...DISCUSSION: proposed CC policy...

[Shelley Watson]

There's a lot of good information in the policy and I appreciate the work that has gone into shaping it. The Process and the Ethical Framework need reading and ratifying. 

They are both google docs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10f97PYeUQr0vRvA0pB4Kn9L5hGgUUDErnGyn4RTi0us/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a1W6XaWCSh4Lr36MwCakAw3qv3vdoM8pkYXVDk3NgWs/edit?usp=sharing

This is the part of the policy which I questioned, because it doesn't seem fair in any way for a PIQ's right of reply to be bypassed. People make mistakes and we should ensure they have a voice. Jo has expressed she is OK with the paragraph being removed, tho what do you think? Here's the text:

• If the incident occurred at Kiwiburn and was investigated by Operations, the Conduct Committee reserves the right to proceed straight to the decision-making process. This is an exception to the normal process, as the Conduct Committee intends to give everyone a voice, but where there are multiple witnesses to something that is categorically unacceptable, or where Conduct Committee members can expect to be met with hostility, we may choose to simply inform the PIQ of the decision. Similarly, if the Conduct Committee receives multiple serious and substantiated complaints about an individual, the PIQ might not be contacted by the Conduct Committee before a recommendation is made to ExCom. The PIQ will have 30 days to appeal the decision.

Please take the time to read through the policy as we need it looked at and approved asap.

This is the text drafted by the CC to go on the website. 

 

The Conduct Committee is comprised of volunteers from the Kiwiburn community who have skills, training and experience in fields such as counselling, teaching, mediation, and crisis management. A diverse panel of seven members is envisaged by mid-2018. 

Current members:
Jo Artemis (Lead)
Andy Flint
Jules Townsend

The purpose of the Conduct Committee is to provide a safe, consistent, fair and confidential process, by which reports of behaviour that transgresses the Kiwiburn Code of Conduct can be investigated, documented and actioned. The outcome of an investigation can be one of four levels:

• Level One: The report is documented and archived for future reference.
• Level Two: The Conduct Committee might offer feedback, a mediation process, suggest or offer transformative resources.
• Level Three: The Conduct Committee might recommend that ExCom issue a warning to an individual, and may also advise that they be restricted from volunteering, organising a Theme Camp, bringing art, or offering services on the Paddock.
• Level Four: The Conduct Committee may recommend that ExCom impose a ban on an individual for a given length of time.

Read the in-depth description of the Process. 

Read the Conduct Committee’s guiding Ethical Framework. 

We strive to hold a balance between being compassionate, inclusive and supportive of people’s growth and learning, and of taking measures to protect the safety of the community. We are not the Law, and we do not set out to incriminate people, but if we have reasonable grounds to believe that someone poses a threat to themselves and/or the community then they may be excluded from Kiwiburn events. 

Useful information when reporting an incident:

• To report an incident, make a submission through the Contact Page– it will go directly to the Conduct Committee inbox, to which only members have access.
• You don’t need to disclose any details about the incident you are reporting at this stage if you don’t want to.
• If you have a preference as to the gender of the person who responds to you, please say so. 
• If there is anyone on the Conduct Committee whom you would prefer to not know any details of your report, please say so. 
• The process and the confidentiality agreement will be discussed first, so we know your preferences, and you know what to expect. 

After this process, you will be asked for your account of the incident, if you are happy to proceed. The report will only be documented and/or actioned with your fully informed consent. 

Become a Committee member

Kiwiburn is seeking expressions of interest for Committee members. Is this something you’d see yourself doing? Or have someone in mind you think this would suit? Apply here.

 

[Jamie Ryan]

A couple of things with the description.

"The report will only be documented and/or actioned with your fully informed consent."

Doesn't the Conduct Committee reserve the right to investigate regardless of a complaint being made?

Become a Committee member

Kiwiburn is seeking expressions of interest for Committee members. Is this something you’d see yourself doing? Or have someone in mind you think this would suit? Apply here.

Can we add "Conduct" before both instances of committee for clarity.

Jamie

[Tania B-B]

Thanks for all the work everybody has been putting in to create these documents. 

One thing to be changed- the description on the webpage has levels 1-4 whereas the document has 0-3. I like 1-4 more than starting at 0.

Interested to note in 13.2) Reporting of Incidents that the CC will investigate incidents occurring outside of Kiwiburn- although I do support this (its good to know about things going on in the community) I wonder about the ramifications of doing so - can serious incidents occuring outside of the event lead to banning/warning etc? Also worried that this could massively increase the workload for the CC with hearsay reports. I'd like to see some more policy developed around this.

