[OBJECTION] [BYLAW REVISION] Guilty to Responsible
Open Votes
THIS PROPOSAL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO AUTOPASS
I, Chase Jelliffe, as Assistant Head Coordinator, hereby propose the following change to Administrative Bylaw 6.B.vi:
6.B.vi Before:
-
The vote for a Disciplinary Action will only determine the “guilt” or the “innocence” of the individual member accused. If the majority of Council determines that the individual is “guilty,” a second vote opens, lasting seven (7) days to determine the punishment to be levied against them.
6.B.vi After:
-
The vote for a Disciplinary Action will only determine if the individual member accused is “Responsible” or “Not Responsible” for the accusations against them. If the majority of Council determines that the individual is “Responsible,” a second vote opens, lasting seven (7) days to determine the punishment to be levied against them.
Reasoning: This is a step forward to bring the org away from legal terminology as Council isn’t a court of law. Council isn’t determining if someone is guilty of crimes, but whether or not they are responsible for what they are being accused of. The terms Guilty and Not Guilty have a lot of weight to them and can be very stigmatizing compared to Responsible and Not Responsible. Guilty and Not Guilty can hamper one’s motivation to take accountability whereas Responsible and Not Responsible frames it more as a behavior that can be amended and grown from. This is the first step to overhauling the DA process. A small step, changing how we view the process from being punitive to holding people accountable for their actions.
Agreed especially because there may be actual criminal charges in evidence, depending on the behavior in question.