Steering Committee Minutes: June 14, 2020

East Bay DSA, Steering Committee Special Meeting Meeting — Grievance process working group report, June 14, 2020, 11-2pm, Zoom 

Opening statements

This Special Meeting of the Steering Committee was called to order at 11:00am via ZOOM. Keith BB and Abigail G-G were chairing the meeting. The recording secretary was taking notes. Also present at the meeting were Annika B, Shane R, Sean M, Hannah E, Matt S, Marissa S, Will S, Rex LC, and an EBDSA HGO (grievance officer).

Review of Grievance Process Working Group Report

Following the introduction, there was a period of questions and answers regarding the content of the report. 

Grievance Process Working Group Report

Members: Allie L, Annika B, Keith BB, Marissa S, Maura M.

Submitted to SC on June 12, 2020

Table of contents:

1. Recommendations for implementation
2. Lessons learned
3. Grievance stewards
4. Better informing SC members
5. Better informing members
6. Clarifying roles in the grievance process

1. Recommendations for implementation

By voting to approve this report, SC will vote to make this report in its entirety publicly available in the SC minutes, and to adopt the following specific recommendations (which are written and explained in bold in the detailed sections below):

1. We recommend that new SC members within the first 2 meetings of their term get basic guidance on the HG process, communication protocols, etc. SC members will meet the HGOs, walk through the processes and discuss any open or notable cases.
2. We recommend providing clear information on our website about how the grievance process works.
3. We recommend that the HGOs draft a Grievance Process manual, for approval by SC, made available to members.
4. We recommend HGOs explain to grievants and accused members the timelines to expect during the process for responses, provide complainants the options of different forms of contact with the HGOs beyond just email, and inform them of the option to work with a grievance steward or emotional support person.
5. We recommend establishing a new grievance steward role and recruiting a starting group of three advocates to guide complainants through our process and provide emotional support as needed. The SC will seek diverse candidates with prior experience providing support and they will be trained by the HGOs. We will provide them with a Chapter email account and add them to the website as a resource for members. In addition to these advocates, we recommend allowing grievants to choose their own emotional support person to help them through the process by being included or CCed on communication with HGOs. The emotional support person must be a non-conflicted party and respect the confidentiality of the grievance process throughout.
6. We recommend that the Member Engagement Committee update the New Member Handbook to instruct members where to learn about the grievance process.
7. We recommend that the HGOs develop an intake form that complainants can fill out to start the process, as an alternative to an email to HGOs.
8. We recommend that SC develop an anonymous member feedback form, provided to grievants and accused after conclusion of a grievance process, which the Steering Committee and HGOs will review to determine how the process is going and make needed improvements.
9. We recommend adopting a new, written recusal protocol: 
10. “Any SC Member, HGO, or Grievance Steward who is personally involved in the issues raised in a grievance must recuse themself. HGOs and SC members may also voluntarily recuse themselves in other situations where they do not believe they can fairly investigate or make disciplinary decisions about a grievance. A complainant or accused party may also request that a SC member, HGO or Grievance Steward recuse themself from a case on the basis of a perceived conflict of interest, in which case the Steering Committee may vote by a two thirds majority (or greater) to remove that member from the process.
11.  In the event that all HGOs recuse themselves, the Steering Committee shall appoint a non-conflicted member who is not a Steering Committee member to temporarily take on the HGO role to handle the grievance. The Steering Committee may also identify and recommend an outside professional to take on the HGO role in such a situation. Should all Grievance Stewards recuse themselves, the complainant or accused shall be allowed to identify their own emotional support person.”
12. We recommend a one-year term length and a term limit of three consecutive years for HGOs.
13. We recommend a policy where SC can recall (remove) HGOs by a 2/3s or greater vote.
14. We recommend adding a minimum of 1 more HGO, and maintaining a minimum of 3 HGOs total at all times possible.

1. Lessons learned: 

During our term on the Steering Committee (SC), we’ve navigated through several different situations involving our grievance process. The current SC created this Working Group from agreement there is a need to make key improvements to this critical protocol for handling challenges and ensuring member safety within our Chapter. Here is a brief outline of a few areas for growth that we see, with more details on proposed improvements further down in the written report:

1. Open Communication Between SC and the HGOs: 
2. At times SC members have been confused about what communication is allowed with our Harassment Grievance Officers (HGOs). We have now clarified that even while a grievance is still pending and being investigated, all Steering Committee members are welcomed and encouraged to communicate freely and directly with the HGOs with any questions or concerns that they may have. 

