I agree with most of what you bring up. LOPSA may have the expectation they can remove someone from the location, but any attempt to do so without involving law enforcement is going to cause some serious issues. If someone other than a police officer attempted to remove me from somewhere, there would be serious consideration of assult charges against the person, their employer and possibly even the facility depending on how it was handled.
Again part of the reason I suggest backing away from this whole thing and letting the various things already in place handle it. It's kind of like any time there is another shooting, the knee jerk policital thing is to want to create more gun laws. A more effective tactic would be to just enforce the laws already in place. [email protected] made the following keystrokes: >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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
