As promised, attached is the PDF version of the final draft. I believe I’ve added in verbiage to address all of the feedback that I’ve been given (if I’ve forgotten something please let me know, my memory isn’t the greatest so I might have forgotten something).
We will discuss if there are any other amendments we’d like made to this draft and vote on the Disciplinary Action Model in our monthly CA Meeting (May 9th at 7pm).
Disciplinary Action Model.pdf (80.9 KB)
Thanks for doing this.
Just one question - which doesn’t really affect this particular document, since it is used inconsistently across the space:
Is there an official definition (somewhere) of what a “Ban” entails and what a “Suspension” entails? In others, what is the difference?
Sorry for the late suggestion,
I’m not sure you to ban a member from a area of DMS for life and still have them as a member of the group. I’d suggest the banning for life be a approach the BOD to expel the member for a period from DMS. Then the escalation to approach the BOD to expel the person for life. To be honest if a member is miss using a committee so bad that the committee would suggest banning them from the area for life, we should be approaching the BOD and asking if this person should be a member of our group.
I believe the current DMS rules state committee bans can only be for 30 days or else they need to go before the board.
Yep, that’s why I’ve got noted in there that it would be us approaching the board about it. We would also need to approach the board for any ban longer than 30 days. I hope/expect to never need to use that punishment, and I think it would require an action worthy of reporting the person to the board anyway, but I felt it needed to be in there as the very last option.
Basically its the same thing only a suspension is for a period of time (a week, a month, whatever), and a ban is forever (and would need to be confirmed by the board). In my opinion its semantics, but there were some concerns about the wording given that the word ban is already used in other contexts outside of CA.
That was kind of my concern as well; using “ban” interchangeably with “suspension” seems to generate a lot of criticism/debate. Since our model really escalates true “ban” instances to the Board level, seems like we should just use the “suspended” terminology?
Or not…
For clarification, regarding the level 1 vs. 2 definitions:
What’s the difference between these two items?
EDIT: In what category is equipment damage through mis-use?
EDIT2: I don’t understand this Proof requirement. Please clarify.
Is “another member” the member self-reporting the offense, or is it a third party? And if a person is self-reporting, why do you need a third party?
In addition to the questions I asked above, I have two minor suggestions for the document.
Paragraph 1 uses the phrase “caught on camera”. I recommend using “recorded on camera”. “Caught” implies wrongdoing; “recorded” doesn’t. IMO.
Paragraph 2 precludes disclosing identity outside of CA Leadership/BoD. Need to add law enforcement to that list.
3D fab voted to use the model for our disciplinary action, it was unanimous
Thank you- these are great ideas. We will be voting on this tonight and I will bring your edits to the table.
We unanimously voted in the disciplinary model.
