Can you tie your concerns to any specific worries from “a lot of discussion within EA lately”. I remain of the opinion that a policy (whether published or just part of the employee handbook) has almost no correlation to whether there is problematic behavior. I’d love to have ANY specific concern or incident to analyze to see whether there’s no policy, no publicly-visible policy, the policy was followed but didn’t stop the problematic aspects, the behavior is not covered by policy, or the policy was violated in a way that matters.
I’d strongly bet that it’s impossible to find a worry that’s discussed within the community, which would be impacted by any policy I’ve seen so far.
One specific concern is about a grant where the person who would normally be the grant investigator and the head of the recipient charity were metamours. It’s not clear whether this relationship was disclosed (internally to the granting org) or whether the investigator recused themself. And it’s not clear whether metamour relationships should generally need to be disclosed and/or trigger recusal.
I’d start with the first question (was it actually disclosed internally, and did the investigator recuse themselves), and THEN the bridge question (did policy have any role in the disclosure/recusement, or was it “just” honorable actors), and only afterward the question about whether there is a policy, was it honored, and (if effective) do other places have similar policies.
Honestly, this thread has gone on too long, and it makes it seem like I’m more opposed than I actually am. I do look forward to your findings on the topic, and if you can make changes based on the investigation, you absolutely deserve credit. I’m skeptical of policy-first approaches to things, as opposed to behavior-evaluation-first, but that shouldn’t deter you very much. I apologize if my argumentative nature has caused any problems.
Can you tie your concerns to any specific worries from “a lot of discussion within EA lately”. I remain of the opinion that a policy (whether published or just part of the employee handbook) has almost no correlation to whether there is problematic behavior. I’d love to have ANY specific concern or incident to analyze to see whether there’s no policy, no publicly-visible policy, the policy was followed but didn’t stop the problematic aspects, the behavior is not covered by policy, or the policy was violated in a way that matters.
I’d strongly bet that it’s impossible to find a worry that’s discussed within the community, which would be impacted by any policy I’ve seen so far.
One specific concern is about a grant where the person who would normally be the grant investigator and the head of the recipient charity were metamours. It’s not clear whether this relationship was disclosed (internally to the granting org) or whether the investigator recused themself. And it’s not clear whether metamour relationships should generally need to be disclosed and/or trigger recusal.
I’d start with the first question (was it actually disclosed internally, and did the investigator recuse themselves), and THEN the bridge question (did policy have any role in the disclosure/recusement, or was it “just” honorable actors), and only afterward the question about whether there is a policy, was it honored, and (if effective) do other places have similar policies.
Honestly, this thread has gone on too long, and it makes it seem like I’m more opposed than I actually am. I do look forward to your findings on the topic, and if you can make changes based on the investigation, you absolutely deserve credit. I’m skeptical of policy-first approaches to things, as opposed to behavior-evaluation-first, but that shouldn’t deter you very much. I apologize if my argumentative nature has caused any problems.