1. Clearer SC Roles Within the Grievance Process:
2. In a recent grievance process, an SC member served as a personal intermediary between a grievant and HGOs. This was done in good faith, but was responsible in part for confusion about roles and miscommunication among all parties. We recommend SC members should not serve as intermediaries between complainants and HGOs to avoid miscommunications and potential conflicts of interest during the disciplinary process. SC members should also refrain from taking an advocate role in the process; we should establish designated grievance steward to play that role instead. We also need to have clear communication with the incoming Steering Committee from the beginning of their term about how the grievance process works and what their roles are in the process. 

1. More Transparency, Support, and Accountability for the HGOs:
2. In grievance processes this year, SC members and members alike were unclear about how HGOs are appointed or held accountable to the chapter membership. This confusion stems in part from a lack of established policies in our Chapter on these questions, including some policies we believe are required under national DSA Resolution #33. We recommend our Chapter establish clear written guidelines laying out how HGOs are appointed to the position, how they are trained and sufficiently supported in their demanding role, how long their term of service is, how conflicts of interests of HGOs will be addressed when responding to a grievance, and how an HGO will be held accountable or removed if they act inappropriately as a member or in their sensitive role. This report offers short term recommendations and long term potential options below on these questions. We recommend addressing members' concerns on the policy to keep the identity of HGOs confidential by developing a public written explanation and justification for that policy.

1. New Protocols for Orientation and Education on the Grievance Process:
2. In recent experience, we found many members and even leaders within the Chapter were unaware that we have a grievance process, and did not have a confident or sufficient understanding of how it works. We recommend posting a clear outline of the process on our website and create a Grievance Process Handbook that can be available to members in written and digital form. This should include how grievances are opened and closed by members, along with other information outlined below. We should begin making announcements at the GMs on a quarterly basis about our code of conduct and how to file a grievance and include information about our code of conduct in the written agenda for all GMs moving forward. We also recommend MEC leadership ensure that Mobilizers know, at minimum, where members should be referred to when they have grievances or code of conduct questions. We also need to develop a training for chapter leaders on the process and their roles in guiding membership to the process. 

1. Member Feedback for a Trauma-Informed and Empathetic Grievance Process:
2. On June 2nd, SC Members Marissa S. and Maura M. hosted an Open Forum for Feedback on the Grievance Process through the Socialist Feminist Caucus and in collaboration with the AfroSocialist Caucus. Many members gave important, detailed feedback on this piece which will be discussed at length in the report.

1. Grievance Stewards 

We recommend establishing a new Grievance Steward role to help guide members through the process with the following parameters:

i. Grievance steward role

1. These advocates' role, as an option available to members' request, is to help inform members about the grievance process, accompany them during conversations with HGOs and SC members, and act as a liaison as needed. This role takes some of the logistical and emotional labor off of the HGO’s so they can stay neutral, and helps SC members also stay more removed from pending investigations. In the long term, we may want to explore additional support roles these advocates might be able to take on within the Chapter such as conflict resolution or providing support for lower level harms and microaggressions which members may be reluctant to engage with the grievance process around, but would start with the role outlined above. 

1. These advocates should be given a shared advocate email account, and added to the website where information about the grievance process is posted, so that those who need support know they are available as a resource.

1. HGOs will notify complainants at the beginning of the process that the grievance stewards are available if that would be helpful. Complainants will also have the option to identify an emotional support person of their choosing to accompany them through the grievance process if they’d prefer to have a personal friend, comrade, or family member instead of an advocate provided through the Chapter. 

1. How many advocates?
2. We recommend no less than 3 grievance stewards at a time.

1. How are advocates selected?
2. Advocates will be recruited through general member outreach through the Steering Committee, with an eye toward seeking diverse candidates for the role. They will be vetted and approved for the role by the Steering Committee via simple majority vote.

1. Should advocates be anonymous, or publicly posted?
2. They should be publicly named and members should be guided to engage with them through our website and through a Chapter provided email account. Advocates will know who the HGOs are (although advocates will maintain the confidentiality of HGO identities) to be able to best coordinate with them as they support members during the process. 

1. Should there be a training process established?
2. The HGOs will provide new grievance stewards with training on the process and point them toward helpful training and resources to support them to be trauma-informed in their role. 

