The following is from Draft 2 of the ACM Policy on Complaint Process Disclosure.
If you wish to contribute to this section: Reply to this post with your suggested re-wording, justification for your proposed changes, and an indication of your support or not.
2.3 Complaints under investigation
No information is disclosed publicly, including acknowledgement of the investigation.
Complainant should be informed when the start of the investigation will be delayed.
Witnesses are informed of the identity of the respondent when they are about to respond to questions related to the complaint, but not before.
I worry about when the information can be shared. It is such a delicate balance!
When someone is under investigation, there is a values-priority to protect their privacy.
However, if someone is suspected of doing harm to others, there is a values-priority to sharing some of that information with others on a preventative basis. For example, it might be important to tell people in supervisory roles (deans, provosts, managers, committee chairs) that someone may present a risk to others. This can be especially important if a case goes on for while without resolution, because the alleged perpetrator will be free to predate on other people.
However, I don’t know how to resolve these conflicting values-priorities. I don’t have a proposal. I want to encourage you to think about how to balance different kinds of harms, for people in different situations.
I would reconsider the use of the term “publicly”. Based on the statement in Section 2 that certain people, like those on awards committees, have this information, I take it to mean “people who aren’t ACM members or the general membership”. Alternatively, perhaps add definitions to clarify “public” to be clear that any investigative groups, awards committees, ACM leadership, and perhaps other specific groups are not “the public”.
I’m not sure that 2 makes sense. There is already a policy for investigations taking longer than 6 months. Is this anticipatory of the process taking more than 6 months? How much of a delay requires communication?
If the complaint is not made by the harmed individual(s), are the harmed individual(s) made aware of the investigation? If so, what happens if they don’t want an investigation? Alternatively, what if the harmed individual(s) assert no harm?
This concern is shared by the committee. Rule 5 in Section 2 can be used to address this delicate balance. We are thinking that there will be cases where the specifics of the case matter greatly.
I would reconsider the use of the term “publicly”.
We have chosen to use “publicly” as a way to recognize that if even one person is told, we have to be prepared for the consequences as if the information were shared publicly. Nonetheless your point is well taken. A public announcement by ACM is different, at least potentially, than someone sharing publicly an email that they received from someone representing ACM.
Is this anticipatory of the process taking more than 6 months?
Complaints can, but typically do not, take a long time to get off of the ground. Most typically delays happen when one or more parties to a complaint retain legal representation, there are language barriers that require translation, or gathering information needed to make an informed decision about whether there is sufficient factual evidence to support the allegation. We are hopeful that this is a rare thing, but want to be clear that ACM bears responsibility in informing complainants about progress of their complaints.
The six month requirement in Section 2 refers to complaints that have been taken up as substantial enough to warrant an investigation.
If the complaint is not made by the harmed individual(s), are the harmed individual(s) made aware of the investigation? If so, what happens if they don’t want an investigation? Alternatively, what if the harmed individual(s) assert no harm?
In most cases, harmed individuals are made aware. They essentially become witnesses to the investigation. If they don’t want one, they can refuse to cooperate. ACM may choose to stop an investigation if the harmed individual requests it. The assertion of no harm needs to be taken as a piece of evidence in the case.
There may be situations where the person in the ACM is (due to their other roles or responsibilities) required to inform someone else, such as law enforcement. For example, someone with an official role at the ACM is also a department head, and the complainant (a student in the department) makes a complaint about behavior at a conference by someone who is a faculty member of the department. Sometimes people with official ACM roles are mandated reporters in other contexts that overlap with their ACM roles.
These are both good examples of where a decision maker should consider whether the policy ought to be held tightly to. These details add to the argument that there is reason to step outside the bounds of the policy.