Discussion: Disciplinary Policy and Process

[Hippie Tim]

Moving this in to a separate thread.

Wendy's suggest policy wording:

1. Complaints policy: All complaints will be investigated.  Serious complaints (at the discretion of the excom but examples outlined in current policy) will initiate the banning procedure.  For less serious complaints, the person complained about (PIQ) will receive an official letter and be given the opportunity to respond (1 month).  The letter will contain the following information:

• an outline of the complaint against them
• the potential consequences of further breaches
• suggested appropriate behaviour in relation to the complaint and the Kiwiburn principles
• that the letter will be kept on record

2. Policy on breaking the fire perimeter: This will result in instant eviction from the festival.  The incident will be followed up with an investigation, the result of which will be decided on a case by case basis, based on evidence.

3. Process for investigating complaints on site:

1. The complaint will be checked and discussed with the complainant/victim and investigated for accuracy, including clarification of complaint, desired response, and potential consequences.
2. There will be a discussion between the Site Manager, Head of Security, and the complainee regarding the complaint and its potential consequences, carried out separately from step 1.
3. The final decision will be made between the Head of Security and the Site Manager.
4. All discussions will be recorded in the site book.

4.  The banning procedure document will be modified to reflect that a response from the PIQ is not required in order for a ban to take effect.

The questions it raises for me point by point;

1. States that we will give a person a month to respond to the complaint but doesn't outline what we will do once the one month period is over. My guess is that we will then discuss if we want to initiate a banning procedure or not? Otherwise I'm not sure what we may do after one month / a reply is received other than just note it? If this is the warning type letter we have been discussing then I suggest we add the word warning to read "official warning letter".

2. This is to make it so we can ban people for breaking the perimeter no? If so we should add "add could result in a ban" or something to that effect. Although personally I don't think perimeter breaking shout be banable as a stand alone offence unless it is in extreme circumstances.

3. I like the sound of this, but perhaps we should consult with Paul to see how he feels about it as head of security, or has that already been done?

4. All good.

[Wendy]

OK in response to the questions: 

1.  At the Summit, we explicitly agreed *not* to make these letters official warning ones, and there was no requirement to do anything after a month.  The idea was to notify the person there'd been a complaint made against them and give them an opportunity to a) respond, and b) change their behaviour.  From our end, we wanted an official record that the person had officially come to our attention, so that should they not change their behaviour we can then have that as evidence for any further disciplinary actions we may need to take.  

It may be worth discussing what we do if someone comes back going "Hey I didn't do that" but we deliberately left it a bit open ended because it'll always be a case by case basis and we deliberately wanted to give people opportunities to improve without going through a big procedure.  Personally, I don't think this needs changing.

2.  At the Summit we agreed that an investigation into a fire perimeter breach would not be a banning investigation, because we could easily come up with situations that wouldn't warrant a ban. There are also some that may warrant a ban. Hence the part where it's on a case by case basis. We could add 'may result in a ban' but that wasn't the original intention of this policy.

3.  My understanding of this is that it's how the process is supposed to work now, and doesn't really change anything about the chain of command.  Poppy would be better to speak to this.

--
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.

[Hippie Tim]

The reason I bought this up was because I was strugling to recall exactly what we agreed on and the policy had me asking questions so given that information I'm going to suggest the following edits so it makes things crystal clear:

1. Complaints policy: All complaints will be investigated.  Serious complaints (at the discretion of the excom but examples outlined in current policy) will initiate the banning procedure.  For less serious complaints, the person complained about (PIQ) will receive an official letter and be given the opportunity to respond (1 month). This letter is a matter of record and no further action is required. The letter will contain the following information:

    an outline of the complaint against them
    the potential consequences of further breaches
    suggested appropriate behaviour in relation to the complaint and the Kiwiburn principles
    that the letter will be kept on record

I think with 2. we should add "and may result in a ban" if we do intend in some situations to ban people for one off perimeter runs so that if we do ban someone for this the policy makes it clear from the get go that this could happen.

3. and 4. are sweet then.

[Wendy]

Those changes are fine by me.

For future reference, the discussion around this topic and also the outline of policy to be voted on are both in the Summit Summary.  This goes for other things not voted on yet as well, so it might pay people to have a look at that (and the task list doc which is just the actions without the discussion) and familiarise yourselves with the proposals and what['s already been discussed, to see if there are any other upcoming votes you think would benefit from further discussion before I call them.

[Isa Ritchie]

It would be good to have the chance to discuss and reword any policy, as not everyone was at the summit. We did get a chance to talk over most thing but we didn't get specific on wording.

[Wendy]

I would really appreciate it if people were to look at the voting list from the Summary document and bring up anything they wish to discuss further.  That was kind of the point of sending it out for comment, after all.

However, apart from this current disciplinary policy discussion, there are actually only 2 votes left from the Summit, everything else is listed as discussion anyway.  These two things are:

·           How to proceed with the 3 existing complaints – each to be voted separately

·           Intention to adopt a performance review process based on self and peer evaluation – three questions as proposed by Ash

Obviously the first one is reliant on the outcome of this, and will be case by case.  If you would like to discuss the second, I'm happy for someone to start a thread for it.

[Wendy]

This is due for voting tomorrow, if anyone has anything further to say, please do so today.

Current proposal is to keep the policy as proposed but add "This letter is a matter of record and no further action is required" to the complaints policy for non-banning investigations (part 1), and to add 'and may result in a ban' to the breaking fire perimeter policy.

[Isa Ritchie]

I am happy with those changes. It's really important to have clear policy so that we can inform people pre-event, especially RE breaking the fire perimeter. 

[Hippie Tim]

No further from me.

[Oliver Macro]

Neither, I'm happy with the modification.

[Pete Wyatt]

I am happy

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Oliver Macro <oliver...@gmail.com> wrote:

Neither, I'm happy with the modification.

--

[Mark Stirling]

Me too