Statement Regarding CRCC Membership, Timeline and Procedure
for submitting a Complaint or request for Conflict Resolution,
and some points about communicating with the CRCC, as well as questions of
confidentiality and anonymity.
This statement has been sent via email to all current 2110 board & staff members,
and posted on the 2110 website & facebook page. Our intention is to make known the
process and parameters of the conflict resolution and complaints process. We
therefore encourage you to forward this message to anyone who is directly
involved with the current conflict who we may not have reached, but ask
that this statement not be posted to any listserves, websites, or other
locations that aren’t directly associated with the 2110.
1. CRCC membership
In the elections held at the November 2nd, 2009 Special General Meeting,
the following CRCC members were elected:
Helen Hudson, Keetha Mercer, Amy Miller, and Tasha Zamudio.
The current structure of the CR/CC, as outlined by Appendix 1 of
the Conflict Resolution and Complaints Policy states that:
The CR/CC is comprised of:
* 1 Representative of the board who acts as the Administrator
and who is responsible for facilitating the decision-making about the
process (appointed by the board, non-decision-making, except in
the event that it goes to vote and the vote is tied).
* 1 member appointed by the board and staff, specific to each
case (appointed, decision-making). The appointment of this committee
member should be made by the board alone, if the staff is in conflict
of interest and by the CR/CC itself, if the board is in conflict of interest.
* 3 member representatives (elected, decision-making)
* 1 alternative member representative, should it be deemed by the
CR/CC or the 2110 Board that there is a conflict of interest with one of
the members of the CR/CC or with the Board’s ability to appoint a member
or should one of the members elected at the AGM be unavailable.
It is the feeling of the CR/CC members elected at the November 2nd SGM, that given the nature of the complaints we expect to receive, that the position of the board member on this committee is a conflict of interest at this time. We have proposed, with the approval of the board, that the representative of the board on this committee for now be limited only to administrative purposes, that they not attend CR/CC meetings and not have tie-breaking voting power for the duration of this particular conflict.
Also, in the interest of time and because the 4 of us were elected recently by the membership, we will not be appointing “an alternate” committee member, but instead the 4th elected member has taken up the position of the appointed member. Since there are now be four of us, and no vote tie breaker, we have committed to a full consensus process, with no voting, in order to proceed hearing and deciding on complaints.
The CRCC held a 48 hour window to invite feedback about its structure, and made this known to board and staff members. The CRCC met on November 14th to consider the two concerns that had been brought forward of potential conflict of interest. Each concern was discussed by the full committee (i.e. all four of us), with the person about whom the concern was raised having an opportunity to respond to it, and the other three members having an opportunity to ask questions. The person about whom the concern was raised then left the room, and the other three members decided by consensus whether it was appropriate for them to remain on the committee.
The first concern was regarding Amy Miller, as she had signed onto a public letter from some of the 2110 staff as a supporter. This letter was circulated on various public listserves and remains posted on the website <2110democracy.ca>. The committee heard Amy’s reasons for signing the letter, and asked about her level of involvement in writing and circulating the letter. Coming out of that discussion, we are confident that Amy is in fact able to act fairly in a CRCC capacity. However, we feel that it would be inappropriate for her to continue to endorse this statement while at the same time being part of the committee that hears complaints stemming from this same conflict. Therefore, Amy has voluntarily withdrawn her signature from the letter, and remains on the CRCC.
The second concern was regarding Tasha Zamudio, as she is a staff member at QPIRG Concordia. We understand that the QPIRG Concordia space has been the physical site of several heated discussions regarding the conflict at the 2110. We deem this to be an outcome of the fact that it is a community space frequented by many involved in the conflict, as well as the fact that some individuals involved with QPIRG Concordia have taken (more or less) public positions. However, Tasha herself has not taken a public position, and since being elected to the CRCC, she has asked her co-workers and board not to discuss the conflict in her presence because it may put her in a position of conflict of interest. It was also noted that QPIRG Concordia, as an organization, has not taken a position in this conflict. Therefore, after discussion amongst the other three committee members, Tasha also remains on the CRCC.
