Hello Ambassadors,
Article 4, Section 6, Paragraph 4 addresses the procedures for handling complaints managed by the Conflict Resolution Team (CRT). The Governance Team determined that the deliberations do not need to be conducted publicly, and that a minimum of three members (after recusals) must be present to review a complaint.
Additionally, the Governance Team proposed updates to the Recusal provision (Article 4, Section 6, Paragraph 3) and the Appeal of Recommendation process (Article 4, Section 6, Paragraph 6).
In summary, the Governance Team recommends the following changes in bold:
Complaint Handling. The Conflict Resolution Team shall discuss the merits of the complaint, and shall keep an open record of key discussion points and the outcome of the deliberation, without attributing any statements to any Conflict Resolution Team member. The team shall render a decision based on a simple majority vote, with the Sponsor Representative providing a tie-breaking vote when there is no majority. The vote shall be anonymous, with each member providing their decision and a simple statement of their reasoning for the decision. The Sponsor vote will be ignored unless there is a tie.
Recusal. A Conflict Resolution Team member must recuse themselves from deliberation and voting on any Complaint where they are a party to the complaint, or where they have an interest, except those interests in common with all Ambassadors or all members of a Permanent Team. If one or more recusals lead to less than three members being eligible to consider a Complaint, then the Complaint shall be sent to the Appellate Conflict Resolution Team.
Appeal of Recommendation. … In the event of an appeal, the Conflict Resolution Team for the subsequent term shall be appointed immediately (”Appellate Conflict Resolution Team”) so that the appeal can be heard quickly, …
The General Assembly voted in favor of maintaining this language.
Thank you for your attention to this