Adjudication Policy

What this policy covers

This policy provides a process for decision-making, or review of a previous decision, in the following situations (either when alleged, or undisputed):

• Staff or attendee misconduct
• Disciplinary actions against a staff member or attendee (defined as any adverse change in or nonrenewal of a person's status, responsibilities, or benefits as a result of alleged misconduct)
• Any decision of any kind against a staff member or attendee that is made for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason prohibited by the organization harassment policy

This policy covers any of the above situations if they are connected with the organization, even if they do not take place at or during one of its events.

In some situations, the procedures laid out in this document are an available option; in other cases, they are mandated. Details further below, as well as certain provisions of the organization bylaws, describe in what circumstances they are mandated.

For the purposes of this policy, "attendee" also includes exhibitors, artists, or participants in programs that primarily target these groups of people, even if actual attendee status is not a strict requirement (such as contests or online discussion venues).

Contractors, industry guests, industry partners, guests of honor, and press do not have any protection or rights under this policy regarding the ability to prevent or appeal an adverse decision against them, as these invitations and relationships are considered discretionary. Misconduct, discrimination, or harassment against any of these people, is of course disallowed and may be reviewed internally under this policy.

Adjudication process options

An adjudication process may be carried out with three different levels of formality, depending on the needs and circumstances of the situation.

In a non-binding review, a staff member of the Human Relationship sub-department will review and investigate an incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and recommendations on a course of action. The recommendations are non-binding and both the findings and recommendations can be appealed or re-reviewed.

In an informal decision-making review, a temporary group of between two and seven staff members, including at least one manager, will review and investigate an incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action. The findings and decisions are binding, but can be reviewed or overruled by the board or by a formal decision-making review (see below).

A formal decision-making review is the most involved form of adjudication process. When the bylaws require an adjudication process to be carried out for a specific reason listed in the bylaws, then it must be this most formal process. A temporary review committee with specific composition requirements will review and investigate the incident, and must allow for a formal hearing for the respondent to explain their case. The committee will make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action. The findings and decisions are binding, final, and are considered the actions of the organization.

When there is a report of alleged conduct that violates the organization staff harassment policy, and when the complaint has not been resolved informally, or when any involved party or any reporter wishes to bypass informal resolution first, then a review, of some level of formality, must occur. If, for any reason, the review does not or cannot commence, then any affected managers, directors, or the board must follow up to ensure that a review at some level of formality commences. If a non-binding review occurs and the recommended decisions are not carried out, then a review at a higher level of formality must occur.

How the adjudication process works

Differences between the three levels of formality

(Swipe left and right to see entire table.)

Conduct and procedure (all three levels of formality)

While the review process is underway, the following attendance and privacy rules apply:

• Decision-making participants may not discuss the matter with each other, either directly, or through an intermediary, outside of deliberation meetings, except via communication that includes all other participants.
• Deliberation meetings must invite every decision-making participant, and other involved or affected parties must not be present.
• All hearings of the respondent must include all decision-making participants, unless the respondent requests or agrees to a smaller hearing and all decision-making participants who would be absent also agree. The respondent may be accompanied by an additional person to assist in their defense.
• Investigations or interviews of witnesses need not be conducted with all decision-making participants present.
• Witness testimony and hearings of the respondent may be combined at the discretion of the decision-making participants, but the respondent has the right to require all or a portion of their hearing be in private without witnesses present, and likewise, any witness has the right to require all or a portion of their testimony or interview be in private without any other witnesses or the respondent present.
• For any interviews, meetings, or hearings that are part of the review, no other person may be present than those listed above without a strong justification, such as accommodations for a disability, professional advice, legal requirements, or a special exception approved by the decision-making participants if fairness requires it.

Deliberations, investigations, and hearings may be conducted in person, by voice call, in writing, or a combination thereof, in order to accommodate the reasonable requests, preferences, and schedules of every person involved. All meetings must provide fair and reasonable notice to every person who should be invited.

All staff members are required to cooperate, upon request, with an investigation under this adjudication policy, regardless of the level of formality. When talking to a staff member as part of such an investigation, the investigator should communicate that the investigation is being conducted under the organization adjudication policy. The staff member may request to talk to a person in the Human Relationship sub-department or a manager in their chain of command first.

