Proposal - Creative Arts Disciplinary Action Model (ROUGH DRAFT)

Creative Arts
#1

READ THIS FIRST: We will not be voting on this Disciplinary Action Model until the May Creative Arts Committee Meeting (May 9th) at the earliest. This will give members a month to think about and give feedback on this model.

Hello Makers!

Your Creative Arts Leadership team is working hard to come up with plans to standardize how things are done within CA.

One of these plans is a Disciplinary Action Model and Disciplinary Action Log to track rule breakers and determine the appropriate course of action for dealing with these situations. We want to be to provide an appropriate disciplinary action while maintaining fairness to all members.

The timeline for this plan:

  1. April 8 - Monday put this topic and Rough Draft on Talk to inform members that we will be discussing (but not voting) this topic in the next committee meeting (April 11).
  2. April 11 - Bring this topic up to the committee, complete with printed rough drafts. Gather thoughts, ideas, revisions.
  3. April 11 (after meeting) - Post Draft 1 on Talk to gather feedback with explicit instructions that we will be voting on this in the next CA meeting (May 9).
  4. Also April 11 (after meeting) - Post flyers around CA about the topic with the direction to email [email protected] for questions and suggestions. I have heard concerns that only the people on Talk are getting to add input on certain things. This will address that concern. I don’t know any other way to contact people who are apparently not at the space (or they’d read the flyer) or not on Talk. This is due diligence.
  5. May 6 (Monday before meeting) - Submit the final draft (or possibly a Version 1 and Version 2, etc. if there are issues to decide between) to Talk with the direction that this is the draft to be voted on at the meeting May 9th.
  6. May 9 - Submit final draft to committee and vote.
  7. Other - If the vote doesn’t pass, we revise and keep going.

So please, folks, download this PDF and take a look. I want to be able to be as fair as possible, and this is something that I can see taking the bias out of the issue. Please keep discussions about this civil. Any name calling or finger pointing will be flagged.

Disciplinary Action Model - Google Docs.pdf (62.8 KB)

6 Likes
#2

I like what you’ve done.

As a nit, in the consequences table, I’d suggest using slightly different language to eliminate the use of the word “ban” for the equipment usage. I suggest “Block from equipment” or something similar. “Ban” is such an incendiary word that IMO it should be reserved for committee area/DMS suspensions.

I could envision an escalation if the equipment was broken by a person who didn’t have authorized access. Something that would have been a Level 2 offense, for instance, becomes a Level 3 offense if the person wasn’t supposed to be using the equipment in the first place.

The following paragraph might be a good place to add a few words:

The Chair and Vicechair (with SIG leaders as necessary) have the authority to determine what level the offense falls into and to increase offenses to a higher level if repeated violations, using equipment without authorization, a pattern of disregard for the CA rules, and/or deliberate intent to break said rules is found.

There was another committee where a person was using a piece of equipment for something for which it was not intended. The committee chair intended to deny access to that person for some specific period of time, but the camera footage showed that it was a person who wasn’t supposed to have access in the first place!

4 Likes
#3

This is exactly the kind of feedback I’m looking for! Keep it coming!

Edit: The reason I used the word “ban” with reference to the equipment is because that’s how I’ve seen/heard it referred to in the past. I’m open to other wording.

#4

You’re awesome

3 Likes
#5

@Committee_Chairs I think it would be good for you guys to take a look at this proposal above and give some feedback (along with everyone and anyone who wants to say something)

2 Likes
#6

I had mentioned to Anne (VC Jewelry) how it might be beneficial to have similar “non tool-based” rules and disciplinary actions throughout committees to avoid confusion as to what’s ok in one area and what’s not ok in the next.

1 Like
#7

Good foundation that can be tweaked/adapted to different committees.
I would add that theft may result in felony charges.
It doesn’t take much to reach felony level when it occurs with a nonprofit org.
Same could be applied to (deliberate) vandalism.

Something to consider is the archiving of evidence used in the complaint/case for x period of time.
This would include pictures, video, interviews, etc.

More overhead to deal with, but comes with the territory.
Darn growing pains…:roll_eyes:

1 Like
#8

My plan was that anything on that level gets reported to the Board and that the Board would handle filing charges. I should probably add to that section that the Board may take whatever action they deem appropriate (up to and including filing charges).

