I've had some thoughts on this subject. So, as written in the policy:
*LOPSA views harassment and retaliation to be among the most serious breaches of professional behavior. Consequently, appropriate disciplinary or corrective action, ranging from a warning to a revocation of membership and a ban from LOPSA-organized activities both online and in person, can be expected. * In the event of a member being harassed by a non-member in a LOPSA-sponsored venue, redress will range from the offending individual being expelled from the premises to LOPSA’s full cooperation with law enforcement. The first action of importance is to get the person who's been harassed into a safe spot and away from the harasser. If that means ejecting the harasser from the event or function, then that should be done. I believe that the repercussions need to be taken on a case by case basis, and they should be determined by the board at the time. I am assuming that if a person is a member of LOPSA, then their membership does mean something to them (otherwise, why would they be a member), so the revocation of that membership is a viable course of action. Likewise, a ban from LOPSA events would preclude several conferences and meetings, which presumably would mean something to the person the actions are levied against. If the removal of the LOPSA membership and ban from the events doesn't mean anything to the offender, then at least we have the knowledge that we've removed someone like that from our presence. What are your thoughts? --Matt On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Sachs <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, > > Thanks for the clarification! So with the policy covering all > interactions as they pertain to LOPSA, what is going to make the policy > something that sticks? My point is this--we have a slim value proposition > for being a member. If someone violates the policy, what are the > repercussions? At the risk of seeming Draconian, what do our members lose > if they violate the sexual harassment policy? The only *real* punitive > measures would be taken by authorities, *if* the person being harassed > were comfortable enough to report it to the authorities and *if* we > create an atmosphere that makes going to the proper authorities as > something that's encouraged, should a member be harassed, sexually or > otherwise. > > As it stands, it seems like having the policy, to me, is something that's > merely for sake of having a sexual harassment policy, and less for the sake > of setting up a means of protecting a member experiences harassment or > physical/sexual violence. How do we take this from a high-level, > disembodied concept, to something that will effect our members "on the > ground." > > Just some thoughts/musings. > > Aaron > > > > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