We would also like to note that we discussed the fact that all four of us have a variety of implications in the community the surrounds the 2110, both past and present. These implications are at once the very reason that we feel invested enough in the Centre to have volunteered to be on the CRCC, and also potential sources of bias – we all have opinions on various aspects of the conflict. That being said, given that the CRCC has committed to decision-making by consensus without the mechanism of a tie-breaking vote, it is our feeling that the process itself acts as a check against any bias held by a particular committee member. The fact that each of us also has multiple different ties to this community, guard against being biased for or against any particular party to the conflict.
2. Timeline & how to submit a complaint
The basic process for submitting a complaint is outlined in the conflict resolution and complaints policy, which is available for download from the 2110 website (www.centre2110.org). This policy outlines the two mechanisms available for addressing a complaint – mediation (conflict resolution) or a hearing (complaints) process – as well as the timelines and potential outcomes. However there are a few additions or modifications we would like to specify here.
The CRCC has decided to hold an open period of 5 days, from November 16-21 in order to receive written requests for our attention. After these 5 days we will look at requests together and consider November 22nd as the first day in the 30 day period outlined in part 2(b), point #19, of the conflict resolution and complaints policy. We would like to hold any hearings between December 3 – 17, in the interest of moving on this as quickly as possible. (Hearings are where all those involved in a complaint are invited to speak to and respond to a complaint). Request received after November 22 will, of course, still be considered by the CR/CC. However we will begin on November 22nd to move forward on the all requests received in that 5 day period, so we encourage folks to send requests during that period so as not to be delayed by the end of December holidays maybe people take.
We ask that all board and staff members, as well as anyone submitting a complaint who may fall outside these categories, communicate to the CRCC, prior to November 22nd, any dates and times between December 3rd and 17th that they are unavailable. This will allow us to schedule any possible hearings promptly so that all those who need to attend can plan their time. Please note that all those involved in a complaint are expected to attend the hearing.
The parameters of complaints are outlined in the conflict resolution and complaints policy, however the length of complaints has been extended to 400 words per complaint (not including supplemental documentation). Each submission should clearly state whether you are seeking a Conflict Resolution or Complaints Process, as well as against whom/which body the complaint or request for conflict resolution is lodged against.
Given the scope and public profile of this conflict to date, we realize that a broad range of community members may feel affected by the conflict. However, given that the policy only has mechanisms for holding people accountable who are actively involved in the Centre, and given the large number of members of the wider community who have voiced concerns, we encourage people to limit their complaints to matters that touch them directly. This may include people who are neither board nor staff, but should generally be limited to people actively involved in the Centre in some way. Anyone who is unclear as to whether their concern falls within the scope of this process is encouraged to get in touch, and the committee will let them know if it does or doesn’t.
3. Communication, confidentiality & anonymity
The CRCC has set up an email address, <crcc.2110@gmail.com>. Only the 4 members of the committee have the password to this account. All communication with the CRCC, including complaints themselves, should be sent to this account (i.e. not to the individuals on the committee via their personal email addresses or other channels).
All complaints will be treated as confidential within the limits outlined in the Conflict resolution and complaints policy. We refer you to relevant sections of the policy, namely section 2a #11, #12, section 2b #17, #18, #29, #34, and the ‘documentation’ section #40-42. (Broadly speaking the person/party to whom the complaint pertains will see the complaint and know who it if from, but it will not be made public; outcomes of conflict resolution sessions or hearings may be made public depending on the circumstances – see policy for further details). By participating in the CRCC process, we understand all parties, including support people, to be agreeing to respect the confidentiality measures outlined in the aforementioned sections of the policy.
However, the CRCC has not identified a way of addressing anonymous complaints (i.e. ones submitted with no name attached, or under a pseudonym) within the channels of the policy. We therefore strongly encourage people to submit all complaints with names attached, with the knowledge that confidentiality measures are in place. If anyone feels unable to do so, they may contact the CRCC to problem-solve their concern.
