• HQ Division: Ottawa:
In September 2005, off-duty Constable Michael Dudas entered a McDonald’s restaurant drive-through lane and instigated an angry verbal exchange with three young pedestrians placing an order in front of him. In what an RCMP adjudication board called “a sudden and violent attack,” Const. Dudas left his truck, grabbed one of the young women and punched her in the face. She fell to the ground where she lay “bleeding profusely.” Four of her teeth were fractured as a result of the attack. The constable returned to his truck and left the scene without offering any assistance to his victim. He pleaded guilty in provincial court to common assault and received a suspended sentence with a one-year probation order. In June 2008 the RCMP adjudication board docked him 10 days pay. Const. Dudas remains on active duty in the National Capital Region.

The alleged abuse of citizens by RCMP individual members is becoming critical. (See above example)

If someone in government or RCMP management does not get these situations under control there will be serious consequences. Not everyone is going to wait for an internal process to run it’s course to get justice. If they get justice at all. There is always the time restrictions being missed causing no action to be taken. Does the punishment really fit the alleged crime?

Citizens are going to take matters into their own hands and an innocent RCMP officer who follows the code of conduct and their oath will pay the price.

One day TRUTH and LIE went swimming. TRUTH took off his cloths and LIE took off his cloths. They both jumped into the water. TRUTH swam around. LIE however, got out of the water and put on his cloths as well as TRUTH’S cloths and ran away. TRUTH got out of the water and gave chase.

What you have is naked TRUTH chasing a dressed up LIE.

Calvin Lawrence
CGL Consulting

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  2

If you pause to think about it any organization which has an autonomous internal investigative apparatus empowered to independently inquire into allegations of improper conduct or controversial organizational performance, author findings critical of such organizational performance, and then publish such findings, potentially to the embarrassment and the detriment to the careers of its members, is to be feared and resisted by guerilla warfare if necessary. I know this to be true because I have personally seen it in action many times and there are sufficient credible reports of the suspicion and antipathy between investigators generally and their targets (and indeed between the operators of the complaints process on one side and the general rank and file plus the brass not directly targeted) that none of us should be surprised Kennedy and Elliott are feuding.

Generally what worries internal investigators and auditors as much as a finding of impropriety is the defensive reactions of the power structure which has to be relied upon to make the changes necessary to enhance performance going froward. And resist they do! It might seem counter intuitive. Why is it if the problem is one or a few inappropriate people, that those in charge have such trouble admitting it and taking action to discharge them? If there is a problem with substandard procedures or ineffective organization, why not agree and move to fix the problems?

To be clear, sometimes we see an openness and a confidence to acknowledge poor performance and “man up” to fixing it. I saw that tonight after the Seattle Seahawks were pummeled. Jim Mora did his usual post-game interview and he was clearly a very unhappy coach. When the interviewer threw him a puffball opening question Mora unequivocally said what every fan and viewer already knew: the whole team played badly and there was no excuse given how they had prepared. So now every player and every coach was going to be under intense review and changes are coming.

Mora acted in a manner very different to the usual whining, complaining and downright obfuscation which more often than not greets an investigative report. So why is it such a big deal to own a failure and say yes, we messed up and we are going to change? Because clearly it is a big deal.

I think part of the explanation for bureaucratic denial is found in the carefully crafted image of moral, technological, and psychological superiority which so many organizations build up about themselves, contrasted with irrational fears which their leaders dread should they “man up” to bad performance in public. Do they believe as Foxy Loxy told Chicken Little, that the sky is falling? What terrible thing would follow if they owned up to bad performance in a given situation, or class of occurrences? What do they fear?

So Kennedy is on his way out, and so I understand, is Elliott. Will the RCMP better adapt to past failures in the coming year? Who knows. But here is a tip for the fans who watch large bureaucracies. Kennedy and Elliott are in a way, irrelevant, although not unimportant. You see, when organizational change occurs, it’s never about who’s going. It’s always about who’s coming.

I have never seen, worked in, or heard about a “perfect (and perfectly infallible) bureaucracy. So I hope that auditors and commissioners of complaints in their various incarnations will continue to do their work. And that includes in the RCMP as well as in the various government departments, and the auditors who certify the books of publicly traded corporations. Because you don’t get better by saying and believing everything is OK and no change is needed.

And I have no idea if Jim Mora is going to be back coaching the Seahawks, but I respect him a lot for his honesty. And if I were looking for a coach to turn around a crappy effort, it would be the guy who can say in front of millions of observers the team played really badly, and everyone is going to be looked at, including the head coach himself, beginning immediately.

So far, William Elliott is no Jim Mora.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 3  0