The review process must move forward with reasonable speed, and stay in communication with involved and affected parties, particularly the respondent. The chairperson holds the primary responsibility for ensuring that these requirements are met, including ensuring that the next meeting of the review process is scheduled and that the respondent is aware of the next step.

The respondent may waive participation in part or all of the process and the review process may proceed without that party's defense. The review process may interrupt any proceeding or communication with a respondent or witness who does not reasonably cooperate with scheduling or logistical requests, or who engages in frivolous or abusive behavior, and proceed without their participation.

The board may intervene in the case of a review chairperson or participant not adhering to their review duties or rules of conduct, as long as, for a formal decision-making review, any intervention does not serve to alter an apparent probable outcome.

Decision-making

For a formal decision-making review, report contents and decisions must be approved by formal vote of the committee.

For an informal decision-making review, the report and decisions may be made either by consensus, or a more formal vote if desired. If the group has any members who have original decision-making authority over the situation, and the group chooses to decide by a formal vote, then those specific members must abstain from the formal vote, but may otherwise entirely participate in the discussion.

For either type of decision-making review (informal or formal), majority approval of the total number of decision-making participants who are eligible to vote is required to approve an action or report. In the event of lack of initial consensus for the findings and decisions of a report, the decision-making participants are encouraged to find a common set of findings and actions that will reach majority approval for a unified report. However, if this is not possible, it is permissible for a report to consist of findings or decisions for which each independent portion has received majority approval. In the event that a finding or decision has majority approval but with participants differing on the reasoning such that no single explanation has majority support, the report may include different concurring explanations, which should be distinguished as such and are individually considered non-binding.

For any type of review, the decision-making participants are permitted to decide that they cannot reach any conclusion. Reasons for this may include, inability to reach clear findings for necessary parts of the investigation, or a belief that the scope of the review's decision-making authority is too narrow to allow a fair or conclusive result. If a review concludes with such declaration of non-action, then the matter remains reviewable, even if this was a formal review whose report would otherwise be final.

Prior to the completion of an adjudication process, the board or other normally-authorized personnel may make disciplinary decisions that apply on a temporary basis, such as a suspension, or a pause of a suspension. Once it is evident that an adjudication review will commence, will likely commence, or is underway, disciplinary decisions communicated to a party must specify that they are not final.

Conflict of interest

No person who has a relevant conflict of interest for an affected incident may be involved in decision-making, deliberation, or conducting an investigation for any type of review under this policy. This includes participation as a member of the Human Relationship sub-department in an affected incident, participation as a group or committee member, or any other decision-making role. For the purposes of this section, "relevant" means the conflict of interest involves a respondent or a person who has original decision-making authority in the situation under review. "Involvement" for conflict of interest purposes includes being in that individual's reporting chain. (The Chair is not considered to be in the reporting chain of the other eight departments or board members.)

This section applies in addition to the general provisions of the organization conflict of interest policy, including any conflict of interest mitigations that have been previously put in place.

Confidentiality

All participants acting in an official capacity in a review must respect reasonable expectations of confidentiality. Participants must keep in mind that reporting of misconduct is a very sensitive matter and participants are exposed to the risk of retaliation, and are usually reporting with a heightened expectation of confidentiality. Such expectations may have particular case-by-case circumstances, and may be stricter than those normally expected for board or executive discussion. In most matters discussed at the executive level, the primary concern is protecting information from leaving the organization. However, for sensitive situations that may be reviewed under an adjudication process, the concern must also be to protect against improper internal sharing. When information is reviewed under an expectation of confidentiality, participants may only share that information with other staff members, including board members or executives, for a proper purpose.

An expectation of confidentiality must be reasonable in order to be controlling. A review process may act contrary to an expectation of confidentiality if it is necessary in order to reach a fair decision, to allow a person to defend themselves, or to present information in its report that impacts any person's safety, standing, or rights, or that impacts a significant business or mission-based decision of the organization.

When delivering a report from a review process, any particular person may be excluded, or delivered an appropriately redacted report, if necessary to preserve a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, where excluding that person does not harm the goal of fairness or the ability of the organization to make appropriate decisions.

Definitions

The respondent is the person facing the adverse change in or nonrenewal of status, responsibilities, or benefits under circumstances covered by this policy.

Having original decision-making authority means the person or party who is authorized to make a decision if no adjudication review would occur.