Sincerely,
The CRCC: Helen Hudson, Keetha Mercer, Amy Miller, Tasha Zamudio
This statement has been sent via email to all current 2110 board & staff members, and posted on the 2110 website & facebook page. Our intention is to make known the process and parameters of the conflict resolution and complaints process. We therefore encourage you to forward this message to anyone who is directly involved with the current conflict who we may not have reached, but ask that this statement not be posted to any listserves, websites, or other locations that aren’t directly associated with the 2110.
1. CRCC membership
In the elections held at the November 2nd, 2009 Special General Meeting, the following CRCC members were elected: Helen Hudson, Keetha Mercer, Amy Miller, and Tasha Zamudio.
The current structure of the CR/CC, as outlined by Appendix 1 of the Conflict Resolution and Complaints Policy states that:
The CR/CC is comprised of:
* 1 Representative of the board who acts as the Administrator and who is responsible for facilitating the decision-making about the process (appointed by the board, non-decision-making, except in the event that it goes to vote and the vote is tied).
* 1 member appointed by the board and staff, specific to each case (appointed, decision-making). The appointment of this committee member should be made by the board alone, if the staff is in conflict of interest and by the CR/CC itself, if the board is in conflict of interest.
* 3 member representatives (elected, decision-making)
* 1 alternative member representative, should it be deemed by the CR/CC or the 2110 Board that there is a conflict of interest with one of the members of the CR/CC or with the Board’s ability to appoint a member or should one of the members elected at the AGM be unavailable.
It is the feeling of the CR/CC members elected at the November 2nd SGM, that given the nature of the complaints we expect to receive, that the position of the board member on this committee is a conflict of interest at this time. We have proposed, with the approval of the board, that the representative of the board on this committee for now be limited only to administrative purposes, that they not attend CR/CC meetings and not have tie-breaking voting power for the duration of this particular conflict.
Also, in the interest of time and because the 4 of us were elected recently by the membership, we will not be appointing “an alternate” committee member, but instead the 4th elected member has taken up the position of the appointed member. Since there are now be four of us, and no vote tie breaker, we have committed to a full consensus process, with no voting, in order to proceed hearing and deciding on complaints.
The CRCC held a 48 hour window to invite feedback about its structure, and made this known to board and staff members. The CRCC met on November 14th to consider the two concerns that had been brought forward of potential conflict of interest. Each concern was discussed by the full committee (i.e. all four of us), with the person about whom the concern was raised having an opportunity to respond to it, and the other three members having an opportunity to ask questions. The person about whom the concern was raised then left the room, and the other three members decided by consensus whether it was appropriate for them to remain on the committee.
The first concern was regarding Amy Miller, as she had signed onto a public letter from some of the 2110 staff as a supporter. This letter was circulated on various public listserves and remains posted on the website <2110democracy.ca>. The committee heard Amy’s reasons for signing the letter, and asked about her level of involvement in writing and circulating the letter. Coming out of that discussion, we are confident that Amy is in fact able to act fairly in a CRCC capacity. However, we feel that it would be inappropriate for her to continue to endorse this statement while at the same time being part of the committee that hears complaints stemming from this same conflict. Therefore, Amy has voluntarily withdrawn her signature from the letter, and remains on the CRCC.
The second concern was regarding Tasha Zamudio, as she is a staff member at QPIRG Concordia. We understand that the QPIRG Concordia space has been the physical site of several heated discussions regarding the conflict at the 2110. We deem this to be an outcome of the fact that it is a community space frequented by many involved in the conflict, as well as the fact that some individuals involved with QPIRG Concordia have taken (more or less) public positions. However, Tasha herself has not taken a public position, and since being elected to the CRCC, she has asked her co-workers and board not to discuss the conflict in her presence because it may put her in a position of conflict of interest. It was also noted that QPIRG Concordia, as an organization, has not taken a position in this conflict. Therefore, after discussion amongst the other three committee members, Tasha also remains on the CRCC.
