Opinion ID: 1951790
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Dishonesty Cause

Text: The employer described the second cause for Frost's proposed removal as: Dishonesty, to wit, misappropriation of Government-owned property of more than nominal value. On or before February 6, 1986, you intentionally created a new super users code and a new managers code for the Fortune System, such codes being unknown to anyone else. This constituted a wrongful exercise of dominion and control over property belonging to the District, for the purpose of making the code serve your own use, to the exclusion of and inconsistent with, the rights of the District Government. During the times that these codes were under your exclusive control, appropriate District officials could not access the System, as detailed above [referring to the Misuse Charge discussed in Part III. of the opinion], and could exercise no control over the District's financial forecasting apparatus. (Emphasis added). The hearing examiner found that the evidence did not support that portion of the allegation, emphasized above, that the employee intended to make the code serve his own purposes to the exclusion of the District government. To the contrary, the hearing examiner found that, as with the misuse cause, the employee changed the code because it was his duty to do so whenever he discovered a security breach within the computer system. The examiner concluded, therefore, that the employer failed to prove the dishonesty cause by a preponderance of the evidence. Without disagreeing in any way with the examiner's factual findings, OEA reached a different conclusion. Noting that Frost admitted he changed the code in an attempt to prevent his supervisor from ascertaining information in the computer, OEA held that the employer had proven the dishonesty cause. OEA ruled, citing 30 D.C.Reg. § 1608.6(6)(d), at 5896 (1983), that the regulations have interpreted the term dishonesty to include [m]isuse, whether or not for personal gain, of government funds or property, or other funds or property which come into the employee's possession by reason of his or her official position. Based on that regulation, OEA determined that Frost deliberately used his exclusive knowledge of the new access codes in an attempt to restrict [his supervisor's] access to the computer system [and that such] conduct amounted not only to a misuse of the access codes, but also a misuse of the computer system. In short, the OEA's panel majority ruled that this cause was proven because Frost's conduct amounted to dishonesty under the regulation30 D.C.Reg. § 1608.6(6)(d)that defined dishonesty as misuse, whether or not for personal gain of government funds or property. That finding by OEA cannot be sustained. As we held in Part III, supra, substantial evidence to support a finding of misuse was lacking. Thus, since the dishonesty cause was based upon the identical conduct as that described in the misuse cause, the evidence of misuse under the dishonesty cause was necessarily also lacking. [12] See Gunty, supra, 524 A.2d at 1198.