In an adjudication review, the decision-making participants are (1) In a non-binding review, any persons in the Human Relationship sub-department participating in the investigation under official direction; (2) In an informal decision-making review, the group of staff members formed to conduct the review; or (3) In a formal decision-making review, the committee members. For all three of the above, people in the process of being selected as decision-making participants are included for purposes of policies on conduct, privacy, confidentiality, and conflict of interest, even if the selections are not finalized.

Involved parties in an incident or review are the respondent, persons or parties with original decision-making authority, and decision-making participants. Being a witness or reporter does not, alone, make one an involved party.

Miscellanea

Composition requirements for a decision-making group or committee are based on a person's staff status at the start of the selection process, and may, if needed, extend backward to be based on a staff position that recently ended, as long as the participant remains in good standing with the organization and eligible for re-appointment as staff. Any person participating past the end of their titled staff position will be considered an organization staff member, ex officio, for the duration of the adjudication process.

Legal actions

In any issue in which an attorney representing the organization under an attorney-client relationship has reviewed all of the relevant facts of the situation and advises that a course of action is legally required or legally standard, the board may opt to follow that legal advice even if it overrules any adjudication process decision. This takes precedence over any other such restriction on board action elsewhere in this policy.

A "Managers supplement" is available to manager-level staff with more information about the adjudication process.

What this policy covers

This policy provides a process for decision-making, or review of a previous decision, in the following situations (either when alleged, or undisputed):

• Staff or attendee misconduct
• Disciplinary actions against a staff member or attendee (defined as any adverse change in or nonrenewal of a person's status, responsibilities, or benefits as a result of alleged misconduct)
• Any decision of any kind against a staff member or attendee that is made for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason prohibited by the organization harassment policy

This policy covers any of the above situations if they are connected with the organization, even if they do not take place at or during one of its events.

In some situations, the procedures laid out in this document are an available option; in other cases, they are mandated. Details further below, as well as certain provisions of the organization bylaws, describe in what circumstances they are mandated.

For the purposes of this policy, "attendee" also includes exhibitors, artists, or participants in programs that primarily target these groups of people, even if actual attendee status is not a strict requirement (such as contests or online discussion venues).

Contractors, industry guests, industry partners, guests of honor, and press do not have any protection or rights under this policy regarding the ability to prevent or appeal an adverse decision against them, as these invitations and relationships are considered discretionary. Misconduct, discrimination, or harassment against any of these people, is of course disallowed and may be reviewed internally under this policy.

Adjudication process options

An adjudication process may be carried out with three different levels of formality, depending on the needs and circumstances of the situation.

In a non-binding review, a staff member of the Human Relationship sub-department will review and investigate an incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and recommendations on a course of action. The recommendations are non-binding and both the findings and recommendations can be appealed or re-reviewed.

In an informal decision-making review, a temporary group of between two and seven staff members, including at least one manager, will review and investigate an incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action. The findings and decisions are binding, but can be reviewed or overruled by the board or by a formal decision-making review (see below).

A formal decision-making review is the most involved form of adjudication process. When the bylaws require an adjudication process to be carried out for a specific reason listed in the bylaws, then it must be this most formal process. A temporary review committee with specific composition requirements will review and investigate the incident, and must allow for a formal hearing for the respondent to explain their case. The committee will make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action. The findings and decisions are binding, final, and are considered the actions of the organization.

How the adjudication process works

Non-binding reviews

How the review is initiated: A non-binding review may be requested by any party, including by a staff member in the Human Relationship sub-department. The head of the Human Relationship sub-department will decide whether to accept a request; however, a review must begin if requested by the board, by the director overseeing the Human Relationship sub-department, or by any two directors, unless such a request is overridden by the board or the review is escalated to one of the two more formal options.

The board does not need to be involved in initiating or conducting a non-binding review.

How the review is conducted: A staff member of the Human Relationship sub-department, under the direction of the head of this sub-department, will review and investigate the incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and recommendations on a course of action.

The entirety of the "Conduct and procedure" section, "Decision-making" section, and all other sections, applies.

Who receives the report: The report will be delivered to the party(s) who have decision-making authority for the situation under review, unless this would violate a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. At the discretion of the Human Relationship sub-department, the report may also be delivered to additional parties, subject to limits of appropriateness and caution in creating an implication that a non-binding recommendation has been made an official decision. The report will also be delivered to any party by request of the board, unless this would violate a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.

