EUDEC Code of Conduct (CoC) for Participant Interaction

This Code of Conduct is not adopted yet. A vote about the adoption of this text will take place during the January 2024 General Meeting (GM), or during the March 2024 General Meeting (GM).

It’s the version Je’anna presented at the last GM, with 3 changes:

Section 3: the people involved in the conflict can refuse the mediation (“Where mediation is not able to bring the matter to rest,” became: “Where a participant (complainant) refuses the mediation or the mediation is not able to bring the matter to rest,”)
Removal the mention of “council” (because their role is limited to coordination), and replacment with “member”. This change was elaborated in the last GM.
Removal the mention of “active members” (because it’s not clear who is an active member), and replacment with “members of the circle mainly impacted by the conflict”. This change was elaborated in the last GM.

Introduction

Any innovative organisation can expect problematic interactions to arise internally from time to time. The very diversity of approach and perception that makes for good team composition also leads to misunderstandings and differences of opinion which must not be allowed to blow out of proportion and cause harm to the organisation and its goals. Infiltration by saboteurs is surprisingly common, and even more common is unintended sabotage of morale and process by sincere participants who let their own self-discipline slip. We are all human, and an agreed code of conduct can be helpful to all of us to help us keep ourselves on track and “give of our best”.

Section 1 – Supporting Positive Interaction

By choosing to participate in EUDEC spaces including but not limited to meetings and text threads all participants including but not limited to EUDEC staff and members agree to be bound by the following code of conduct and the values that underlie it.

We agree to co-create a welcoming culture of respect, appreciation, kindness and mutual support.
We agree to a culture of collaboration and co-creation rather than competition and “games of who is right”
We agree to “give of our best” to any task, commitment or interaction we undertake within EUDEC spaces and to work towards a culture of responsibility, accountability and best practice.
Working towards best practice should not be confused with perfectionism, and all contributions whether big or small, complete or partial, should be met with appreciation.
Where improvements on work are suggested this should be done with appreciation, respect, kindness, and readiness to share in the task of bringing improvement about.
Where disagreement or differing points of view come into play, we agree to assume good faith and give the benefit of the doubt and keep the tone of interaction positive and supportive.
Where strong disagreement, a perceived need for criticism, conflict or grievances arise we agree to abide by the procedure outlined in Section 2, except where the situation involves possible harm to a minor, criminal activity, or deliberate sabotage of EUDEC, in which case we agree to abide by the procedure outlined in Section 5.

All participants in EUDEC spaces have a duty to treat other participants with respect, and to realise that our own behaviour needs to be mindful. For example, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we all have a duty to avoid:

Disrupting goal-oriented meetings by making unnecessary interruptions
Directing offensive or abusive remarks at other participants
Using unnecessarily inflammatory words and harsh critical tone
Impugning the motives, action or character of other participants
Ignoring the legitimate direction of the meeting chair We all commit to do our best to
“Lean in” to try to see the point of view of another person, even when it is not comfortable
be honest and open in discussions
be kind and courteous in our reminders to other participants regarding their conduct and participation
graciously concede where someone else has made a good point even if it inconveniences our own agenda
where we temporarily lapse (we are all human) to explicitly withdraw unhelpful remarks and to apologise sincerely and with humility
to courteously accept apologies when they are offered

Section 2 Resolving Criticisms, Disagreement, Grievances and Conflict Privately

Where strong disagreement, a perceived need to challenge or criticise, grievances or conflict arise we agree to

First privately approach the person with whom we currently disagree, and aim to understand their perspective so that we might be able to change our own misperception.
If the situation is not resolved after sincerely attempting to find satisfactory common ground, we will next consider whether it is possible to simply “agree to disagree” and move on.
We commit to keeping the interaction private and avoid “gossip” and talking behind the person’s back. “Nothing about us without us.”
If it is not possible to “agree to disagree” then we agree to abide by the procedure outlined in Section 3, except where we come to believe that the situation involves possible harm to a minor, criminal activity, or deliberate sabotage of EUDEC, in which case we agree to abide by the procedure outlined in Section 5.

