Accountability Process

KBtL Incident Response and Accountability

Policy & Process

Philosophy

The purpose of this policy is to ensure a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for all participants of the conference, while prioritizing a culture of accountability, education, and restorative justice. We aim to provide a clear process for handling conflicts, transgressions, and incidents so that everyone can understand how our community is held accountable to each other. The goal of this policy is not only to address immediate concerns but to foster long-term community wellbeing and reintegration.

KBtL aims to cultivate a culture of reintegration rather than permanent exclusion whenever possible. This means providing opportunities for individuals to learn from their actions, make amends, and re-enter the community in a manner that aligns with our values. While safety is the primary goal, we also aim to provide paths for growth and restoration.

As an organization, we emphasize restorative justice practices and focus on reflection, repair, and reintegration. Individuals involved in incidents will be given opportunities to engage in restorative dialogues, where they can understand the harm caused, take accountability, and work with others to find solutions.

We also commit to regularly evaluate this policy on a yearly basis and to improve it each year where possible. We welcome feedback from attendees and community members and acknowledge that no policy or organization is 100% perfect. We commit to working on any systemic issues that come up with updates to the policy, education efforts, or organizational structure.

This framework aims to balance community safety, accountability, and reintegration. Through continuous education, restorative practices, and clear policies, we strive to create a conference environment where everyone can both give and receive respect, support, growth, learning, and feel heard.

Process

1. Policies and Proactive Communication

All policies related to conduct, accountability, privacy, consent, and organizational functioning will be available to all participants before they register for or attend the conference. We commit to always making any policies or rules transparent, easy to access, and written in clear, accessible language.

We cannot hold people accountable if we are not clear about our expectations. The very first step in our accountability process is to ensure that we as an organization are being fair and transparent in communicating what our participants should and should not do.

We cannot force people to have read our policies, but we will do everything in our power to encourage people to read them before attending the conference.

2. Guiding Organizational Values & Acknowledging Bias

Accountability is a two-way street and as an organization we also need to be accountable. We need to be accountable to our participants, to ourselves, and to our mission and values. But beyond that, an ethical accountability process starts with acknowledging that all humans carry bias and all systems are imperfect. Instead of striving for perfection and precision in this policy, we instead strive towards specific values that are in line with our organizational values.

Transparency

We are committed to writing policies that are clear and transparent while also leaving room for flexibility.

Accessibility

We are committed to preventing harm, everyone should have access to systems and procedures that help them avoid causing harm.

Equity

We acknowledge that many forms of bias and discrimination are embedded into the way we think and the tools we use and that for a process to be equitable we need to understand and work to combat those unconscious and systemic issues.

Accountability

We are committed to soliciting feedback about this process and continually reviewing it, reflecting on it, and changing it where needed.

Growth

We are committed to education and healing and strive to incorporate educational resources and opportunities for reflection and growth in this policy.

3. Reporting

Direct Reporting

An incident report form will be available on our website year-round for anyone to fill out. This form will trigger this accountability process.

The form can be found here: https://forms.fillout.com/t/sZhaPjS6H2us

Anonymous reports are not accepted. We know that people often feel safer making anonymous reports, but because of our philosophy and guiding values we have decided not to permit anonymous reports. Anonymity limits the scope of what we can do to hold ourselves and others accountable. Accountability is not punishment; it is restorative community healing that requires vulnerability, conversation, reflection, and time. However, all parties always have the ability to not participate in any conversations related to the report. In other words, a person may file a report and then withdraw their consent to participate in the accountability processes. This, however, may limit KBtL’s ability to fully follow the accountability process.

Indirect Reporting

Reports can also come indirectly. Most frequently this is through a Consent and Emotional Care (CEC) ticket or a KBtL support ticket, but it could also be a report that comes directly to a staff member (for example, is emailed directly to the Producer). In these cases, the person may request the KBtL staff member file a report on their behalf (an indirect report). The KBtL staff member will need the original receiving party’s permission to include the person in the report by name as the receiving party. Without their consent, the KBtL staff member may still file a report but will name KBtL/the staff member as the receiving party instead which creates confidentiality around the original receiving party’s identity. In the case of indirect reporting, the filing of a report is always at the discretion of that staff member since that staff member is effectively agreeing to act as an intermediary between the accountability process and the original receiving party. In other words, you may reach out directly to a staff member about an issue and a request for an indirect report, but they are not obligated to file the report unless they believe the incident is significant and/or impacts KBtL significantly. Should you want to be certain your report is filed, you should file a direct report.

