3/23/2019 Notes on 2013 procedures v3 - Google Docs

Monday, March 18, 2019

Yesterday I sent an email about the 2013 Madison rape case to the members of the 2013
Na onal Disciplinary Commi ee (NDC) and Appeals Commi ee (AC). Below is a
corrected/revised version of my note to them.

***

I served on the rules commissions that convened during and a er the Madison case, and
I thus par cipated in the first official rewrite of the 2013 NDC procedures. We did not
have direct access to docs produced by the NDC or AC — of course — or detailed
descrip ons of the work you did. But we were conscious of doing own work as a sequel
to yours (and in its shadow), since we were supposed to write new guidelines that would
help future NDCs and ACs avoid the real and supposed flaws in the processes of 2013.

I may write up an account of how we operated, in part because I think it would shed
light on steering commi ee (SC) opera ons at the me, on the 2013 processes, and on
the pi alls of wri ng or working within formal guidelines. But that’s not what I’m giving
you today. I want to clear up a few important points about the wri en guidelines of
2013, and also let you know about one bit of the rules commission’s work that looks
pre y odd in retrospect.

First, about the wri en guidelines for the 2013 NDC’s procedures. FM is correct that
they were drawn up quickly by Sharon on a provisional basis following the conven on
that created the NDC. The rules commission email thread confirms this — that Sharon
pulled them together on behalf of the SC, which then approved them. So Cindy is
incorrect to state that the NDC or the AC operated under rules passed by conven on. By
itself, that doesn’t de-legi mize the procedures, since the SC is supposed to carry the
authority of the conven on between mee ngs of the conven on. But it does confirm
the improvised character of the procedures.

Further, I can confirm Dana’s point that Sharon wrote up addi onal guidelines for the AC
when the AC took up the case a er the NDC’s declara on of a mistrial. So the AC
operated under new guidelines revised in light of the experience with the NDC — and,
we now know, a er regular discussions of the case by the steering commi ee. In my
view, the key revision to the guidelines is the one that Dana highlighted: “The
statements [of complainant and respondent] cons tute evidence in and of themselves,
but cannot BY THEMSELVES cons tute sufficient evidence for a finding.”

For clarity, I repeat that this is an addition to the NDC’s guidelines, which didn’t set such
a heavy burden of proof on the complainant. As Dana pointed out, such a rule makes it

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RKS0YEizKKSvg08_X2FjjAlU17att0Xq3xkCW1TtlNY/edit?fbclid=IwAR29-m3qpELIHYrSMskiG3SakPfIyFy8Me5… 1/2
3/23/2019 Notes on 2013 procedures v3 - Google Docs

impossible to find in favor of sexual assault complainants in almost every case, since
there are seldom any (addi onal) witnesses or physical or documentary evidence.

My me on the SC (2000-2011) and on three rules commissions lead me to conclude

that it has never been the ISO’s stated policy to impose such a heavy burden of proof on
a complainant before or since the AC’s work on the 2013 case.

The ISO’s prac ce may well have departed from stated policy at mes, but I can’t tes fy
to that from first-hand experience. My point here is about what ISO leaders said about
the appropriate standards to apply. Over the years, I’ve been told by organizers and
other leaders about cases where local, regional or na onal leaders have expelled or
suspended accused assaulters (sexual or otherwise) on the strength of the complainant’s
account, with no corrobora ng evidence. Some mes the accused person denied the
charge, and the relevant ISO body discounted the denial and proceeded with the
discipline. Stories like that — whether or not they typify or misrepresent the general
record of the ISO’s prac ce — are what make the 2013 AC guidelines stand out as a
departure from previously-declared standards.

In the rules commission's re-edi on of the NDC procedures, which was passed by the
(2015) conven on, the commission re-aligned the standards of proof for NDC cases to
match the one I just described for branch commi ees, the SC, etc. I should note that by
the me of our commission’s redra of the procedures, Sharon had come around to the
same posi on as the commission on the burden of proof.

One last note about the 2013-2015 round of work on the commission. At the beginning
of our work on the NDC guidelines, a number of commission members asked whether
we could get feedback from par cipants in the NDC’s first year. We wanted help in
diagnosing the problems that might need to be solved, and we received three helpful,
brief redacted statements from AC members (Amy, Dana and Keeanga). I bring this up
because, in retrospect, it’s notable that we received no similar evalua ons from NDC
members. I don’t remember whether I saw a problem with that at the me, but I do
now.

There’s a bunch more I could say about the rules commission’s work, but it’s going to
take a bit more me to figure out which things actually should remain private and what’s
relevant to today.

David W., Oakland

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RKS0YEizKKSvg08_X2FjjAlU17att0Xq3xkCW1TtlNY/edit?fbclid=IwAR29-m3qpELIHYrSMskiG3SakPfIyFy8Me5… 2/2