Section 2.5 Complaints resolved with a finding of a minor violation

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.

2.5 Complaints resolved with a finding of a minor violation

  1. The respondent must be informed of the decision and the remediation and that that information will be shared with others according to this policy.
  2. The complainant and any harmed individuals should be informed of the decision and the penalty unless they have requested to not be informed or there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm should any of the persons come to know of the decision.
  3. Those responsible for implementing or overseeing the remediation must be informed of the penalty details.
  4. Generally, no one else will be told of the finding or the penalty.

I think we may need to know more about what is meant by “remediation.” I realize that sanctions are dealt with in section 2.6. But what actions could count as remediation? More importantly, who is involved in choosing that remediation? Does the Complainant or Harmed Individual have a say? Does the broader community have a say?

How do concepts of remediation relate to concepts of restorative justice? of other forms of justice?

Perhaps we need more clarity about both the nature of remediations, and the process (and people) involved in choosing a particular remediation.

What if these people are not known when the remediation plan is established (e.g., the General Chair of the upcoming edition of a conference)?

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.

See Section 1 for definitions.
Remediation: an outcome of a case in which the respondent has agreed to improve their actions in the future.

The concerns you raise are not part of the scope of this project. Other ACM policies govern answers to the sorts of questions that you have asked.

Thank you. I am thinking about this statement from the perspective of an early-career researcher who is trying to decide what to do. For clarity, I note that this is not my position, but we have discussed these situation extensively in and other forums.

Remediation is mentioned in the document. If it is not part of this policy, then vulnerable people will need to know where remediation is addressed. Someone who is already feeling vulnerable or attacked will not have time to analyze the many many ACM webpages to find that information.

thank you

The ACM is a member organization of Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM – An initiative to advance professional and ethical conduct, climate & culture and I would suggest that there may come a time when STEMM acts as a cross-organization clearing house in which case they might be informed of decisions.