The committee was called back to order.
Mr. Barry and Mr. FitzSimons facilitated the conversation about the complaint and resolution process. They referenced a list of questions that were distributed to committee members prior to the meeting (Attachment N). Mr. Barry said that he would compile a list of the agreed upon items and draft policy recommendations for committee review at an upcoming meeting.
The committee discussed contact persons who should receive initial complaints. Committee members raised concerns that ILG recommended too many people for this purpose and agreed that an HR employee or designee should be the initial contacts, taking into consideration the availability of both genders.
The committee next addressed the informal complaint process. Members agreed there should be an opportunity to file one with HR, but did not identify specific details about the informal resolution process.
In response to questions raised by Mr. FitzSimons, the committee discussed confidentiality and the importance of deferring to the complainant, except in situations where community safety is at stake.
The committee also discussed timelines for investigations and agreed that a proposed policy should include a target of 30 days to complete most investigations, but allow for flexibility depending on the nature and complexity of the complaint.
The committee discussed the formal complaint process and the point at which a complaint should be made public. They further conversed about retaliation, and the importance of creating a culture of confidence. Investigative final reports were also discussed, and it was suggested that final reports be presented in a more reader-friendly format.
Mr. Barry asked the committee about including written notifications to the complainant and respondent in a proposed policy. The committee agreed that written notification should be made available and delivered in-person in a confidential setting. The committee also agreed that the written notification should also reference retaliation policies and timeline expectations.
The committee next discussed remedial and protective measures. Committee members agreed that these elements should be included, but that HR should be charged with establishing the specific details.
Mr. Barry next asked whether respondents should receive a copy of the complaint. The committee agreed that respondents should receive a notice of the allegations, but not a detailed copy of the complaint itself.
The committee discussed anti-retaliation plans and agreed these plans should be one required whenever a complaint procedure is initiated. Committee discussion ensued about breaches of confidentiality and limiting speech for elected officials.
Lastly, the committee discussed whether participation in a formal investigatory process should be mandatory. The committee members agreed it should be a condition of employment for employees. They did not reach consensus about third parties, such as registered lobbyists, especially when they are named as a respondent.