Reference no: EM132925085
Instructions:
The scenario used for this assignment is based off of the Public Complaints Commission for the RCMP, however, this example has been modified for the purpose of this assignment.
Read the scenario provided below and do the following:
1. Identify and describe the professional and unprofessional behaviors of the RCMP officer contained within.
2. Analyze why the behaviors would be considered professional or unprofessional.
3. Rationalize your decisions using your knowledge about professionalism and relate your ideas to the competencies discussed in this course.
4. Develop an appropriate consequence for the RCMP officer and explain how you came to this resolution.
Create a five to seven minute long presentation or a three to four page long paper that summarizes your findings/decisions, feelings/thoughts, and resolutions. You must use APA formatting and include a three-point title page. You will find useful presentation tips in the Digital Toolkit and in these readings: Best Video Integration for your Classroom and Tutorial: Best Video Integration in Canvas.
Read This Scenario Carefully:
A private citizen made several noise complaints to his local Municipal By-Law Office concerning the ongoing issue of a truck with a loud muffler driving past his residence. The By-Law Officer investigating the first complaint, interviewed the complainant and although there were sufficient grounds to lay a charge against the registered owner of the truck, the complainant requested a warning be given to the registered owner and the By-Law Officer for the first complaint issued a warning ticket that required the owner of the truck to repair the muffler on the truck within the seven days. Ten days later, a different By-Law Officer responded to the second complaint and met with the same initial complainant and the complainant still only wanted the driver to be given a warning and for the noise to stop. The second By-Law Officer issued a second warning ticket. Each By-Law Officer gave separate written warnings to the driver to repair the muffler and the driver was given a reasonable time period to complete the muffler repair. After each of the repair dates expired and the driver / registered owner did not report to the either of the By-Law officers to prove the muffler repairs were completed, the initial complainant made a new complaint (the third complaint) of noise involving the same vehicle as the driver continued to operate the vehicle without repairing the muffler. Each By-Law Officer subsequently issued a violation ticket for Failing to Maintain Equipment regarding the loud muffler (two violation tickets in total). The actions taken by each By-Law Officer followed the By-Laws, policies and procedures. Both By-Law Officers were professional in their delivery of service.
The driver of the truck was given the option of paying a fine for each ticket or entering a not guilty plea and attend court for trial at a later date. The driver of the truck attended Court and entered a not guilty plea to each violation ticket and the case was set for trial. Although the case was set for trial, the driver changed his plea from not guilty to guilty to the first violation ticket and the second charge was withdrawn by the Crown Prosecutor. (It is fully within the authority of the Crown Prosecutor to accept a guilty plea on one charge and withdraw another related charge, this practice is common place and an accepted practice.) - this part of the scenario is not at issue.
After the charges had been laid against the driver and the accused had entered a not guilty plea, but before the trial date, an RCMP member who worked at the local RCMP detachment attended the office of the Crown Prosecutor and the office of each of the two Municipal By-Law Officers. The RCMP Officer, who was an acquaintance of the driver of the truck (a friend of a friend), had, according to the By-Law Officers, spoken to them and the Crown Prosecutor about the "Fail to Maintain Equipment" ticket issued to his acquaintance. Specifically, the RCMP officer provided a positive character reference about the driver and his family to the two Municipal By-Law Officers, who were investigating the matter, and the Crown Prosecutor who was assigned to the trial proceedings.
The complainant, who was the Crown Prosecutor, alleged that the RCMP member improperly involved himself in the Municipal By-Law Enforcement agency investigation.
Attachment:- Public Complaints.rar