialist in Acute, Chronic and Post-Traumatic Stress, a former Employee Assistance specialist with the RCMP and …
Google Joe Dietrich
———————-
DT Thank you for the book info. I also draw your attention to the above person. Dr. Dietrich is one of the foremost authorities on policing and alcohol in the world. I had many conversations with him. I arranged to have him present to the RCMP members of the Prime Ministers Protection Detail when I was posted in the training unit here in Ottawa.
Alcohol and the Policing Culture is a topic that should be investigated in the RCMP. Both the Blondell case and the Ray case involved alcohol.
gordbusey, you are bang on with the process that should be followed. That process would require supervisors to actually supervise.
Annual performance assessments are frequently not done.
Sometimes RCMP members are instructed to do there own assessments.
RCMP members go for years without having annual performance assessments done. When the troubled members are told about their poor performance, they simply say prove it. (No assessment; no proof.)
There have been situations where one assessment is done to cover a number of years because of lack of information on the members by the supervising NCO.
The rules are in place. They just need to be enforced by people who have the will to do so.
I have been involved in some of the efforts to fire members for bad conduct. Deepthroat mentions but one aspect of the RCMP Act which is a big hurdle in and of itself. I used the following to assist in taking the necessary steps to comply with labor law. It comes from a major Canadian law firm that deals with stuff like this. If you have not covered your bases, judgements will go against you if you just fire somebody outright without the necessary backstopping.
1. Advise the employee of your required standards of performance. These standards should be developed in the initial interview, through the position description, in performance evaluations and be detailed in any written warning;
2. The warning letter must particularize all respects in which the employee does not meet the company’s standards. In preparing this letter, you must demonstrate that the employee’s level of incompetence is extremely serious. Some judges have stated that incompetence has to be so serious to be cause that it must border on willful conduct. But if sufficient warnings have been provided, the level of incompetence need not be quite as serious;
3. The warning letter must not only explain the respects in which the performance was deficient but detail why the employee was personally responsible for these problems;
4. You must advise the employee specifically that his or her job is in jeopardy. You do not wish to have the employee later argue that he or she believed that the letter was provided in the spirit of training or as suggestions for improvement, rather than as a “warning”;
5. You must delineate precisely what is required to improve the job performance;
6. The employee must be provided with a reasonable opportunity and specific time frame in which to improve. More time is required to improve for a longer service employee or one who performed particularly well in the past;
7. You must follow up, preferably on a weekly basis, with the employee’s attempts to improve performance. I recommend a scheduled weekly meeting with the employee’s supervisor;
8. You cannot leave the employee out on a limb without the assistance necessary to improve. In your letter of warning, detail the help you will provide. Otherwise, an employee can argue that he or she was never capable of meeting the employer’s standards but that it did not provide the requisite support;
9. Consider what excuses the employee might make for the poor performance. Eliminate these in advance. You do not wish to learn, for the first time in court, that the poor performance precipitating the termination was caused by, for example, marital breakdown, psychiatric problems or a death in the family. The court will look at such evidence as mitigating factors and may, as result, determine there to be no cause for discharge. Thus, in the warning letter, ask the employee if there are any personal or other temporary difficulties. Offer assistance if problems are identified.
For example, you should believe that the poor performance was attributable to alcohol or drug use, suggest to the employee that, you will send them, at your expense, to a rehabilitation clinic. If the employee does not take you up on that offer, he or she cannot later rely upon their addiction as a defence at trial; and
10. If you are building a case for cause based on incompetence, do not act inconsistently with your position. For example, do not provide discretionary salary increases or positive evaluations!
Generally, one warning is insufficient to justify summary discharge. You should provide a series of progressively more serious warnings until there is no doubt in the court’s mind that this employee clearly understood what was required but was either incapable of or unwilling to make the necessary changes.
Its just not as simple as it should be thanks to our court system. Any decision (like firing) by a Federal Body (like the RCMP) is reviewable by the Federal Court of Canada for procedural fairness, and fundamental justice. You don’t meet any of that along the way and you are done like dinner. Been there done that and its onerous. This is the law today.
Calvin, I would recommend the following book where you will find more “intellectual” information vis a vis case law and pitfalls legally associated with alcohol and drug abuse for employers:
http://www.lexisnexis.ca/bookstore/bookinfo.php?pid=1490
Although simpler solutions are the most desirable, it is not always the case in today’s legal climate.
D/COMM McGOWAN didn’t even ask for his dismissal. They cannot claim that the RCMP Act didn’t work when they agreed not to fire RAY. He wasn’t even suspended from duty for any of this.
From an intellectual stand point “DT” explained exactly why there is no change. And yes; the question should be asked when are the changes coming?
The Commissioner was going to whip the organization into shape regarding harassment. This seems to have fallen well short of the member’s and the public’s expectations.
I was an instructor at RCMP Depot, Regina.
Within the first two weeks of arriving at Depot cadets were told that there was zero tolerance for harassment in the RCMP.
I still remember the shock of some cadets when they were harassed by some instructors. They were devastated. They even went to the DSRR only to be told that they could not help. They were there to represent the RCMP members.
The offending members (Instructors) were sent to the Program Support Unit while the mess that they created was fixed. They had to be kept away from the cadets.
I guess it is time to start advising applicants, especially females:
(1)That they may be supervised by an NCO who is a convicted harasser.
(2)That they may be harassed by RCMP members who are in positions of authority.
(3)The harasser will be moved and or demoted but he will not be fired.
The commissioner does not understand that his credibility was on the line. He now has lost that credibility with a large number of RCMP members and the public.
The RCMP should now offer courses to members and potential recruits on how to protect themselves from harassers, since they can’t be fired.