4. Safety Assessment & Intervention

Responding parties will assess any incident for immediate safety risks first. They will take into consideration physical, psychological, and legal safety of all parties involved including the receiving party, offending party, witnesses, staff, volunteers, presenters, attendees, and the conference as a whole. If deemed necessary, responding parties will execute an immediate intervention to restore safety to the situation. This most commonly looks like separating receiving and offending parties or instituting temporary mutes or pauses on a person’s access to the conference spaces, but an intervention can be anything that the responding party deems necessary.

5. Mediation

In terms of mediation, responding parties will reach out to all parties involved to discuss the incident. These discussions may be initiated in a variety of digital formats (phone, Zoom, Discord, Gather, text group, etc.), to offer the greatest accessibility between parties. Responding parties of various kinds will discuss the incident with other parties (offending, witnessing, reporting, and receiving) with the aim of coming to a mutual agreement in terms of what happened and how to resolve it.

The goal of mediation is to make sure all parties are heard; that the harm is seen, known, and acknowledged; and that clear next steps are outlined. Mediation space can seem frightening for some, and we definitely understand this. We aim to make this process as easeful, effective, and flexible as possible in order to effect the most impactful changes.

In some instances, it may be helpful in the refinement of a resolution that a group conversation be initiated. While this may be an impactful approach, it is not always recommended for situations that are particularly volatile, nor is it in alignment with KBtL’s values to place harmed parties at greater risk for further harm. In this, KBtL reserves the right to utilize all remedies afforded to be in the best interests of the receiving party, the integrity of the event, and all other parties impacted.

During the mediation, the Incident Response Team (IRT) may be involved with the responding party in discussions. After discussions have wrapped up, the IRT may take some time to deliberate before moving onto the next step.

Mediations vary greatly based on the type of incident and the parties involved, but the following are examples of some mediation types that we try to incorporate when appropriate:

6. Response

After mediation, the IRT/KBtL will issue a formal response to the report. This response will always be in writing, but may also be delivered via voice or video chat if the parties prefer. The response will be sent to all parties involved in the incident equally for transparency. The response is considered immediately binding. Should parties wish to appeal the decision, they can do so after 2 months, see Section 7 below.

KBtL uses a tiered response system based on the severity of the incident and tries whenever possible to be non-punitive in our responses. While we may need to enforce consequences in many cases, we try to also follow these up with opportunities for growth.

Our response will include as many of the following aspects as possible:

It’s not possible for KBtL to describe fully everything it considers when it makes a response to an incident report. But beyond the concepts referenced in our Philosophy statement and Section 2 (both above), KBtL will also endeavor to consider the following concepts when making our response:

7. Appeal

Appeals can be requested starting 2 months after the response/decision was given and for 6 months following. After 8 months or before 2 months, appeals may not be requested. Occasionally, a response/decision may include stipulations about appeals that alter this timeline, in which case the timeline in the response will supersede this timeline. For example, a response may allow immediate appeal, may delay the initial appeal period to encourage additional reflection and growth, or may extend the appeal timeline to allow for appeal later than 8 months after the response. An appeal restarts the accountability process over and results in a new mediation with new response team members. Each party in an incident may make 1 appeal on that incident only, they may not make multiple appeals or appeals of appeals.

Appeals are most appropriate in the following situations:

8. Reflection & Feedback

Any party involved with the accountability process is encouraged to provide feedback on their experience and will be provided with both a form and the chance to provide direct feedback to responding parties. We commit to reviewing this policy yearly and analyzing data to assess how incidents were handled and whether our processes were effective. We also commit to updating this policy as needed based on community input, experience with the policy, and/or evolving standards.

