In the message dated: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:44:26 EDT,
The pithy ruminations from Matt Simmons on
<Re: [lopsa-discuss] Establish a definitive LOPSA Harassment and Discrimination
Policy> were:
=>
=> I've had some thoughts on this subject.
As have I. My first thought is that we should have a lawyer involved. That's
also my 2nd through 10th thought on the subject.
For thoughts 11-to-N, see below.
=>
=> 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. *
=>
Without a definition of 'harassment' (either explicitly or by reference to
another definition), I would guess that any action on the part of LOPSA
could be disputed by the accused harasser. [See thought #1.]
Does LOPSA have a grievance and dispute policy--if a member is disciplined,
what is their path for redress?
How does this [potentially] affect LOPSA financially/legally? For example, if
a person is expelled from PICC on the basis of alleged harassment, does their
employer have the right to a refund, as the attendee who was expelled never
received the product that was purchased? If a person is expelled from an event
or from LOPSA, who is liable in case of a suit (the accuser, the LOPSA board,
the people who physically expelled the individual, etc), and what support will
LOPSA offer people named in the suit?
Does LOPSA have an umbrella liability insurance policy that covers this kind
of event? How would the presence (or absence) of a policy affect the insurance
cost or required coverage. [See thought #1 above.]
=>
=> 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=E2=80=99s full cooperation with l=
=> aw
=> enforcement.
Whoa! I am not a lawyer [See thought #1 above], but the idea of a written
policy about how LOPSA will treat non-members sounds very problematic. My
naive reading of that 'policy' could include the scenario where:
a hotel guest, unaffiliated with LOPSA or PICC, walks past
a LOPSA member at the PICC conference and makes a harassing
remark, then LOPSA would need to 'expel' the offending
individual from the premises (private property not owned by
LOPSA) as the minimum redress.
In case of alleged harassment at a LOPSA event, who is responsible for
enforcing this policy? What if there are no LOPSA board members present? Would
individual members be required to enforce the policy (and subject to
punishment if they do not enforce it--thereby potentially supporting the
harassment)? If individual members are expected to uphold the policy, what is
their liability in case the alleged harasser objects--will LOPSA indemnify the
membership if, for example, someone is ejected from a meeting or conference?
=>
=>
=> 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
Yes. Absolutely. That's fundamental, but that does not need to be part of a
corporation's legally binding policy (see thought #1 above).
=> 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.
=>
I also wonder if any of this policy is applicable in the event that LOPSA is
not legally running the event--for example, with PICC, my understanding is
that there is an LLC that administers the event. Is the per-event LLC subject
to the policies of LOPSA in each case?
=> 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.
This sounds like LOPSA is making a statement about physically removing people
from particular locations--that sounds like a tremendous exaggeration of the
responsibility and authority of LOPSA, like an unreasonable promise to make to
the alleged harassee, and like an impractical and unenforceable policy. [See
thought #1 above.]
=>
=> What are your thoughts?
=>
Keep it simple.
I would be extremely supportive of a statement from LOPSA that is similar to
the System Administrator's Code of Ethics:
positive
supportive of individual differences
supportive of establishing and preserving an safe, inclusive
professional environment
setting forth a philosophical/moral/legal/ethical position on
the question of harassment
not prescriptive -- not requiring specific actions or
responsibilities on the part of LOPSA in the event of alleged
harassment
It seems that the proposed policies are over-reaching, too specific in terms
of a focus on harassment and problematic in terms of requiring specific
reactions to that accusations of harassment.
Mark
=> --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 propositio=
=> n
=> > 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 sa=
=> ke
=> > 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
=> >
=> >
=> >
=> >
=>
=>
=> --=20
=> LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST?
=> COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
=>
=> --20cf307cfd721e46b804c0dc9169
=> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
=> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=>
=> I've had some thoughts on this subject.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>So, as=
=> written in the policy:=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote style=3D"marg=
=> in:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40=
=> px;border:none;padding:0px">
=> <div><b id=3D"internal-source-marker_0.8232944160699844" style=3D"font-fami=
=> ly:Times;font-size:medium"><span style=3D"font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;=
=> font-weight:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">LOPSA view=
=> s harassment and retaliation to be among the most serious breaches of profe=
=> ssional behavior. Consequently, appropriate disciplinary or corrective acti=
=> on, ranging from a warning to a revocation of membership and a ban from LOP=
=> SA-organized activities both online and in person, can be expected. </span>=
=> </b></div>
=> </blockquote><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px=
=> "><div><span id=3D"internal-source-marker_0.8232944160699844" style=3D"font=
=> -family:Times;font-size:medium"><br></span></div></blockquote><blockquote s=
=> tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
=> <div><span id=3D"internal-source-marker_0.8232944160699844" style=3D"font-f=
=> amily:Times;font-size:medium"><span style=3D"font-size:13px;font-family:Ari=
=> al;font-weight:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">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=E2=80=99s full cooperation with law enforcement. </span><=
=> /span></div>
=> </blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The first action of importanc=
=> e is to get the person who's been harassed into a safe spot and away fr=
=> om the harasser. If that means ejecting the harasser from the event or func=
=> tion, then that should be done.=C2=A0</div>
=> <div><br></div><div>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 th=
=> e revocation of that membership is a viable course of action. Likewise, a b=
=> an from LOPSA events would preclude several conferences and meetings, which=
=> presumably would mean something to the person the actions are levied again=
=> st.=C2=A0</div>
=> <div><br></div><div>If the removal of the LOPSA membership and ban from the=
=> events doesn't mean anything to the offender, then at least we have th=
=> e knowledge that we've removed someone like that from our presence.=C2=
=> =A0</div>
=> <div><br></div><div>What are your thoughts?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>=
=> --Matt=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
=> ote">On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Aaron Sachs <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
=> href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"; target=3D"_blank">aaronm.sachs@gmail=
=> .com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
=> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
=> x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Matt,=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Thanks for th=
=> e clarification! =C2=A0So with the policy covering all interactions as they=
=> pertain to LOPSA, what is going to make the policy something that sticks? =
=> =C2=A0My 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 o=
=> f seeming Draconian, what do our members lose if they violate the sexual ha=
=> rassment policy? The only <u>real</u>=C2=A0punitive measures would be taken=
=> by authorities, <i>if</i>=C2=A0the person being harassed were comfortable =
=> enough to report it to the authorities and <i>if</i>=C2=A0we create an atmo=
=> sphere that makes going to the proper authorities as something that's e=
=> ncouraged, should a member be harassed, sexually or otherwise.</div>
=>
=>
=>
=> <div><br></div><div>As it stands, it seems like having the policy, to me, i=
=> s 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 experi=
=> ences harassment or physical/sexual violence. How do we take this from a hi=
=> gh-level, disembodied concept, to something that will effect our members &q=
=> uot;on the ground." =C2=A0<br>
=>
=>
=> <br>Just some thoughts/musings.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#88888=
=> 8"><br><br>Aaron</font></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>=
=> </div>
=> </blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>LITTLE GIRL:=
=> But which cookie will you eat FIRST?<br>COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have =
=> misconception of cookie-eating process.<br><br>
=> </div>
=>
=> --20cf307cfd721e46b804c0dc9169--
=>
=> --===============0105439807899199002==
=> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
=> MIME-Version: 1.0
=> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
=> Content-Disposition: inline
=>
=> _______________________________________________
=> 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/
=>
=> --===============0105439807899199002==--
=>
_______________________________________________
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/
