1. Developments in the law and practice in the matter of individuals' rights make it advisable that we should issue some new guidance to affiliated bodies on the handling of cases where possible misconduct by a member comes to your notice.  We also draw on the experience over the last three years of the Management Board's Discipline and Complaints Committee (DCC).  We do not offer a prescriptive set of rules; circumstances vary greatly, and what is right in one case may be wrong in another.  Rather, we set out some guiding principles, together with some examples and models.

2. Instances of misconduct are fortunately rare; but that means that any one body will be unlikely to have much experience of investigating one.  Such investigations can be difficult and delicate, and throw up all manner of problems.  Members of the DCC, staff at Head Office, and our honorary legal adviser, are all available to help, formally or informally; please do make use of them, in the first instance by contacting Laurel Roberts - direct line: 01494 888406 or email: laurel.roberts@cssc.co.uk.

3. The DCC takes its remit from Rule 5 of CSSC's Rules: Management Board may expel from the Society or suspend from the privileges of membership for such period as it may decide any member who, in the opinion of the Management Board, has acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the Society.  We take this to extend also to breaches of CSSC's Rules and Code of Conduct, and would expect affiliated bodies to take a similarly broad view.  Copies of the Rules and Code of Conduct can be found on the website www.cssc.co.uk; hard copies are available from laurel.roberts@cssc.co.uk.

Fairness
4. The guiding principle in all cases is that the process and the outcome must be fair, and demonstrably fair - particularly to the person against whom the allegation is made, but also to those who made the allegation or were affected by the alleged misconduct.  Everything else flows from this.

The Complaint
5. The first question to be asked is whether the matter is one that you should formally investigate.  Thus:
a.  is it within your competence?  The answer may be no, for example because the incident did not take place in the context of CSSC activities or on CSSC premises; or it may be the sort of conduct which must be referred to the DCC either for determination or for advice (see Annex A);
b.  is it sufficiently serious?  It may be, for example, that it would be better resolved by trying to get the parties together to settle their differences.  On the other hand, something that might seem comparatively trivial would be more serious if it was witnessed by or affected "outsiders" who might thereby get a poor impression of CSSC.  A useful guideline may be to ask: even if this allegation were found to be true, would we impose any formal sanction (see para 14)? 
c.  is there sufficient evidence?  And even if the answer is 'no', you nonetheless need to consider whether to try to obtain further information before deciding not to investigate.
Note also that any allegation involving someone who is not a full member of CSSC (eg an associate) will be for the affiliated body to deal with; the DCC can advise in such cases, but can investigate only allegations against full members.
If after considering all the above you are still not sure, please seek advice.

Who should investigate?
6. We suggest that an investigation should be carried out by not less than two and not more than three people.  At least one of these should ideally have some experience of similar situations (eg tribunals, personnel disciplinary proceedings).  They need not necessarily be members of your committee, but must be full members of CSSC.  It is important to avoid any risk of, or of the appearance of, bias or prejudice, whether for or against.  This may be difficult in a small organisation, where as it were everybody knows everybody else, and where long-standing friendships (or animosities) are known to all.  So you may need to consider having a "panel" from whom a team can be put together for each case; or even asking someone from another body, eg another Area or Region, to assist.  In the extreme case, where you feel it is impossible to avoid the suspicion of prejudice, you may wish to ask the DCC for advice or even to take on the case.

Putting the allegation to the person
7. You must, in writing, put a statement of the allegation to the person (or persons) against whom it is made.  This should be clear and convey all the essentials of the complaint: for example, date, time, place, and details of the alleged misconduct. You should invite the person to respond in writing (or orally if he/she prefers) within a reasonable set period.  You should also describe the various stages in the process.  A specimen letter and description are at Annexes B and C.  Note that if the person fails to respond without reasonable cause within the specified period, you may proceed to determine the matter on the material then available to you.

The investigative process
8. Depending on the person's response to the statement at para 5, you may decide that you can reach a decision "on the papers".  But if the person asks for an interview, or if you feel that it is necessary, then one should be arranged.  Give the person sufficient notice; he/she should also be allowed to bring a "friend".

9. It is important to be clear that this interview is for the purpose of establishing or clarifying the facts of the case.  It is a fact-finding interview; it is not, and should not be conducted in the manner of, a courtroom cross-examination; and the person should be given every opportunity to put their side of the story.

10. We recommend very strongly that two members of the team at least should be present at the interview, along with someone to take the record.

11. We recommend that you give careful thought in advance to the questions, and their wording, that you need to put in order to get the information required or clarification of points which are unclear or where there is a conflict of evidence.  A full record should be made of the interview.  You may wish to offer to provide a copy of this to the person; if you do so, you may also give the person the option, within a very short deadline, to comment on or add to the note.