Effect of the recommendations: The recommendations are non-binding, and the original decision-makers are not required to carry them out. The findings and recommendations can be reviewed or overruled by the board or by a more formal review option, and the findings and recommendations do not formally change the normal decision-making chain of command of the organization.

Informal decision-making reviews

How the review is initiated: An informal decision-making review may be requested by any party. It may begin in an informal manner as potential group members to constitute the review are proposed and assembled. To formally begin the review requires agreement from all involved parties (see definition of this term further below), including agreement on the review group members and chairperson, and agreement on the scope of the review.

Requirements for the decision-making group: A temporary group of staff members will be formed to conduct the review, meeting the following requirements:

• Between two and seven staff members
• At least one manager
• No more than three board members
• Optionally, one of the group members may serve as a group chairperson
• Any group members who have original decision-making authority over the situation (see definition further below) will be non-voting, if the group chooses to reach a decision by a formal vote

How the review is conducted: The temporary group will review and investigate the incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action.

Each group member will re-read this adjudication policy in its entirety at the start of the process.

The entirety of the "Conduct and procedure" section, "Decision-making" section, and all other sections, applies.

Who receives the report: The report will be delivered to all the involved parties (see definition of this term further below), and any additional parties requested by the board, but all such report deliveries are subject to limitations as a result of conflict of interest and confidentiality concerns, as explained in their respective sections below.

However, if requested by any party with original decision-making authority and agreed to by all involved parties prior to the commencement of the review, or if requested by the board at any time (without the need for such agreement by other parties), then the report will be delivered to the board and its appeal considered prior to being delivered to other parties. If the board overrules the report, then, unless the board decides otherwise, only the final decision and findings of the board will be delivered to the other parties.

Effect of the decisions: The findings and decisions in the report are binding, but can be reviewed or overruled by the board or by a formal decision-making review (see below) conducted under this policy. Before the findings and decisions are carried out, the respondent and all persons or parties with original decision-making authority must be given an opportunity to review the report and decide whether to appeal to the board. If no such party expresses a desire to appeal within a reasonable amount of time, then the findings and decisions will be carried out, but they remain reviewable and appealable after the fact.

How an immediate appeal works: If an immediate appeal as described in the previous paragraph is requested by any party with the right to do so, the report will first be delivered to the board. Official notice must be provided at an appropriately timely board meeting that would place it on the agenda. The board may take ownership of the matter as it wishes, subject to other requirements in this policy and in the bylaws. If the board appears to have ignored the appeal, fails to take it up for discussion, or cannot reach any specific decision on a path forward (such as failure for any motion to reach a majority requirement), then the findings and decisions will be carried out, but they remain reviewable and appealable by future action.

Formal decision-making reviews

How the review is initiated: A formal decision-making review is required when requested by the board, when requested by any two board members, or when otherwise required by the bylaws or applicable law.

However, a formal decision-making review whose scope includes any findings or decisions made final by a previous formal decision-making review requires authorization from the board (not merely any two board members) in order to commence.

The board must be notified and aware when such a request meeting the requirements is made, prior to the start of committee selection.

Prior to the commencement of committee action, there must be written agreement on the scope of the fact-finding and decision-making powers of the committee. If the parties requesting the review cannot agree, then the scope will be limited to aspects that are affirmed by at least two board members.

Requirements for the decision-making committee: A temporary review committee will be formed to conduct the review, meeting the following requirements:

• At least five staff members
• An odd number of committee members
• At least one-third executive-level staff members
• At least one-third non-executive-level staff members
• At least one-fifth (but no more than three) board members
• Be about equally divided between those predisposed to be in favor of one side or the other, not counting members who are neutral in predisposition
• At least majority committee members who were not significantly involved in the original situation
• None of the committee members having original decision-making authority in the situation
• At least seven committee members if the situation may lead to removal from the board or ineligibility to be on the board
• There must be no person who "always" or almost always is selected from one review to another (including any person in the Human Relationship sub-department); participation must rotate in the interest of independence
• One of the committee members will serve as the committee chairperson

No party (except the board) has the right to require approval of the composition or chairperson. In the event that informal discussion leaves significant dissatisfaction with the committee composition from any involved party, then the board will select a final composition.

The requirements listed above may be waived if agreed to by all involved parties and the board, or if, in the decision of the board, they cannot be met without compromising fairness or imposing an undue burden on the organization.

How the review is conducted: The temporary committee will review and investigate the incident, and make a report containing findings of fact and decisions on a course of action.

