AMS Council failed to implement a robust alternative investigative process for its respectful workplace (PC1) and sexualized violence policies (PC2) by a self-imposed deadline of September.
Timeline
- PC1 and PC2 were first passed by the AMS in 2019, subject to review every two years.
- Policy reviews began in 2021 and were projected to be complete by September 2022.
- A revised policy draft was brought to AMS Council in April 2023, but was criticized by community members for not supporting survivors of sexual violence.
- These concerns were echoed in an August 2023 Council meeting, leading to the AMS indefinitely postponing revisions of the policies.
- In September 2023, a policy advisory committee was created to complete new draft policies.
- AMS Council passed PC1 and PC2 after three years of review in April.
During an April Council meeting, the AMS passed PC1 and PC2 after three years of review and continuous community opposition. It also passed a motion to direct the society’s HR Committee to implement a “robust alternative investigative process” to remove the AMS Ombudsperson from an investigative role in the policies.
This change comes after feedback from the AMS’s PC1/2 Consultation Review, which included concerns that the AMS Ombuds Office was not receiving proper training or “facilitating investigations properly” due to a lack of capacity, case complexity or conflicts of interests.
The HR Committee was tasked with securing “appropriate” alternative investigative processes by September. In a statement to The Ubyssey, EUS president and AMS HR Committee chair Cameron Taylor said an alternative investigative process will be brought to Council by November.
Taylor also said the committee has worked on the alternative investigative process including personnel and financial aspects since the summer.
“Finalizing all the logistics around being able to implement it has taken longer than anticipated,” said Taylor.
When asked how the committee’s delay could impact survivor trust with the AMS, especially after community criticism regarding the policy’s review, Taylor said he “cannot speculate how this delay will impact student trust.”
“I can say that HR Committee is committed to providing a good and feasible solution to what we were tasked to do,” wrote Taylor.
Share this article