1. Better informing SC: 

• What are the general guidelines for SC communication with HGOs and members regarding grievance process?
• SC - SC should have open, confidential communication with each other about grievance cases, in secure communication if they occur digitally.
• SC - HGOs should have open, confidential communication with each other about the cases, in secure communication if they occur digitally. SC members should feel free to openly ask clarifying questions about cases with HGOs — but, communication should happen as a group as much as possible to prevent siloing of communication.
• SC - Members who are involved in a specific grievance should have restricted communications regarding the grievance, to protect the decision-making process. The grievance stewards should take the place of providing support and explaining the process.  
• SC members shall remind any members involved in a specific grievance process that they should communicate directly with the HGO’s, or with the grievance steward, rather than liaison through SC members
• SC - Members who are not involved in a specific grievance but have concerns should have restricted communications and all matters should continue to remain confidential. If members have concern about how a grievance is being handled, SC members should reiterate what the process is and steer members to find support through grievance stewards. 
• Onboarding for SC members:
• When and how do we do this onboarding?
• SC members within the first 2 meetings of their term will get onboarding on the grievance process. SC members will meet the HGOs, walk through the processes and discuss any open or notable cases.
• What should be included in the onboarding?
• Presentation on Resolution #33 and basic grievance process (HGOs are already working on this)
• How SC members should communicate with HGOs and members about grievance process
• Ongoing grievance cases or notable cases with strong possibility of recurrence 
• Current status of reforms to the process
• Member feedback form, after completed grievances, to offer SC input on grievance process
• After a grievance is completed or ends voluntarily by the grievant, we recommend a short survey will be sent out with the following questions via Google Forms. The survey will be anonymous.
• Please answer and elaborate on the following questions:
• Did you understand how to file a grievance within East Bay DSA? Was the process of initially filing easy to understand?
• Did you understand how the grievance process worked based on your experiences in the chapter and information on the website?
• Were the responses by the HGOs were prompt?
• Did you know that you could reach out to the grievance stewards if you needed assistance navigating the grievance process?
• If you reached out to grievance stewards, did you feel supported by them? 
• Open comments, concerns or suggestions about the grievance process
• Optional: Leave email & name for follow up
• SC members can view the responses
• Where will the responses be stored? How will the SC access the responses?
• Google sheet with a password
• HGOs and grievance stewards can openly view the responses and provide recommendations to the SC if wanted.
• Members will not be able to view the responses. These are confidential.
• HGO’s should occasionally review the responses once they’re submitted and consider the feedback 
• Who is responsible for Res. 33 compliance?
• Chairs & HGOs should be responsible for this. All SC members should read and try their best to understand Res. 33 within the first two meetings.

1. Better informing members: 

• HGOs will draft a Grievance process manual and the SC will approve it. Suggested timeline of 3 months for completion, to be confirmed by the HGOs. The following should be included in the manual: 
• What counts as enough information for evidence of a grievance? 
• How do members use the grievance process?
• Explanation of confidentiality & communication modes between accusers, accused, SC, chairs, HGOs and advocates 
• What are grievance stewards and what is their role?
• How does an emotional support person of the persons choosing work in a grievance? 
• Appeals process- how does it work, what is required? 
• Note: this is a separate manual from the New Member Handbook. The NMH may reference it and include link.

• Changes to chapter website
• Currently: Home > Resources > Code of conduct
• Suggested: Resources for members > Member conduct & grievances
• Include other important hotlines/resources, included but not limited to, domestic violence/sexual assault hotlines, national greviance resources
• Be more transparent about the grievance process and how it works
• Have the grievance process have its own page, so members can easily google and find the information 
• Upload new version of NMH with the updated information to website

• Grievance submission form option created by the HGO’s
• Link or embed the form on website, depending on the capabilities of our website in order to clarify what information is being requested
• Prompts for thorough amount of information upfront
• Able to upload information and documents while originally filing 
• Include the email address to reach out to as well 
• Automatic confirmation of submission - there is a kickback email once all of the information is submitted 
• Set expectations for reply with HGOs: “Your grievance will be replied to within 7 days” 
• Reminds grievant to reach out to HGO’s and/or grievance stewards directly with questions or updates
• Ask what form of communication, text/email/phone call, is preferred
• Informs the grievant that they can have an emotional support person and/or grievance steward 