The process must include at least one formal opportunity for the respondent to present arguments and evidence in their defense, answer questions from the committee, and request questions to be asked to witnesses as cross-examination, which the committee may allow or deny, and carry out, in its discretion.

The committee may not make a final decision on the same day that any new important information is presented or discovered.

Each committee member will re-read this adjudication policy in its entirety at the start of the process.

The entirety of the "Conduct and procedure" section, "Decision-making" section, and all other sections, applies.

Who receives the report: The report will be delivered to all the involved parties (see definition of this term further below), the board, and any additional parties requested by the board, but all such report deliveries are subject to limitations as a result of conflict of interest and confidentiality concerns, as explained in their respective sections below.

Effect of the decisions: The findings and decisions in the report are binding and final and are treated as the action of the organization. The findings and decisions cannot be overruled by the board directly, but can only be overruled by a subsequent, formal decision-making review conducted and authorized under this policy, or as described in the "Legal actions" section.

Harassment reports

When there is a report of alleged conduct that violates the organization staff harassment policy, and when the complaint has not been resolved informally, or when any involved party or any reporter wishes to bypass informal resolution first, then a review, of some level of formality, must occur. If, for any reason, the review does not or cannot commence, then any affected managers, directors, or the board must follow up to ensure that a review at some level of formality commences. If a non-binding review occurs and the recommended decisions are not carried out, then a review at a higher level of formality must occur.

Conduct and procedure

While the review process is underway, the following attendance and privacy rules apply:

• Decision-making participants may not discuss the matter with each other, either directly, or through an intermediary, outside of deliberation meetings, except via communication that includes all other participants.
• Deliberation meetings must invite every decision-making participant, and other involved or affected parties must not be present.
• All hearings of the respondent must include all decision-making participants, unless the respondent requests or agrees to a smaller hearing and all decision-making participants who would be absent also agree. The respondent may be accompanied by an additional person to assist in their defense.
• Investigations or interviews of witnesses need not be conducted with all decision-making participants present.
• Witness testimony and hearings of the respondent may be combined at the discretion of the decision-making participants, but the respondent has the right to require all or a portion of their hearing be in private without witnesses present, and likewise, any witness has the right to require all or a portion of their testimony or interview be in private without any other witnesses or the respondent present.
• For any interviews, meetings, or hearings that are part of the review, no other person may be present than those listed above without a strong justification, such as accommodations for a disability, professional advice, legal requirements, or a special exception approved by the decision-making participants if fairness requires it.

Deliberations, investigations, and hearings may be conducted in person, by voice call, in writing, or a combination thereof, in order to accommodate the reasonable requests, preferences, and schedules of every person involved. All meetings must provide fair and reasonable notice to every person who should be invited.

All staff members are required to cooperate, upon request, with an investigation under this adjudication policy, regardless of the level of formality. When talking to a staff member as part of such an investigation, the investigator should communicate that the investigation is being conducted under the organization adjudication policy. The staff member may request to talk to a person in the Human Relationship sub-department or a manager in their chain of command first.

The review process must move forward with reasonable speed, and stay in communication with involved and affected parties, particularly the respondent. The chairperson holds the primary responsibility for ensuring that these requirements are met, including ensuring that the next meeting of the review process is scheduled and that the respondent is aware of the next step.

The respondent may waive participation in part or all of the process and the review process may proceed without that party's defense. The review process may interrupt any proceeding or communication with a respondent or witness who does not reasonably cooperate with scheduling or logistical requests, or who engages in frivolous or abusive behavior, and proceed without their participation.

The board may intervene in the case of a review chairperson or participant not adhering to their review duties or rules of conduct, as long as, for a formal decision-making review, any intervention does not serve to alter an apparent probable outcome.

Decision-making

For a formal decision-making review, report contents and decisions must be approved by formal vote of the committee.

For an informal decision-making review, the report and decisions may be made either by consensus, or a more formal vote if desired. If the group has any members who have original decision-making authority over the situation, and the group chooses to decide by a formal vote, then those specific members must abstain from the formal vote, but may otherwise entirely participate in the discussion.