1 Like
#9

I would refrain from anything that is redundant with Board authority defined elsewhere - too hard to maintain in two places. I would just state that certain actions (and describe which ones if you want) can (will?) be referred to the Board for disciplinary action.

1 Like
#10

My comments (in no particular order):

  • under “proof” are these “or”,”and” or “at least 2” measures?

  • I think I’d like to see something like this implemented across ALL committees rather than ending up with many policies across various committees. Kinda like many State regs vs one Federal regulation.

  • Good job on drafting this and opening up the discussion.

  • I’m concerned about your timeline: I appreciate the need/desire to have something in place, but given than the majority of DMS Members are not even ON Talk, I would prefer a longer discussion period for more chances awareness and for more involvement. That being said, I don’t attend CA committee meetings, so my observation is based more on a DMS-wide discussion/policy.

  • Permanent restriction from an area exceeds the power of a Committee Chair. The Rules (https://dallasmakerspace.org/wiki/Rules_and_Policies#Committees) #3 says the Committee Chair
    “… may limit access to the Committee area for a time not to exceed the last day of the subsequent month. The Chair may petition the Board to enforce a longer or more stringent consequence.”

  • I’d you are going to lay out offenses and punishments, the Proposal should probably outline the Appeal process as well, if only by referencing the relevant Section of the overall DMS Rules and Policies document.

  • I like that you distinguished between a CA infraction and a DMS infraction that occurred in CA.

  • Do the Level 3 Offenses need exceptions for Special Events, off-site repair, Board permission (probably due to a special event), etc. Exceptional examples from other committees:

    • Maker fairs
    • Events like we’ve done at Tanners in the past
    • Blacksmithing at the Science Museum
    • the Lemons Race

These usually fall into promotional/educational events but could tap into CA materials/ equipment.

Good start, and good food for thought.

1 Like
#11

I intended the wording to be an “at least 2”, but I fully expected this to be a debated section. My intent was to provide an alternative to the cameras since the cameras do have blind spots and it is difficult sometimes to find when exactly an event happened. Granted if more than one person saw someone do something then hopefully they would know what time it happened so we could just look it up on the cameras. I’m fully open to suggestions on this.

#12

I agree, that would be ideal. I think that it might be difficult to get the whole of the makerspace to agree, but I don’t know that that should stop us from trying.

#13
  • Thank you!
  • I understand. If you note, one of the action items on the 11th is to create flyers to try to catch those people at DMS who are not on Talk, but its not a perfect plan. Ultimately, CA is having a hard time with this and I’m just trying to do what I can to fix it. If that means implementing this temporarily while a greater DMS discussion takes place, then maybe that’s a compromise we can take, but it really feels like as a vice/chair I’m going to get yelled at for dealing out too harsh or not harsh enough punishments and I’d really like to have something to point to that we as a committee (or as a space if we can make that happen) voted on.

Edit: Spelling is hard, guys!

#14

I did not know this! This is exactly the kind of thing I need brought up (if anybody else sees any holes like this please, please say something)! The wording will need to be changed to reflect what can actually be done.

1 Like
#15

I just can’t say enough nice words about you initiating this. This is a DMS-wide problem, and although lots of us have commented about it - you’ve stepped up and proposed a possible solution.

I’m sure it will change some between now and implementation - but Well Done! Thanks!!

2 Likes
#16

Good idea. I’ll add some appeals verbiage for the next draft.

#17

Yes! This was brought to my attention and I meant to add it in there. I feel that a limited time area ban should not preclude a person from attending committee meetings, leading tours, as well as events as you mentioned. I need to add that in.

P. S. Sorry for spamming you, but I wanted to address each topic individually and I felt responding to each one separately was a good way to do that. Really wish we had threading for posts like these.

1 Like
#18

Thank you! That really means a lot. I’ve been thinking on this topic for several months and really took my time to decide how to structure it.

I honestly must give kudos to @uglyknees and @nicksilva for stepping up to start/lead the chair/vice-chair events. Hearing other committee’s problems and solutions and thinking of how I would have handled each situation really helped me to organize my thoughts.

5 Likes
#19

Aha. Possible wording … laser committee uses the words “suspend access” when it’s not a permanent ban.

3 Likes
#20

I like it!

1 Like