With regards to the paragraph Shelley has pointed out, I'm actually ok with PIQ's not being notified if they've caused a serious incident which was documented on-site; so long as the Ops/Site Manager handling the incident notifies them that an investigation will be carried out after the event by the Conduct Committee. They still have the right to appeal. However I'm also ok with it being taken out as having an exception like this could result in an eventual abuse of power (I recognise my bias in that I trust everyone currently involved in the process, but others might not see it the same way). 

[Jo Artemis]

@ Jamie re "the report will only be documented and/or actioned with your fully informed consent"

I think this is a really important point that can make people feel safe to lodge a report. In some cases the PA will have fear of the PIQ being able to identify them and this can cause safety concerns. It is the PA's trauma we are dealing with and so it is important that they have the power of choice as to what happens with their story.

[Jo Artemis]

@ Tania re. Levels 1-4 vs 0-3
Good point! They should definitely follow the same format. I will edit it

[Jo Artemis]

Re. Incidents outside the festival being investigated.
Kiwiburn is a community. The festival happens for 5 days of the year. The process requires that only direct accounts can be documented and actioned, hearsay is not permissable evidence. There are too many variables to really capture this all in writing but if the incident happened outside of Kiwiburn then the CC must use their discretion as to whether to document it. For example if there is someone in the community who regularly commits sexual assault, it is definitely within our scope to deal with this. If it is a spat between housemates and a punch is thrown, it might be archived for a short time to see if this is a pattern. I like to think that CC will always be comprised of trusted individuals who can exercise sound judgement in these matters

[Jamie Ryan]

I agree with the importance. I'm just checking that it applies only to the PAs report and will not limit investigation and consequent recommendations. Especially in cases where we have no cooperation from the PA.

Jamie

> On 26/04/2018, at 20:08, Jo Artemis <the.many.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @ Jamie re "the report will only be documented and/or actioned with your fully informed consent"
>
> I think this is a really important point that can make people feel safe to lodge a report. In some cases the PA will have fear of the PIQ being able to identify them and this can cause safety concerns. It is the PA's trauma we are dealing with and so it is important that they have the power of choice as to what happens with their story.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcoml...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jo Artemis]

So if someone wants to make a report on someone but they don't want us to do anything about it for whatever reason, then we archive it. We can still talk to witnesses where applicable so we can build a case. Then, if another report comes in about that person, then we don't discuss the other incident with them, but it will definitely inform our decision. It's about gathering information to make a sound judgement without compromising confidentiality and safety

[Shelley Watson]

has everyone taken the time to read the policy and associated documents? would be great to call a vote soon to make this official policy so CC can get on with what they are tasked to do, within this framework.

let's aim to call a vote on tuesday 1 may.

[Shelley Watson]

Interesting point about potential bias. And a good one. I was also thinking that ops people can get overworked on site and survive on little sleep, so sometmes making a judgement call at the time might not be a fair one for the PIQ.

[Poppy Norman]

I was also thinking that ops people can get overworked on site and survive on little sleep, so sometmes making a judgement call at the time might not be a fair one for the PIQ.

I think this assumption is incorrect and quite insulting.

We have only ever evicted someone for violence or sexual assault and we take these decisions extremely seriously. If we are too tired or overworked than we tap out and let one of the other Ops managers take over and make the decision. Ops is a well run department with extremely capable people, we know our personal limits and support each other so too much isn't on one person. We have never evicted someone and then had the excom (or someone else) think that we made the wrong call. 

I never suggested that Ops should be able to ban people (this was mentioned in another thread as an idea I had) what I suggested was that Ops should be able to make complaints on peoples behalves to the excom (now CC) without always providing the full story from the victim as they often do not want the story shared even with the excom/CC. I also suggested that because we investigate the incident onsite that that part of the process does not need to be as extensive after the fact.

I think its pretty strange that the excom seems to think Ops aren't capable or trustworthy but then just leaves us to run the build and festival with very little oversight (or support). I think we run it pretty bloody well and successfully but only seem to be bought up in negative ways.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcomlive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jamie Ryan]

Agreed.

While it is relevant to acknowledge that bias is a possibility to be avoided, it needs to be recognised that Ops is trusted to make a complaint to the Conduct Committee.

[Jo Artemis]

I agree with this too. If an incident happens on site and the PA has shared their story with Ops and it has been well-documented, then there is no need for the CC to contact them again as it can be re-traumatising. On-site documentation of the PIQ's response is also crucial, because post-event people have time to concoct a story. feel confident that noone is evicted from the event without very good reason.
I'm still happy for the CC to contact the PIQ to follow up, but the information gained on-site will be privileged.