For either type of decision-making review (informal or formal), majority approval of the total number of decision-making participants who are eligible to vote is required to approve an action or report. In the event of lack of initial consensus for the findings and decisions of a report, the decision-making participants are encouraged to find a common set of findings and actions that will reach majority approval for a unified report. However, if this is not possible, it is permissible for a report to consist of findings or decisions for which each independent portion has received majority approval. In the event that a finding or decision has majority approval but with participants differing on the reasoning such that no single explanation has majority support, the report may include different concurring explanations, which should be distinguished as such and are individually considered non-binding.

For any type of review, the decision-making participants are permitted to decide that they cannot reach any conclusion. Reasons for this may include, inability to reach clear findings for necessary parts of the investigation, or a belief that the scope of the review's decision-making authority is too narrow to allow a fair or conclusive result. If a review concludes with such declaration of non-action, then the matter remains reviewable, even if this was a formal review whose report would otherwise be final.

Prior to the completion of an adjudication process, the board or other normally-authorized personnel may make disciplinary decisions that apply on a temporary basis, such as a suspension, or a pause of a suspension. Once it is evident that an adjudication review will commence, will likely commence, or is underway, disciplinary decisions communicated to a party must specify that they are not final.

Conflict of interest

No person who has a relevant conflict of interest for an affected incident may be involved in decision-making, deliberation, or conducting an investigation for any type of review under this policy. This includes participation as a member of the Human Relationship sub-department in an affected incident, participation as a group or committee member, or any other decision-making role. For the purposes of this section, "relevant" means the conflict of interest involves a respondent or a person who has original decision-making authority in the situation under review. "Involvement" for conflict of interest purposes includes being in that individual's reporting chain. (The Chair is not considered to be in the reporting chain of the other eight departments or board members.)

This section applies in addition to the general provisions of the organization conflict of interest policy, including any conflict of interest mitigations that have been previously put in place.

Confidentiality

All participants acting in an official capacity in a review must respect reasonable expectations of confidentiality. Participants must keep in mind that reporting of misconduct is a very sensitive matter and participants are exposed to the risk of retaliation, and are usually reporting with a heightened expectation of confidentiality. Such expectations may have particular case-by-case circumstances, and may be stricter than those normally expected for board or executive discussion. In most matters discussed at the executive level, the primary concern is protecting information from leaving the organization. However, for sensitive situations that may be reviewed under an adjudication process, the concern must also be to protect against improper internal sharing. When information is reviewed under an expectation of confidentiality, participants may only share that information with other staff members, including board members or executives, for a proper purpose.

An expectation of confidentiality must be reasonable in order to be controlling. A review process may act contrary to an expectation of confidentiality if it is necessary in order to reach a fair decision, to allow a person to defend themselves, or to present information in its report that impacts any person's safety, standing, or rights, or that impacts a significant business or mission-based decision of the organization.

When delivering a report from a review process, any particular person may be excluded, or delivered an appropriately redacted report, if necessary to preserve a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, where excluding that person does not harm the goal of fairness or the ability of the organization to make appropriate decisions.

Definitions

The respondent is the person facing the adverse change in or nonrenewal of status, responsibilities, or benefits under circumstances covered by this policy.

Having original decision-making authority means the person or party who is authorized to make a decision if no adjudication review would occur.

In an adjudication review, the decision-making participants are (1) In a non-binding review, any persons in the Human Relationship sub-department participating in the investigation under official direction; (2) In an informal decision-making review, the group of staff members formed to conduct the review; or (3) In a formal decision-making review, the committee members. For all three of the above, people in the process of being selected as decision-making participants are included for purposes of policies on conduct, privacy, confidentiality, and conflict of interest, even if the selections are not finalized.

Involved parties in an incident or review are the respondent, persons or parties with original decision-making authority, and decision-making participants. Being a witness or reporter does not, alone, make one an involved party.

Miscellanea

Composition requirements for a decision-making group or committee are based on a person's staff status at the start of the selection process, and may, if needed, extend backward to be based on a staff position that recently ended, as long as the participant remains in good standing with the organization and eligible for re-appointment as staff. Any person participating past the end of their titled staff position will be considered an organization staff member, ex officio, for the duration of the adjudication process.

Legal actions

In any issue in which an attorney representing the organization under an attorney-client relationship has reviewed all of the relevant facts of the situation and advises that a course of action is legally required or legally standard, the board may opt to follow that legal advice even if it overrules any adjudication process decision. This takes precedence over any other such restriction on board action elsewhere in this policy.

A "Managers supplement" is available to manager-level staff with more information about the adjudication process.

