Code of Conduct/Handling Violations/Example

2018 CoC Violation Report Post-Mortem

In May of 2018, ML256 received a report of a sexual assault against a member (the victim) by another member (the offender). We’re including the events here for two reasons: transparency into the process of CoC violation reports, and to allow constructive feedback on places where the process could be improved.

The Events

Shortly after receiving the report, we had a board member reach out the victim to find a safe place and time to meet up and discuss the details.

(May 29) During the meeting, the victim provided their details of the incident:

• In early 2014, at an event at ML256, the victim was grabbed sexually from behind by a member they identified.
• Later in the evening, the victim was grabbed again.
• No one else was around as witness to the events.
• The victim talked with the offender at a later date to let the offender know that they were not comfortable with that type of behavior.
• The victim had separate conversations with two different board members who the victim said had implied that a complaint would go nowhere, or actively discouraged the victim to not make the complaint.
• The victim said that they had shut off communications and instructed the offender to not contact them anymore.

The victim was asked what could have been done differently to prevent something like this from happening again, and they suggested a better Code of Conduct be implemented, and for board members to actively encourage reports of violations against it.

(May 29) A discussion then was had with each of the board members that the victim referenced. The first provided details regarding implications that a complaint would go nowhere:

• They said that they did remember a conversation with the victim, but could not remember the exact details.
• They said that they would have not implied that certain members were "above the law".
• They also mentioned that it may have been hard to believe that certain people would have acted so poorly.
• They mentioned that the victim spoke in hypotheticals, and did not specifically mention an incident or offender.

(May 31) The second board member provided details regarding discouragement of making a report:

• They said that they did not remember very many details about the conversation at all
• They said that they could not remember if the victim had or had not mentioned the specifics of the incident of who the offender was.
• They said they would have likely told the victim to file a complaint if the claims were as serious as the victim has described.

(June 1) Finally, a discussion was had with the person identified as the offender. They provided the following details regarding the incident:

• They said that they and the victim were in an active sexual relationship at the time of the incident.
• They also said that there was only one instance of a grab on the butt, not twice.
• They claimed that the incident did not happen at Makers Local 256, but instead happened at a mutual friend’s place.
• They claimed that the victim did not shut off communication with them, and had maintained casual contact over the last four years.
• The said that while the single incident did happen, they apologized for their actions, and that they and the victim worked together to resolve their issues.

(June 1) Because of some discrepancies in the stories between the offender and the victim, the victim was asked to confirm the location of the incident. No response was given.

(June 5) Four days after the request for confirmation of location was made, the information gathered above was included in a Formal Complaint to the board against the offender on behalf of the victim. Both the victim and the offender were made aware that a complaint had been made.

(June 5) The same day, the victim replied with a request to retract the Formal Complaint against the offender:

• They stated that after being requested for confirmation of details regarding the incident, they had talked with the offender about what they remembered.
• The stated that they believed the offender regretted their actions and that it wasn’t something brought up sooner.
• The victim acknowledged that a long time has passed and that things had changed.
• After reflection, the victim decided that they did not wish to file a complaint against the offender, as they did not feel it would make a positive difference.
• Instead, the victim wanted to work to change the situation that caused them to not want to come forward about issues.
• Again, the victim stressed the value of a good Code of Conduct that encourages people to come forward about specific issues, and establishing that complaints from all members would be addressed equally.
• They also expressed a desire for the board members at the time of the incident to take responsibility for discouraging complaints.

(June 6) A second response followed the next day, adding more information about the request:

• After thinking about it more, the victim felt uncomfortable with the idea of a complaint made on their behalf and would rather have done a complaint themselves if they felt it necessary.
• The victim did not realize that a complaint would be made and instead only thought that a Code of Conduct would be worked on.
• The victim requested more time to go over the issue before making a complaint about a specific member.
• The victim also mentioned being in touch with others who had unresolved issues of their own, and would work with them on moving forward with their issues.

(June 6) These emails were provided to the board, which decided to vote the current complaint un-actionable the following day (June 7), and to wait for further information from the victim or others with their own issues.

Police were not contacted by the board due to age of the incident and the reasonable certainty of the board that it would not be necessary. Legal counsel later contacted local law enforcement to verify that it would be highly unlikely that any action would be taken, based on the facts and time lapsed after the incident.

Next Steps

Because the victim mentioned requiring time to go over the events before making a complaint against a specific person, the board has encouraged the victim to present a complaint when ready. The victim made it clear that they had resolved their own issues with the offender, and that they would rather see positive change going forward, regarding the Code of Conduct and encouragement of reports of violations, but that a future complaint was planned.

The board again encouraged the victim to extend that invitation to anyone else that had experienced a problem as well. If the board receives any future complaints, they will be handled with the process outlined in the Code of Conduct and bylaws.

The Code of Conduct will continue to be improved, and some of the processes outline within it will be submitted for formalization into the ML256 bylaws or policies.

The Code of Conduct will be made very visible to members and guests, and will be mentioned in meetings, the mailing lists, and posted on the ML256 website and wiki, so that everyone has access to it when needed.

The current board, and future board members, will be reminded that reports of violations of the Code of Conduct should not be discouraged. Members and guests should feel safe to report violations without fear of retaliation for it.

Future Considerations

Not everyone will be comfortable with a complaint brought up “on their behalf” to the board. Future wording of complaints based on someone’s report should not make that distinction.

The idea that someone may retract their report of a Code of Conduct violation will be strongly reconsidered in the future. If the board determines that an issue exists, they should act accordingly, even if the report has been requested to be retracted. This will likely be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The initial report missed the inclusion of the second incident of grabbing claimed by the victim, which was corrected later, and the board maintained their decision after the correction.