Feedback Form: https://forms.fillout.com/t/3oDJWVe13mus

Additional Considerations

We sometimes have people ask us about our policy around restraining orders, protective orders, or other legally binding documents. Because KBtL draws an international crowd, has staff and presenters from around the world, and as a legal entity is based in The Netherlands, it is impossible for us to definitively say what our process is for all the various types of legal documents and restraining/protective orders that exist. What we can say is that KBtL will follow the letter of the law if it is mandated to do so. KBtL does not comply in advance, however, and will only engage with police, emergency services, and other legal authorities when all/most other outlets for resolution have been attempted or when specifically mandated to do so. For all these reasons, we ask that anyone with legal concerns or considerations go through the established accountability process so that we can handle their situation on a case-by-case basis.

Public Statements

It is never the goal of KBtL to make public statements about incidents without all parties’ consent or to comment on ongoing international/political incidents. Public statements about accountability proceedings and incidents will only happen in the following situations:

  1. A specific incident affects a large number of people present at the event.
  2. All parties involved in the incident agree to it.
  3. To provide clarification in the case of incorrect or false information being circulated.

We will never reveal identifying information about parties in our public statements. In the case of reasons 1 and 3 we commit to always informing all parties when we post.

Incident Response Team (IRT)

The Incident Response Team (IRT) typically consists of one Consent and Emotional Care (CEC) member, the Producer, and one additional staff member. The IRT is generated per incident and made based on the incident in question. For example, certain staff and/or CEC members may be involved in an IRT based on affiliation or lack thereof with other parties or based on the topic area. IRT responses are always based on consensus.

KBtL reserves the right to utilize all remedies afforded to be in the best interests of the receiving party, the integrity of the event, and all other parties impacted.

Often the CEC member is usually a neutral party in the IRT and advocates for further resolutions on behalf of other parties. In the event that the report involves the CEC Team, recusal may be called for, and another staff member may be called to substitute. In the event that the reported incident involves the Producer of KBtL, additional CEC members, staffers, and/or dedicated volunteers will sit in instead.

Definitions

Incident

We define an “incident” as a situation in which the intentional or unintentional action or inaction of an offending party causes harm to a receiving party. Incidents can be minor or major. They can be related to physical safety, mental safety, legal safety, consent, or simply something that “isn’t quite right.” Most incidents are resolved without any intervention or response simply by both parties talking to each other in the moment. The incidents that are reported using this process are usually ones that cannot be resolved that way or involve conflict or serious harm. Incidents typically happen during the conference, but can also happen outside the time of the conference.

Incidents can include, but are not limited to the following:

Harassment, discrimination, microaggressions, emergencies, (threats of) violence, consent violations, or rule violations

Report

A report is a statement (or statements) about an incident given to staff (or, rarely, to volunteers). A report is usually a standard form, but it does not have to be and some reports are made informally in a public channel of our Discord server or live via audio/video chat in Discord, Zoom, or Gather.

Response

A response is a statement (or statements), conversation, or consequence given to involved parties of the incident after a report has been made and the accountability process has been followed.

Intervention

An intervention, for this policy, is a response to an incident that is immediate and is aimed at restoring physical, psychological, and legal safety for all parties involved. An intervention may be given before a full report is made or response given.

Receiving Party

The person (or persons) who has been on the receiving end of harm. The receiving party is not always the “victim” and one can be both a receiving and an offending party in some situations. The receiving party may or may not be the person who reports. See “reporting party”.

Offending Party

The person (or persons) who has been on the doing end of harm. The offending party is not always the “perpetrator” and one can be both a receiving and an offending party in some situations. The offending party may or may not be the person who reports. See “reporting party”.

Reporting Party

The person (or persons) who made a report of the incident. The reporting party could also be an offending or receiving party, but may also be a witnessing party or responding party.

Responding Party

The person (or persons) who responded to the incident either in the moment or after a report was made. There are often several responding parties in a single incident. The responding party may also be the reporting party or could even overlap with receiving parties, offending parties, or witnessing parties.

Witnessing Party

The person (or persons) who witnessed an incident. The witnessing party may or may not be the reporting or responding party. It’s unlikely that a witnessing party is also an offending or receiving party, but it is potentially possible.