ACM Policy on Complaint Process Disclosure

1 Preliminaries

This policy governs the disclosure of information in the context of complaints filed alleging violation of one of the policies of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). The applicable policies are the Code of Ethics, the Policy Against Harassment at ACM Events, Publication Policies, and the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM. While each policy has different enforcement procedures, there are generally three different types of disclosures of information that are parts of complaint processes:

•  Disclosures as a matter of procedural equity, such as disclosures to an accused individual, a harmed individual, or a complainant.
• Disclosures as a matter of harm prevention, such as disclosures to an affected community or the public.
• Disclosures as a matter of sanction, such as a disclosure indicating that a paper was found to be plagiarized. 

This policy addresses the first two types of disclosures. Generally speaking, disclosure decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis with close adherence to this policy. Regardless of whether the disclosure is consistent with or deviates from this policy, the disclosure must be guided by words from the Preamble to ACM’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct:

Questions related to these kinds of issues can best be answered by thoughtful consideration of the fundamental ethical principles, understanding that the public good is the paramount consideration. The entire computing profession benefits when the ethical decision-making process is accountable to and transparent to all stakeholders. Open discussions about ethical issues promote this accountability and transparency.

Principles from the Code that ask us to avoid harm, be honest and trustworthy, be fair, and respect privacy are also important to bear in mind. When complaints are filed, we presume that the complaint is legitimate, and we value the reputations of all parties. From the time of the filing of a complaint to when all appeals processes have been exhausted, those involved in handling the complaint must limit information releases to a need-to-know basis always bearing in mind the need to minimize harm, to maintain spaces that actively support the exchange of scientific ideas, and to support strong science.

1.1 Definitions

• Enforcement Policy: An ACM policy that identifies the process for handling a complaint alleging violation of an ACM policy. Enforcement policies identify who is responsible for taking actions with respect to investigation of the complaint, determining whether the policy was violated, and if so, what penalty ought to be applied. ACM has enforcement policies for the Code of Ethics, the Policy Against Harassment at ACM Events, and the Publication Policies.
• Complainant: Person filing the complaint.
• Respondent: Person who is accused of violating an ACM policy.
• Harmed individual: Person who was directly harmed by the violation of the policy. Often, this is the complainant, but an investigation may reveal others who were harmed. It may also be the case that the complainant was not harmed by the actions under investigation.
• Witness: Any person knowledgeable about the alleged activities or those involved who responded to questions raised by the investigation.
• Remediation: an outcome of a case in which the respondent has agreed to improve their actions in the future.
• Sanction: an outcome in a case in which the ACM imposes restrictions on how the respondent interacts with ACM or takes other actions that impact how others interact with the respondent.
• Penalty: a term that includes both remediation and sanction.

2.1 Rules for disclosure in particular situations

Below are descriptions of how ACM will generally treat disclosure of information pertaining to complaints at various stages. Some general rules apply:

1. The respondent in each case should be informed of the complaint in a manner consistent with the enforcement policy that corresponds to the type of complaint.
2. Between the time that a formal complaint has been filed and it is resolved, any ACM or SIG Awards Committee making an inquiry about a particular individual will be informed that the individual is currently under investigation so as to remain consistent with the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.
3. While sanctions are in place, certain SIG and conference leaders are in a position to know whether particular individuals currently have a sanction. Those with that knowledge are not allowed to disclose that information beyond what is necessary to implement the sanction.
4. Minimally, the consent of a complainant, harmed individual, or witness is required before their identity can be disclosed to the respondent or any other person who is not party to the processing of the complaint.
5. Other ACM enforcement policies can limit the information shared by those involved in the complaint.
6. In all requests for information regarding a complaint, people will be referred to this policy for ACM’s practices.
7. With the exceptions noted surrounding ACM and SIG Awards Committees, a case is not considered resolved for the purpose of disclosure until after all appeal processes have concluded and there are no ongoing legal proceedings.
8. When a case is closed, independent of the type of decision that has led to its closing, the complainant and identified harmed individuals should be informed that the case has been concluded and of the nature of the violation that was found, if any. There may be exceptions if there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm should they come to know of the decision or they have requested to not be informed.
9. Witnesses who participated in the investigation will be informed of the closing of a case when that occurs.
10. Nothing in this policy prevents disclosure of information from being part of any penalties. Those considering penalties for a particular violation ought to include discussions of appropriate levels of disclosure commensurate with the details of the case. It may be appropriate or necessary to seek legal counsel.
11. When an investigation has been underway for six months without resolution, the Complainant should be informed of the delay. Such contact should be repeated monthly until the case is resolved.
12. In extraordinary cases, there may be a need to avoid serious harm or ethical violations. Such cases may result in deviations from this policy. Such deviations should be carefully considered by those familiar with the complaint. The decision to deviate rests with the case decision maker as identified by the corresponding enforcement policy. It may be appropriate or necessary to seek legal counsel.

2.2 No complaint filed

No information is disclosed to those making inquiries about an accusation when no formal complaint has been filed.

2.3 Complaint dismissed prior to investigation

When complaints are filed without any evidence or anonymously such that no investigation is reasonably possible, the complaint will be dismissed without investigation and information disclosure will be treated as if no complaint has been filed (2.1).

2.4 Complaints under investigation

1. No information is disclosed publicly, including acknowledgment of the investigation.
2. Complainants should be informed if the start of an investigation will be delayed.
3. Witnesses are informed of the identity of the respondent when they are requested to respond to questions related to the complaint, but not before.
4. ACM or SIG Awards Committees making inquiries about award candidates will be informed of any individuals currently under investigation to remain consistent with the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.

2.5 Complaints resolved with no violation found

1. The respondent must be informed of the decision and that information will be shared with others according to this policy.
2. The complainant should be informed of the decision unless there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm should they come to know of the decision.
3. In the event that the complaint becomes publicly known, ACM in consultation with the respondent, may make a public statement indicating that no violation has been found.
4. ACM or SIG Award Committees making inquiries about Award candidates will be informed that the complaint was resolved with no violation found to remain consistent with the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.

2.6 Complaints resolved with a finding of a violation

1. The respondent must be informed of the decision and the penalty, and that information about the decision will be shared with others according to this policy.
2. The complainant and any harmed individuals who were part of the investigation should be informed of the decision and the penalty unless they have requested to not be informed or there is a justifiable expectation of unreasonable harm should any of them come to know of the decision.
3. Those responsible for implementing or overseeing the penalty must be informed of the penalty details.
4. Except as otherwise noted elsewhere in this policy, information about the resolution of a complaint will be kept confidential. Generally, no one else will be told of the finding or the penalty, although the de-identified features of some cases will be made available as noted in section 3.
5. As an exception to 2.6.4, ACM or SIG Awards Committees making inquiries about Award candidates will be informed if a candidate’s prior conduct has been determined to be in violation of the Code so as to remain consistent with the Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.

3 Reporting and reflecting

1. At the end of each calendar year, the ACM shall collect and make publicly available aggregate data summarizing the number of complaints filed, the category of complaints filed, and within each category, the number dismissed without investigation, the number resolved with the complaint not supported, the number resolved with the complaint supported, the number still open, and for those resolved, the range of months from complaint filing to resolution.
2. To help inform and educate the community, ACM will make publicly available information describing representative policy violations and associated sanctions.
3. The ACM Council will evaluate the effectiveness of this policy every three years (or on-demand if major issues are identified) and will be making changes if necessary.