Section 3 – Resolving Criticisms, Disagreement, Grievances and Conflict With Informal Support

Where strong disagreement, a perceived need to challenge or criticise, grievances or conflict have not been resolvable by private interaction we agree to

Arrange for private mediation with the paid coordinator, or failing them any person acceptable to all parties involved in the situation
Where it is not possible to find agreement on a mediator, a member of the EUDEC Oversight Committee will be called upon to mediate in an informal capacity
Where a participant (complainant) refuses the mediation or the mediation is not able to bring the matter to rest, we agree to abide by the procedure outlined in Section 4, except where it has emerged that the situation involves possible harm to a minor, criminal activity, or deliberate sabotage of EUDEC, in which case we agree to abide by the procedures outlined in Section 5.

Section 4 – Formal Resolution of Criticisms, Disagreement, Grievances and Conflict

While it is important that Criticisms, Disagreement, Grievances and Conflict are genuinely addressed and not suppressed, it is also important that resolution is pursued in such a way that general morale, mutual respect, and participant reputations are not damaged in the process. To this end it is important to observe good discipline during the process of formal resolution of Criticisms, Disagreement, Grievances and Conflict rather than allowing a situation to become a matter of public gossip and speculation that can do harm that is hard to undo even if everything is eventually positively resolved.

Where strong disagreement, a perceived need to challenge or criticise, or conflict have not been resolvable by private interaction nor with informal support we agree to

Call upon either two members of the Oversight Committee, or one member of the Oversight Committee and one member, to decide whether wider community participation or official Oversight Committee involvement is warranted. These two may in their discretion decide to notify other EUDEC members and/or circles of the situation or to refer the matter for formal Oversight Committee involvement.
Should the two members stipulated above decide not to involve other EUDEC members, circles or Oversight Committee and one of the participants (complainant) in the situation feels that this is in error, the complainant will call upon the full Oversight Committee to make a final decision as to whether formal Oversight Committee involvement is warranted.
If and only if each and every step in each of these procedures above has been engaged with in good faith, and a participant (complainant) still believes that the matter must not be laid to rest, then that participant has the right to call a meeting open to all EUDEC members of the circle mainly impacted by the conflict, in order to take a majority vote as to whether the matter must be formally resolved by Oversight Committee or whether some other action that the complainant proposes, must be taken.
In calling for such a meeting the complainant must confine themselves to disclose only the key point of the matter to be discussed and keep all details of the matter for disclosure during the meeting itself.
All information relating to the concerns shared by the complainant must be treated in the strictest confidence by all parties involved in such a meeting.

Section 5 – Exceptions for Situations Involving Criminal Activity and/or Harm To a Minor, and/or Attempted or Actual deliberate Sabotage of EUDEC

Where it can be reasonably proposed that disagreement, challenge, criticism, grievances or conflict are related to possible or actual harm to a minor, criminal activity, or deliberate sabotage of EUDEC, it must be remembered by all involved that such accusations do instant harm to the reputation of anyone accused as well as to EUDEC, even if the claims later turn out to be unfounded or grounded in misunderstanding, so they should never be made except in all seriousness. For this reason it is also crucially important to observe strict confidentiality while at the same time treating the matter with full seriousness and attending to it speedily and thoroughly.

In the case of possible or actual harm to a minor

EUDEC Oversight Committee (OC) must be called to meet with the person raising the matter, at the earliest convenience of all three members of the OC.
EUDEC Oversight Committee will contact the minor, as well as at least one parent or guardian of the minor as well as at least one key person to represent the democratic school with which the minor is involved and call them all to decide on how to take the matter forward.
Where it is possible to consult the minor involved, their preferences for in-person, virtual, asynchronous, plenary, or in-camera meetings, assistance, interpretation etc, will be given priority in order to maximise their comfort and depth of participation.
The first matter to be decided is whether care professionals should also be called to join the proceedings before they get substantially under way.

In the case of possible or actual criminal activity

EUDEC Oversight Committee (OC) must be called to meet with the person raising the matter, at the earliest convenience of all three members of the OC.
Should it seem at all plausible that criminal activity may well have taken place the Oversight Committee will hand the matter over to the police.

In the case of possible or actual deliberate sabotage of EUDEC

EUDEC Oversight Committee (OC) must be called to meet with the person raising the matter, at the earliest convenience of all three members of the OC.
Should it seem plausible that there may have been a deliberate attempt to harm the reputation of a EUDEC member or participant and/or EUDEC as a whole, whether successful or not, then the Oversight Committee will investigate formally and in full.
OC has the right to publicise their findings and any details of the case and share them with any and all other organizations that might benefit from shared learning.
The Oversight Committee will take legal advice before publicising such information.