Michael, Thanks for your input!
I agree, legalese doesn't help anyone (and is actually opposed by the LOPSA policies! Check out http://governance.lopsa.org/LOPSA_Policies/Policy_creation_and_maintenancewhere it talks about the "Plain English Test". ) In fact, I worked really hard to make sure that the policy I stole from is readable by real humans (a lot of them weren't). It even explains, in plain english, what harassment consists of. Clarity and simplicity was really important to making the idea stick. We are free to make any changes to the wording or spirit of the policy (and ultimately, we're free to decide that we don't want to support the idea of having a harassment policy, but I don't think that's the right decision), so please, read through it and let me know if you think that something should be taken out, changed, or added. As for the "* or the use or nonuse of lawful products away from a professional setting* " phrase, if we don't or can't agree on what it means, then we should take it out. That's why we're talking about it :-) --Matt On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Ryder <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt, I think I understand where you were coming from when you brought > this up. > > But there's been a number of opinions in this thread that have given me > pause to reconsider things. > > We're all against harassment of any kind, that much is clear. The federal > government and every state (that's a guess) has laws against harassment. > I'm against writing copy that simply reaffirms something already written, > but apparently it's not enough to communicate the existence of laws that > are already on the books, so it looks like we're stuck with policies. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but any policy crafted is really a tool to enable > LOPSA's leadership to deal with any problems that come up. I don't think > there's a policy yet that actually prevents people from misbehaving. And > usually, any legally-enforceable policy takes a few reads to digest. > > So, it's important but if it's written by a lawyer, nobody is going to be > able to understand it. I believe the policy is a good thing, reaffirming > LOPSA's stance in supporting the federal antidiscrimination laws (but do we > really need another one when we already have the Code of Ethics?) > > Going the policy route, we would need something in "clear english" that > could be printed on the LOPSA website, in pamphlets at conferences, > membership regulations, etc. that referenced the policy. > > This gives you the ability to clearly and easily communicate LOPSA's > stance to conference-goers, members and non-members alike, and also link > them to the legalese on our website. > > Mike > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Matt Simmons < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> In the source policy, I suspect it was to prevent things like treating >> someone differently because they use homeopathy (or possibly prescribed >> drugs or vaccinations)? >> >> I'm not certain, but I couldn't come up with a good reason to take it >> out, so I left it in. Since we're a professional organization, my thought >> was that we should probably stick to dealing with the professional >> settings, not what people do or don't do in their own time. >> >> --Matt >> >> >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Bill Pechter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> While I'm in total agreement with the idea of the policy, this piece of >>> legalese has me stumped. >>> What's it mean in clear English. Can someone tell me what the >>> underlined means...? >>> >>> All members have a right to exist in a professional environment free >>> from discrimination and harassing conduct, including sexual harassment. >>> Harassment on the basis of a member’s race, color, creed, ancestry, >>> national origin, age, disability, sex, arrest or conviction record, marital >>> status, sexual orientation, membership in the military*, or the use or >>> nonuse of lawful products away from a professional setting* is >>> expressly prohibited under this policy. >>> -- >>> d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now! >>> pechter-at-gmail.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> >> > -- 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/