We would also like to note that we discussed the fact that all four of us have a variety of implications in the community the surrounds the 2110, both past and present. These implications are at once the very reason that we feel invested enough in the Centre to have volunteered to be on the CRCC, and also potential sources of bias – we all have opinions on various aspects of the conflict. That being said, given that the CRCC has committed to decision-making by consensus without the mechanism of a tie-breaking vote, it is our feeling that the process itself acts as a check against any bias held by a particular committee member. The fact that each of us also has multiple different ties to this community, guard against being biased for or against any particular party to the conflict.
2. Timeline & how to submit a complaint
The basic process for submitting a complaint is outlined in the conflict resolution and complaints policy, which is available for download from the 2110 website (www.centre2110.org). This policy outlines the two mechanisms available for addressing a complaint – mediation (conflict resolution) or a hearing (complaints) process – as well as the timelines and potential outcomes. However there are a few additions or modifications we would like to specify here.
The CRCC has decided to hold an open period of 5 days, from November 16-21 in order to receive written requests for our attention. After these 5 days we will look at requests together and consider November 22nd as the first day in the 30 day period outlined in part 2(b), point #19, of the conflict resolution and complaints policy. We would like to hold any hearings between December 3 – 17, in the interest of moving on this as quickly as possible. (Hearings are where all those involved in a complaint are invited to speak to and respond to a complaint). Request received after November 22 will, of course, still be considered by the CR/CC. However we will begin on November 22nd to move forward on the all requests received in that 5 day period, so we encourage folks to send requests during that period so as not to be delayed by the end of December holidays maybe people take.
We ask that all board and staff members, as well as anyone submitting a complaint who may fall outside these categories, communicate to the CRCC, prior to November 22nd, any dates and times between December 3rd and 17th that they are unavailable. This will allow us to schedule any possible hearings promptly so that all those who need to attend can plan their time. Please note that all those involved in a complaint are expected to attend the hearing.
The parameters of complaints are outlined in the conflict resolution and complaints policy, however the length of complaints has been extended to 400 words per complaint (not including supplemental documentation). Each submission should clearly state whether you are seeking a Conflict Resolution or Complaints Process, as well as against whom/which body the complaint or request for conflict resolution is lodged against.
Given the scope and public profile of this conflict to date, we realize that a broad range of community members may feel affected by the conflict. However, given that the policy only has mechanisms for holding people accountable who are actively involved in the Centre, and given the large number of members of the wider community who have voiced concerns, we encourage people to limit their complaints to matters that touch them directly. This may include people who are neither board nor staff, but should generally be limited to people actively involved in the Centre in some way. Anyone who is unclear as to whether their concern falls within the scope of this process is encouraged to get in touch, and the committee will let them know if it does or doesn’t.
3. Communication, confidentiality & anonymity
The CRCC has set up an email address, <crcc.2110@gmail.com>. Only the 4 members of the committee have the password to this account. All communication with the CRCC, including complaints themselves, should be sent to this account (i.e. not to the individuals on the committee via their personal email addresses or other channels).
All complaints will be treated as confidential within the limits outlined in the Conflict resolution and complaints policy. We refer you to relevant sections of the policy, namely section 2a #11, #12, section 2b #17, #18, #29, #34, and the ‘documentation’ section #40-42. (Broadly speaking the person/party to whom the complaint pertains will see the complaint and know who it if from, but it will not be made public; outcomes of conflict resolution sessions or hearings may be made public depending on the circumstances – see policy for further details). By participating in the CRCC process, we understand all parties, including support people, to be agreeing to respect the confidentiality measures outlined in the aforementioned sections of the policy.
However, the CRCC has not identified a way of addressing anonymous complaints (i.e. ones submitted with no name attached, or under a pseudonym) within the channels of the policy. We therefore strongly encourage people to submit all complaints with names attached, with the knowledge that confidentiality measures are in place. If anyone feels unable to do so, they may contact the CRCC to problem-solve their concern.
Sincerely,
The CRCC: Helen Hudson, Keetha Mercer, Amy Miller, Tasha Zamudio