12. You may also need to make further enquiries, written or oral, of the complainant and/or "witnesses".

The decision
13. It hardly needs saying, but any decision must be based on an objective appraisal of the facts.  You can reach a conclusion on the "balance of probabilities" (rather than the strict "beyond all reasonable doubt" of the criminal courts); in other words, that it is more likely than not that things happened as you believe they happened.  Nonetheless you must be able to set out your findings and the reasons for the conclusion you have reached.  The decision should be given to the person in writing, and as soon as possible.

14. As for any sanction, this should be proportionate to the offence, and comparable with sanctions applied in any similar cases.  (It can also take into account the person's previous disciplinary record; though this should be limited to incidents related to the person's CSSC membership, and to established or admitted offences).  Possible sanctions range from a reprimand, or a warning as to future conduct, to exclusion from activities or premises.  Note that you cannot suspend a full member from membership of CSSC - though you can suspend or expel others such as associates.

Appeal
15. The person must be allowed an appeal against the decision.  He/she must make any appeal within a specified period, and must set out the grounds of the appeal, in writing; and must not introduce at this stage as grounds material which he/she could have provided earlier - such material may be disregarded.

16. The appeal should be considered by at least two members, again with suitable experience, who have not been involved at any earlier stage.  They can decide whether to interview the person or determine the appeal "on the papers" - which would include all statements and correspondence and records of any interviews.  They may also wish to speak to the original team if they have doubts about whether the process has been fair or the procedure correctly followed.  In any event their decision should clearly record their conclusions on each of the stated grounds of appeal, and whether they uphold or set aside the original decision; note also that they may uphold the decision but modify the sanction imposed.

Disclosure to other parties
17. The question can arise whether a serious allegation, or a finding of serious misconduct, should be brought to the attention of any other parties.  As noted in Annex A, there are cases of potentially criminal activity where consideration must be given to informing the police.  But there are also cases where it may be asked whether the person's employing department should be informed.  It is not possible to give a categorical answer; it depends on such things as the seriousness of the misconduct, whether the person was representing the department, and whether he/she had been given special leave.  All we can say is that you should not make any disclosure without consulting Head Office.

Annex A: Matters to be referred to the DCC

In general, these are what might be called the more serious offences.

Thus:

• theft, fraud, misappropriation of funds, including falsification of accounts, expense claims and the like;
• violent, dangerous or threatening behaviour, in particular any which cause injury to persons or damage to property;

Note that allegations falling under these headings may be appropriate for reference to the police.

• disclosure of confidential information acquired while acting on behalf of CSSC or an affiliated body;
• serious breaches of rules or policies, for example breaches of CSSC's Diversity and Equality policy.
  
  

Annex B: Draft letter setting out the complaint

In Confidence

This is to notify you that the Committee has received, and proposes to investigate, a complaint against you, as follows:

that in the evening of 17 March 2011, at the dinner at the Grantly Hotel, Barchester, following a competition held earlier that day, you verbally abused other participants, in the presence of other guests and hotel staff, and generally behaved in a manner contrary to CSSC's Code of Conduct and detrimental to the interests of CSSC and of this [Area/Region/SRB].

I attach a short note setting out how a sub-committee set up under my chairmanship proposes to proceed. As you will see, you are invited to respond in writing to this allegation within three weeks; address your reply to me at the above address, and mark it "In Confidence". If for any good reason you feel that may not be able to meet this deadline, please write to me immediately with your reasons. If you would prefer to make your initial response orally rather than in writing, again please let me know urgently so that I can arrange a meeting with one of the sub-committee to take down your response.

If I do not hear from you with three weeks we will proceed to consider the matter on the material available to us at that time and reach our decision accordingly.

Annex C: Procedure

This note sets out the procedure whichthe sub-committee set up to investigate a complaint will follow.

1. We will send the member a written statement setting out the allegation, and invite him/her to respond within three weeks. We will also offer the option of responding orally to a member of the sub-committee, but such a meeting will be for that purpose only and not for any discussion of the merits of the allegation or the member's response.

2. We will consider the member's response, together with any relevant material brought to our attention and any statements sought from or offered by other persons who witnessed the behaviour complained of.

3. We may decide to seek a meeting with the member to explore further the material available to us; and will in any event give the member the opportunity to seek such a meeting.

4. If the member fails to respond to the allegations, or declines to attend a meeting with the sub-committee, we may proceed to our decision on the basis of the material available to us at that point.

5. We will then reach our decision, which may include the imposition of a sanction such as suspension or expulsion, and put it in writing to the member, together with our reasons.

6. The member will have a right to appeal, within three weeks, against the decision, but may not at this stage introduce material which could have been produced us at an earlier stage. The appeal will be considered by members not previously concerned.