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.
2.4 Complaints where no violation is found
The respondent must be informed of the decision and that information will be shared with others according to this policy.
The complainant should be informed of the decision unless there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm should any of the persons come to know of the decision.
In the event that the complaint becomes publicly known, ACM in consultation with the respondent, may make a public statement indicating that no violation has been found.
In 1, what kind of information is given to the respondent? I don’t see anything where the respondent is informed that a complaint was made and the nature of that complaint. It seems like the communication to the respondent is that they were not found to be in violation, but not of what.
In 2, I would change “should” to “must”. Unless there is a specific request to not be informed or harm that could come from knowing, why would the complainant and harmed individuals not be informed? Minimally, this “closes the loop” and the complainant would know that their report was addressed. This should increase visibility/transparency into enforcement policies.
In 1, what kind of information is given to the respondent?
The nature of the complaint and that no violation was found. Depending on the policy against which the complaint was filed and the point in that process, the respondent may know nothing about the case to having been interviewed. This can be made clearer.
In 2, I would change “should” to “must”.
We’ll take this one under advisement. Most typically, ACM would proceed as you suggest. Something may come up in the case that would point to more harm to the individual (witness or complainant) should they be informed of the outcome.
In section 2.4.2 (as well as in 2.5.2 and 2.6.2) of Draft 2, it is not intuitively obvious how there could be a “justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm” if a complainant or harmed individuals should come to know of a decision regarding a complaint. Therefore, it would be helpful to have a hypothetical example of a situation that might produce such an expectation. (Otherwise, all looks good to me.)
Concur with others that the scenario in 2.4.2 where harm should come to a person by being informed there was no policy violation is puzzling. I realize this is a common phrase used in the other sections where violations are found but what scenario this is addressing is not obvious.
In section 2.4.2 (as well as in 2.5.2 and 2.6.2) of Draft 2, it is not intuitively obvious how there could be a “justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm” if a complainant or harmed individuals should come to know of a decision regarding a complaint. Therefore, it would be helpful to have a hypothetical example of a situation that might produce such an expectation.
I expect this to be a rare occurrence. One situation that comes to mind, though, is a witness who claims they want to be informed of the outcome, yet in the investigation we have also spoken to their psychologist who advises us not to inform the witness of the outcome for fear of the harm it would cause.
In the end, part of the intention behind this clause is to remind people involved in investigations of the burden that witnesses bear in being part of our investigations. It is obvious that people are giving us their time, but their emotional labor is often not visible.