[Geveta Cook]

THOROUGH on site documentation is essential for maintaining non bias and allowing the conduct committee to have an informed decision. I worry about bias (in general, on all counts). Shelley does make a fair point about an on site decision, if someone is extremely crap to someone on site this does make an impact (rightfully so maybe be, but worth noting).

I have argued before that and eviction for example is a pretty strong reason for instigating a banning, but again push that this MUST be documented to make an informed decision on the matter. I want the conduct committee to be accurately informed and able to soundly make an appropriate judgement, rather than rushed in haste.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30/04/2018, at 6:53 AM, Jo Artemis <the.many.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with this too. If an incident happens on site and the PA has shared their story with Ops and it has been well-documented, then there is no need for the CC to contact them again as it can be re-traumatising. On-site documentation of the PIQ's response is also crucial, because post-event people have time to concoct a story. feel confident that noone is evicted from the event without very good reason.
> I'm still happy for the CC to contact the PIQ to follow up, but the information gained on-site will be privileged.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcoml...@googlegroups.com.

[Shelley Watson]

totally not meant like that. meant as an acknowledgement of the work you do, lack of sleep or not, as you get to deal with the fallout of the behaviour of others.

I have seen ops / mpw completely running on empty over the years tho pleased to hear there are systems in place for this now.

 

I think this assumption is incorrect and quite insulting.

 

whatever the process, this notion ended up as part of the proposed CC policy. I queried it because it takes away someone's right to give their side of the story before potentially being banned. noone is querying the capability of ops in this instance, just the fairness of the proposed process.

[Tania B-B]

It was suggested we go to a vote today so CC can start work- maybe we could vote on the policy with the paragraph excluded and either continue discussion or vote separately on its inclusion? 

[Jamie Ryan]

I'd be happy to vote excluding this clause and discuss it at the summit.

Alternatively we can have a video meeting and try and come to a conclusion.

Jamie

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcoml...@googlegroups.com.

[Shelley Watson]

this post has been for the policy discussion. jo indicated she is happy to have the paragraph excluded, so the voting would be for a policy without it. if people need more time to discuss any aspects of the policy, and not just the paragaph I queried, we can wait to call a vote if more work is needed.

I think Jo would appreciate any further feedback asap.

[Jo Artemis]

To clarify, i have already removed the contentious paragraph of the process about making a decision directly based on on-site investigations, and have made edits based on things that have been highlighted in this discussion: Tania's point about the levels of response, and Jamie's point about using "Conduct Committee" as opposed to "Committee" in the Expressions of Interest section. So far there have been no other points of contention. So yes please can there be a vote

[Jo Artemis]

Andy has been in touch and pointed out some inconsistency with the wording in the CC policy, Kiwiburn rules and the conditions of entry. His point is very valid so i will need to do some more work around making sure they all match up. So thanks all for voting, i will make some more edits before the week is up. The basic content will remain the same, and I'd still like to get stuff up on the website asap, but hang fire til i give the go ahead

[Arts Facilitator]

Thanks for all of your hard work Jo! 

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Jo Artemis <the.many.s...@gmail.com> wrote:

Andy has been in touch and pointed out some inconsistency with the wording in the  CC policy, Kiwiburn rules and the conditions of entry. His point is very valid so i will need to do some more work around making sure they all match up. So thanks all for voting, i will make some more edits before the week is up. The basic content will remain the same, and I'd still like to get stuff up on the website asap, but hang fire til i give the go ahead

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "kiwiburnExComLIVE" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kiwiburnexcomlive+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kiwiburn

Build something. Fly something. Float something. Burn something... bring it to Kiwiburn!

This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed. the information it contains is confidential and may be legally privileged. Any review, transmission, dissemination or other use of this email may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Kiwiburn immediately and destroy the email from all sources. Thank you. Kiwiburn accepts no responsibility for changes made to this email or to any attachments after the original transmission.

[Geveta Cook]

Cheers Jo (and Andy)

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7/05/2018, at 6:32 PM, Jo Artemis <the.many.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Andy has been in touch and pointed out some inconsistency with the wording in the CC policy, Kiwiburn rules and the conditions of entry. His point is very valid so i will need to do some more work around making sure they all match up. So thanks all for voting, i will make some more edits before the week is up. The basic content will remain the same, and I'd still like to get stuff up on the website asap, but hang fire til i give the go ahead
>