1. This process will apply:
   1. In any situation required by the bylaws or applicable law;
   2. In any proposed institution, revocation, or change in disciplinary action (including but not limited to redlist status), for which at least two board members request this process be used;
   3. A conflict of interest situation referred to it by the board; or
   4. Any other situation referred to it by the board.
2. Except when acting only on a final decision is required by the bylaws or applicable law, the board will decide whether the action under consideration will be imposed on an interim basis until the adjudication process concludes.
3. A review committee will be assembled, meeting these requirements:
   1. Consist of at least 5 people, or at least 7 people for any case that may lead to removal from the board or ineligibility to be on the board;
   2. Consist of members not having a conflict of interest involving the respondent, unless unavoidable;
   3. Consist either of neutral parties, or be about equally divided between those in favor of and against the respondent;
   4. Consist of at least one-third executive-level staff members; at least one-third non-executive-level staff members; and at least two board members;
   5. Consist of at least one-third persons (and if possible, at least majority) who were not firsthand involved in the original dispute;
   6. If possible, not have a conflict of interest between committee members. If this cannot be avoided, then prior to commencing proceedings, all but one person in the conflict should be designated non-voting, and such non-voting members will not count for any count or composition requirements.
   7. There is no permanent committee; a separate selection of people will occur for each proceeding. There should be no person who "always" or almost always gets selected; participation should rotate.
   8. Any of these committee requirements may be waived by the respondent.
4. The board, consistent with applicable requirements, will specify to the review committee their role for this particular proceeding, which may include one or more of the following:
   1. Finder of fact
   2. Determiner of whether certain facts warrant a guilty finding
   3. Decider of punishment
   4. The role may be limited in scope; for example, only considering guilt over one specific set of facts.
5. The committee will select a chairperson who will communicate with the respondent, and must stay in reasonable communication.
6. Fair and reasonable notice must be given to the respondent, and to all committee members, of the proceedings and outcome.
7. The committee must accommodate reasonable scheduling requests of the respondent.
8. The committee must move with reasonable speed through the process. Generally, at each adjournment or step, a specific date for the next meeting or deadline should be communicated to affected parties.
9. There will be a hearing at which the respondent can present arguments and evidence in their defense, and answer questions from the committee. This may be by phone or in person, based on reasonable accommodations of all parties involved.
   1. The only persons at the hearing should be committee members, witnesses, and if requested, one accompanying person for the respondent, who may assist in their defense; and any other person with a strong justification for being present.
   2. If agreed to by the respondent, a written process may substitute for a live hearing.
10. There will be a discussion session with only committee members present for discussing and/or voting on a decision.
11. All discussion involving any committee members must include all committee members, except for absences at a reasonably scheduled meeting, unless an exception and a reason for it is disclosed to the committee chairperson, which the chairperson should share with the committee to the extent reasonable.
12. The committee may request additional hearings or discussion sessions as needed or desirable.
13. Decisions of the committee:
    1. A vote of the majority of all committee members of a specific action shall constitute the decision of the committee.
       1. "Majority" means more than half. Equally divided votes are not more than half. Majority is measured out of total committee members, so an abstention is functionally a "no" vote.
    2. Findings of guilt, or of lack of guilt, are separate motions requiring separate votes.
    3. A failure to reach a majority vote for any decision after extensive committee action?being "hopelessly deadlocked"?shall be treated as no action taken by the committee. Once the committee concludes it is deadlocked, the adjudication process is over. A new one may be brought again later, but it must be restarted, with a new committee selection process, and so on.
    4. A failure of the committee to act in a timely manner shall be treated the same as (c).
14. The respondent may waive any or all provisions or steps of this policy that act to their advantage, including, if desired, their entire participation in the process.
    1. If the respondent does not respond to or cooperate with this adjudication process within a reasonable amount of time, or engages in abuse or frivolous behavior with committee members, it shall be treated as a waiver.
    2. In cases of explicit or implicit waiver, the committee may proceed without the respondent's defense and accelerate all remaining portions of the proceeding as desired.
15. The committee proceedings are confidential, but records may be accessed by board members, current or future, and any other persons who have a direct need to review the proceedings. They may be restricted from board members only for conflict of interest reasons.
16. The board may override an adjudication committee decision only in cases where the bylaws or this policy does not require this adjudication process to be used. However, a new adjudication committee and proceeding may review or amend an earlier decision.