Rockland International has a seven-year-old whistle-blowing policy that requires employees to report any suspicions of unethical or illegal conduct and assures employees that they will not suffer any adverse consequences from complying with the policy. Art Holmes called Rockland's whistle-blowing hotline and presented copies of canceled checks and invoices as evidence that his immediate supervisor, the head of the purchasing department, was involved in a kickback scheme with a supplier. The purchasing department head resigned after making restitution. The entire company knew of the scheme and of Holmes' role in uncovering it. However, the copies of the checks and invoices presented by Holmes were over a year old, and Holmes's job is due to be eliminated. Ken Dryden, the company investigator, wonders whether Holmes blew the whistle in an attempt to protect his job. Is Holmes abusing the whistle-blowing policy? If Holmes has evidence of genuine wrongdoing and reveals it in accord with the policy, why should his motive matter? Justify your answer.