IOA has three primary recommendations:
- Ombuds' charters and all other written materials should be explicit in describing the areas in which the Ombuds has no authority with regard to Title IX or the Clery Act (i.e. receiving notice of claims, instituting corrective measures, or participating in an “informal resolution process”);
- Ombuds should not receive training that would render them “Title IX personnel,” but can receive Title IX training required of all other employees; and
- Ombuds should not be designated as a “supportive measure” under the Title IX regulations.
Related posts: IOA Takes a Stand on Title IX Issues; Watch Senator Question White House Title IX Expert on Role of Campus Ombuds; IOA Releases Memo Providing Legal Grounds for Ombuds Confidentiality in Title IX Matters; IOA Compiles Title IX Resources; IOA Surveys Higher Education Ombuds Confidentiality for Clery Act & Title IX Matters; U.S. Department of Education Suggests Mediation an Option for Title IX Complaints; IOA Posts First Press Release; International Ombudsman Association Comments on Proposed Title IX Changes; Work of American University Ombuds Largely Intact After Title IX Rule Changes.
Page 3 in the column of “IOA Recommendations” in the section “Informal Resolution”:
ReplyDelete“Ombuds, however, remain a resource to visitors prior to the filing of a Title IX complaint as well as after the conclusion of any formal investigative or adjudicatory process....This is further reason why ombuds should decline involvement after a complaint is filed.”
Does this signal a shift for ombuds? Previously, ombuds had spoken of their services as complimentary and supplementary to formal channels of an organization and that engaging with ombuds was relevant and possible at any time. Is the IOA recommendation that an ombuds refuse service to a visitor who discloses they are in the middle of a Title IX complaint process?
I know many Ombuds who will withdraw from a matter entirely if the visitor goes into a formal process. I may be in the minority who will speak with a visitor in a formal process, but not to become "involved" in any sort of conflict resolution while the formal process is pending. If I have a visitor in a formal process I will provide an empathetic ear and provide information about the process. That's about it. I don't think any Ombuds would communicate with any of the parties involved in the formal process. I therefore don't see that IOA's advice is anything new.
DeleteBut, I'm interested to hear other perspectives.
I will never turn away someone that reaches to the Ombuds Office. To be clear though, if they are in a formal process I may be limited in the type/nature of assistance I might be ultimately able to provide. -Reese
ReplyDeleteThat's my practice (probably because you were my mentor for a year!).
DeleteI struggle with this as well. Why wouldn’t we see someone just because they’ve took formal action? Our visit with them is still informal. What’s more troubling is to not be part of an informal resolution. The informal resolution is a departure from the formal process which is put on hold in hopes that mediation or negotiation resolved the grievance. The Ombuds as mediator has no power to decide, only to facilitate communication. Nothing in that role should jeopardize confidentiality, neutrality, informality, nor independence. In fact, the mediators ethics are more demanding of those standards. The Ombuds are in a great position to help visitors who prefer an informal resolution, if they have training as mediators. (And understand that all decisions made are the visitors to make).
DeleteTo clarify, IOA's recommendation is not suggesting that ombuds refuse service but rather decline to serve either as a mediator or a restorative practices facilitator after a formal Title IX complaint is filed. "An informal resolution process" is a term of art in the new regulations and to be involved in either mediation or RJ after a formal Title IX complaint is filed would subject ombuds to recordkeeping requirements and training as "Title IX Personnel." Ombuds continue to supplement but not replace formal channels. Also, because the new regulations narrow the kinds of misconduct covered there is now a much higher bar to meet the definition of sexual harassment. A number of cases may no longer fall under the purview of Title IX where, arguably, ombuds could serve as a mediator or a restorative practices facilitator.
ReplyDeleteJessica K-M