Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “Campaigns have unique characteristics that can be obstacles to changing culture”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Panel recommends not using non-disclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Anti-Harassment, Equality and Access panel’s report…
We recommend that the state parties provide anti-harassment training and workplace culture training to everyone involved in the campaign, from the candidate to the volunteers; that all campaigns and candidates prioritize this training; and that the training should cover strategies for handling difficult and realistic hypotheticals as well as bystander training.
The state parties should offer these trainings on at least a quarterly basis, and should provide enhanced training for candidates and supervisors, emphasizing their reporting roles. Again, the state parties should enforce participation in training by conditioning funding on complying with the training requirement. As it becomes more commonplace for candidates and their campaigns to commit to participating in training, voters will start putting pressure on other candidates and their campaigns to do so as well. No one in a campaign apparatus should be exempt from attending the training at least once per year.
“Workers on my campaign were required to complete two sexual harassment trainings. The first was completed online and a co-worker joked about doing other tasks at home while the training was running on his computer. I found the second training, which was in person, to be more effective.”
-Paraphrased Comment From Campaign Listening Session Participant
* Reporting…
One of the most resounding pieces of feedback from Listening Session participants and online survey respondents was the need for an improved reporting structure because misconduct often goes unreported because victims are terrified to report out of fear of retaliation. Other reasons that misconduct may not be reported include sense of loyalty to the cause/ campaign, unsure of whether the conduct is legally permissible or whether the law protects the victim, unsure of who to report to, unable to report to a neutral party, belief that conduct has already been condoned by superiors, skeptical that anything will be done, and concern about ruining victim’s own career or the career of the perpetrator.
We recommend that campaigns provide workers with multiple discrete avenues for reporting suspected policy violations. The avenues should be internal to the campaign in order to create the opportunity to report without damaging the campaign. There should be at least two internal options for reporting concerns, as some staff may not be comfortable reporting to the campaign manager or other assigned person because he or she might be close to the perpetrator.
Campaigns must post the contact information for reporting violations of the anti-harassment policy in a noticeable, accessible location at the campaign headquarters and ideally on their website. The posting should make it clear that retaliation of any kind will not be permitted.
* Independent body…
State parties should establish an Independent Body, which is independent of party leadership, to receive complaints of misconduct, whether from their own staff or from campaigns, and to promptly investigate and resolve all complaints.
Listening Session participants described a profound lack of trust and skepticism in the investigation process and whether campaigns would do anything to address reported misconduct. To gain trust and facilitate appropriate responses to founded misconduct, we call on the state parties to establish an Independent Body to act as a reporting avenue for campaign workers and to properly investigate any reported misconduct. The Independent Body should be made of experienced leaders who are not part of party leadership and should be appointed in a way to ensure independence from the party and leadership.3 In addition to receiving complaints, the Independent Body must neutrally and fairly investigate any allegation of misconduct, regardless of the severity. The Independent Body should establish and use clear guidelines that outline the investigation process, including timelines for completing an investigation, and interim milestones.
Listening Session participants reported concerns about being smeared or discredited in the investigation process. The Independent Body should conduct investigations that are fair and thorough, and the investigations should be focused on determining the veracity of the complaint, not attempting to undermine or discredit the victim. When the allegations require interim protective measures (i.e. reorganizing duties and responsibilities to keep the victim and perpetrator apart), steps should be taken to ensure that the victim is not adversely affected.
After an investigation is completed, the state party’s Independent Body should be as transparent as possible with the complainant and the accused of the outcome of the investigation, recognizing the potential tension with defamation liability. The Independent Body should inform the individuals that a thorough investigation was completed; whether a violation of the policy was found; and if a violation was found, the remedial action that will be taken in response to the violation. […]
Where possible, all campaigns and state parties should respond to founded violations with just and fair outcomes. Sometimes a campaign or state party may not have a remedial mechanism because the offender may be a volunteer or the campaign may be over by the time the investigation is done, but where possible, offenders must be disciplined with remedial measures that are proportional to the seriousness of the offense, with repeated offenses receiving increasing discipline. These measures must be applied consistently and must be undertaken against any offender, regardless of his or her identity. Considering these parameters, the Independent Body should prepare a matrix of possible outcomes that should be used to respond to prohibited conduct, which lays out proportional responses and escalating disciplinary measures for repeated offenses. As with any interim protective measures, steps should be taken to ensure that the complainant, or any bystander reporting a violation, is not punished or retaliated against for coming forward and speaking up.
Campaigns and state parties should also provide support services for the victims of sexual harassment. As an initial step, we recommend that the Independent Body work with existing advocates like the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA) to identify and make available appropriate services.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 26, 18 @ 9:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “Campaigns have unique characteristics that can be obstacles to changing culture”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Panel recommends not using non-disclosure agreements and mandatory arbitration
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.