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 Rules for disclosure in particular situations
Below are descriptions of how ACM will generally treat disclosure of information pertaining to complaints at various stages. Some general rules apply:
The respondent in each case should be informed of the complaint in a manner consistent with the enforcement policy that corresponds to the type of complaint.
Between the time that a complaint has been filed and it is resolved, any ACM or SIG Awards Committee making an inquiry about a particular individual will be informed that the person is currently under investigation so as to remain consistent with the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.
While sanctions are in place, certain SIG and conference leaders are in a position to know whether particular individuals currently have a sanction. Those with that knowledge are not allowed to disclose that information beyond what is necessary to implement the sanction.
Disclosing the identity of a complainant, harmed individual, or witness to the respondent minimally requires the consent of the complainant or witness.
In particular cases, there may be reasons to deviate from this policy. Such deviations should be carefully considered by the group of individuals familiar with the complaint. The decision to deviate rests with the person identified by the corresponding enforcement policy as having authority as a decision maker in the case.
Different enforcement policies can limit the information shared by those involved in the complaint, e.g. whether a complainant is allowed to share publicly that the complaint has been filed.
In all requests for information regarding a complaint, people will be referred to this policy.
When a case is closed for any reason, the complainant and witnesses must be informed that the case has been concluded and of the nature of the violation that was found, if any.
Nothing in this policy prevents disclosure of information from being part of any penalties. Those considering penalties for a particular violation ought to include discussions of appropriate levels of disclosure commensurate with the details of the case.
When an investigation has been underway for six months without resolution, the Complainant should be contacted about the delay. Such contact should be repeated monthly until the case is resolved.
I think item 3 is ambiguous. Which roles would have this knowledge? For several conferences, we have not known who was vetted in the Sanctions database, and who was not, and by whom. For example, is information limited to conference co-chairs, or shared with technical program co-chairs, or also shared with subcommittee co-chairs, etc.
Also, I think we need some help to know which roles go through the vetting. Are all ACs vetted? What about Reviewers? etc.
It is not clear which conferences and which leaders (general chairs?) are considered to be in position to know whether individuals have a sanction. Would this information be further shared with conferences sponsored by other bodies such as IEEE?
A similar question might be raised here: how is this group going composed? Is there some kind of “conflict of interests” ruling?
8 is contradicted in 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. I would recommend striking 8 from here and putting the details into the later sections about closing a complaint. This can make sure that there is alignment between "should"s and "must"s and that all of the parties are considered for notification at the conclusion of the investigation based on the outcome of the investigation.
For “6. Different enforcement policies can limit the information shared by those involved in the complaint, e.g. whether a complainant is allowed to share publicly that the complaint has been filed.” I think the complainant should be able to say that a complaint has been filed. I could see asking them not to share details of things ACM tells them during the course of the investigation, but the fact that they filed a complaint is not something ACM told them. It is something they told ACM.
Thanks for the comment. I see the lack of clarity there. The point is that someone in the course of their duties with respect to a conference, say, submits a list of names to the Sanctions DB and the report comes back that a particular person is not allowed to participate in a particular capacity, say working with student volunteers. At least one person needs to ensure that the sanction is carried out. The point of 3 is to indicate that those people who are responsible for ensuring that the sanction is enforced cannot share the information with others, say for example, a colleague who is in charge of the peer review process for the conference.
With respect to your questions about which roles. The short answer is all–everyone from the steering committee, to the chairs to anyone who volunteers or even registers to attend a conference.
A concern with allowing someone to share that a complaint has been filed is that someone can more easily use the ACM complaint process to harm someone. Person A files a dubious complaint against person B where A and B are competing for, say, the same fellowship. If A makes a public announcement that “ACM has received a complaint about B” harm may come to B (someone on the fellowship committee reports to the committee, “I’ve heard B is under investigation by ACM.”).
One way to mitigate that concern would be to say that Person A must say “I have filed a complaint about B” if they want to say anything at all. The complainant in many cases may not want to say that they have filed a complaint and that would still be perfectly fine. My concern is that ACM not try to prevent the complainant from saying it if they want to do so. ACM could ask them not to share details of things ACM tells them during the course of the investigation, but the fact that they filed a complaint is not something ACM told them. It is something they told ACM. Similarly, any evidence they provide to ACM about the complaint should be their information to share with others as they see fit. Asking them to distinguish between information ACM gives them and information they give ACM seems reasonable to me. I think the first could be limited but that the second should be their decision.
When I have been assigning reviewers in the role of AC, I have not seen any vetting applied to those reviewers. When I have been assigning ACs in the role of SC, I have not seen any vetting applied to those ACs.
Is all of that work done invisibly? Or is the vetting to be done in the future?
I’m asking both as someone who is entangled in reviewing processes in at least three roles (SC, AC, reviewer), and as CARES co-chair. People will be asking us for clarification, and I hope that I can help you to spread awareness and clarity.
Subsections 2.5 and 2.6 specify the complainants and any harmed individuals should be informed unless “they have requested not to be informed” or “there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm”. Subsection 2.4 leaves out “requested not to be informed”. None of the subsections cover whether witnesses should be informed.
I think it would be better as a general rule: If a complainant, harmed individual, or witness requests not to be informed of the decision, their request should be honored. If they change their mind, they can ask.
Also, there could be a general rule that information should not be disclosed when “there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm”. That goes back to the Code of Ethics. The exception would be when there is a justifiable expectation of greater harm by not disclosing.
I think this whole section is about who the ACM can / should inform. What about if a complainant, witness or respondent themself discloses information about the alleged incident?
Very concerned with section 2.5 which essentially states “we’ll not follow this policy in cases where the decision maker decides not to follow it”. With no defined review and approval process and a vague reference to “carefully considered by the group of individuals familiar with the complaint”. Seems like a recipe for inconsistent treatment especially given the number of members and global footprint of ACM. There should be much greater specificity and clarity in this section or it should be removed. The issue may be better addressed in the sanction and remediations sections of this policy.
Request for Clarification — for this item - the disclosure to SIG and conference leaders would be beyond use of the sanctions database for lookups when the person is being considered for award or role in conference? The SIG would be notified about the sanctions prior to any expectation of lookup?
Are there any situations where disclosure to the SIG and its leaders would be made based on a complaint or investigation? Rather than just following an investigation and sanctions?
In an effort to reduce harm I am wondering if that has been considered. Especially since participation can happen outside the normal realms that have been normally discussed regarding sanctions (virtual meetings, email lists).
The charge given to our committee was to develop a policy for what ACM should disclose. These concerns are certainly important, but outside the scope of our charge. Note that these concerns are taken up in The Code of Ethics Enforcement policy, which says that participants are “expected to adhere to this confidentiality policy” (the confidentiality policy contained within the enforcement policy).
We would expect this “escape clause” to be used rarely, if at all, given the number of cases ACM processes. While the authority granted by such a clause could be abused, most of the time decision makers are different than decision communicators. There is always at least one ACM volunteer and one ACM staff member involved in the communication of a decision. A checks and balances system is in place. Further, details surrounding each case vary so widely that more specific language may not always be helpful.
the disclosure to SIG and conference leaders would be beyond use of the sanctions database for lookups when the person is being considered for award or role in conference? The SIG would be notified about the sanctions prior to any expectation of lookup?
That is not the intention here. It is the case, however, that a person, say a chair, may come to know that someone is currently under sanction. Under this policy the chair cannot disclose that information.