• Member Engagement Committee: How is grievance process included in mobilizer training and expectations, or new member handbook?
• General information on grievance process and code of conduct is currently within the handbook.
• NMH on website needs updating as of 6/9/2020
• We suggest adding clear guidance on where to find the code of conduct and grievance process manual, and general description of what these cover.
• Mobilizers should refer mobilizees to either head mobilizers or MEC chairs for further questions on filing grievances. Mobilizers will not be expected to be experts or advocates in the grievance process.
• New members: new SC can choose to take this up as part of larger new member onboarding question
• New member emails are not currently sent out, due to time lag and inconsistency of new member list collection
• New SC may decide to take this on as a project, but it should be taken up with the operations committee, and should include other content. It should be a welcoming message that encourages members to come to events and get involved in the chapter, and can include the code of conduct.
• Code of conduct should be linked in newsletter
• GM announcement and (frequency, what covered)
• This is announced 3x a year at member meetings. 
• Remind members that the code of conduct and grievance process are on our website
• Remind members to reach out to committee leadership and/or SC with any questions about the process
• We recommend committee leadership have a required short training on grievance process upon their election/appointment to leadership
• With the assumption that typical training recordings aren’t watched or taken seriously, an easy to follow one pager should be created to explain the process in addition to a verbal walk through of the information if capacity allows.
• For the future, if needed down the line:
• Special meeting of SC + committee leads can include going over material, answering questions 
• Committee leaders should inform committee members, when asked, to refer their fellow members to either committee leadership, grievance stewards, or the SC with questions/concerns about grievances

1. Grievance process roles: 
2. SC members not intermediaries in grievance process
3. Based on recent experience, we recommend a policy that SC members do not serve as intermediaries between complainants and HGOs. This will help avoid miscommunications and potential conflicts of interest during the disciplinary process. SC members should also refrain from taking an advocate role in the process; designated grievance stewards may play that role instead.
4. Are additional HGOs needed?
5. According to research (by Marissa S.) on six other Chapters (Atlanta, Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Houston, and Philadelphia) of relatively similar size (approximately 500-1,750 members, with our Chapter at 1,500), there is wide variation in their number of HGOs. Some Chapters have as little as two HGOs, and some have as many as five, or have created an entire Grievance Committee to take on certain components of the process. In light of input from our HGOs about the workload they are carrying, and some delays in the process due to limited HGO capacity, we recommend adding a minimum of 1 more HGO, and maintaining a minimum of 3 HGOs total at all times possible.
6. Selection, terms, and recall process for HGOs
7. HGO selection process: It was not clear, based on recent experience, that the HGO selection process requires major revision at this time. We suggest a continued policy that Chairs select HGOs, by consensus among Chairs. This selection should be based on the criteria of candidates' qualification for the role, and Chairs should seek representation across race and gender among the HGOs. This selection process should be publicly explained as part of the Grievance Process Handbook. 

1. HGO term lengths: Currently, we do not have a written process on HGO terms or limits, although Resolution #33 requires chapters of our size to "determine term limits for HGO(s)". The Chapters we reviewed which have set clear term lengths on their websites have HGOs serve for a one-year term. In our Chapter bylaws, SC members have one-year term lengths and a term limit of three consecutive years for SC members. We recommend a one-year term length and a term limit of three consecutive years for HGOs. We recommend the one-year HGO term length because it will provide a process for Chairs to review HGOs, with potential for SC input, during each SC term. We recommend the 3 year consecutive term limit for HGOs because this is a labor-intensive, sensitive internal role. This term limit will provide a reasonably long-term structure to cycle new members in (providing new perspectives and experience in the role), cycle long-time HGOs out (ensuring this work is not permanently on any members, and opening them up to take other roles in the movement), and plan for recruiting HGO replacements well in advance of the limit.

1. HGO recall process: Currently, we do not have a written process on recall of HGOs, although Resolution #33 requires chapters of our size "develop methods for removing HGO(s) for cause." We recommend a policy where SC can recall HGOs by a 2/3s or greater vote, on the grounds of malfeasance or nonfeasance in HGO duties. We believe a supermajority SC vote requirement will preserve political independence for the HGO role. This recall process should be publicly explained as part of the Grievance Process Handbook.  

1. Different HGO role terms in other Chapters: To help inform current and future SC deliberation, we include here further information on HGO role processes in other chapters we researched. One elects their grievance officers (SF), one appoints them but has general membership do a confirmation vote (Austin), and one has a hybrid process where three HGOs are appointed and two are elected by membership (Portland). The Portland and Atlanta Chapters also have full grievance committees which may include members other than just the HGOs, who work on the policy and provide support around the role. 

SF has a removal process for both SC members and HGOs via a member vote referendum. Portland has an HGO recall process that requires a grievance be formally filed against the HGO for malfeasance or nonfeasance in their duties, have this grievance investigated by another HGO, findings presented to SC, and then SC can recall the HGO by simple majority.

Many large Chapters have clear guidelines in their bylaws around the appointment or election of HGOs, the need for a certain percentage of POC or other diversity in who holds the HGO role, term limits, potential conflicts of interest/recusals, and accountability.

Following debate and amendment, the report was APPROVED by a unanimous vote, along with a 24hr waiting period for any final remaining amendments to be submitted for an email vote. 

Adjournment 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:25pm