Fellow Makers,
Tonight at 6:30 the Board of MakeICT has a voting enabled meeting for the purpose of approving a special allocation of funding to the WoodShop to buy tools.
The agenda for this meeting has grown to include another topic. It has been brought to the attention of the Board by our new Vice President Sherry Ibrahim that we do not have a written non-discrimination policy at MakeICT. The Board both Old and New feels it important to act without delay to state clearly that we do not discriminate at MakeICT; All are welcome here.
Here is the text of the Non-Discrimination Policy that the Board will be voting to adopt:
MakeICT does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed) or lack thereof, gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status, in any of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to, hiring and firing of staff, selection of volunteers and vendors, and provision of services. We are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of our staff, clients, volunteers, subcontractors, vendors, and clients.
The Board meeting is at 6:30PM tonight online and in the Maker Space. All are welcome to join us for the meeting.
Oops. Wonder how that got missed for so long. I guess it’s not enough to just not discriminate, it also has to be stated officially.
Nice catch, Sherry!
1)Because our leadership is made of all makers and not experts at running non-profits. Only if One of us has run into something before do we usually add it as policy.
2 ) Because the believe that “Be Excellent to each Other” is sufficient and making policy only when we run into people who definition of excellent is not up to par. We don’t make or have lots and lots of policy.
It looks like only schools are actually required to have them per the IRS, but that doesn’t make it a bad idea.
However, the city of Wichita did pass an NDO last fall and appears MakeICT is required to follow it. The wording above more or less covers the exact same things as that one in Wichita’s with the exception of “genetic information” (which admittingly I only learned about this week because HR at work has us recertify certain things every so often).
Assuming this got passed last night, I think it’d be good to print it out and put it on the bulletin board or some other public location near the front desk.
I didn’t see this until just now and I probably would’ve made time to attend if I had seen it earlier. I don’t see here or on the wiki if this passed, but fwiw reads like it applies to how the org/leadership treats people, and seems like it might fail to address how people who aren’t leadership treat others.
I generally lean pretty hard on the “be excellent to each other”, but we should have an official code of conduct. devICT’s CoC could serve as a template, although there are loads of other examples. Note that devICT’s CoC page includes a mechanism to report violations anonymously.
It’s probably water under the bridge at this point. I had my suspicions that this might be a legal a requirement but that seems to still be in question. If it is a legal obligation then it is an obvious requirement that needs implemented.
There also seems to be some sentiment indicating that, regardless of whether it’s required or not, it’s a “good idea”. The issue with that approach is that once you put such things into policy then you are legally bound to various interpretations of potential violations by people that may not have the organization’s best interests in mind. We could discuss the chances of something like this happening (I’d likely agree that they are small) but it still remains an unnecessary liability.
In any case. I’d recommend future policy implementation practices focused on objective merit and/or legal requirements as policies based on “good ideas” are likely as diverse as whatever our member count is on any given day.
The language of the policy was changed during the meeting to include members. You are correct that the policy as presented here did not directly include members. It still does not cover member to member relations. I agree that a Code of Conduct for MakeICT which is more prescriptive than Be Excellent to Each Other is long overdue.
Best methods for receiving and handling complaints are also under investigation. Once again, input is welcomed. Feel free to message me on the forum or email at sherry.ibrahim@makeict.org
It seems that you’re saying that we are liable for proving that we are not discriminating because we have said that we won’t discriminate. Do I have your argument correct? The liability for discrimination is attached whether you have a non-discrimination policy or not.
To those asking. Yes, the policy was approved unanimously last night.
The final text as approved is:
MakeICT does not and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion (creed) or lack thereof, gender, gender expression, age, national origin (ancestry), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or military status, in any of its activities or operations. These activities include, but are not limited to, hiring and firing of staff, selection of members, volunteers, vendors, and provision of services. We are committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of our staff, clients, volunteers, subcontractors, vendors, and clients.
“The liability for discrimination is attached whether you have a non-discrimination policy or not.”
That is correct and the liability is both defined and (ideally) limited to existing law. Adding anything to what is already defined by law is either redundant or adds additional liability (in cases that expand the scope defined by existing law).
Education is defined by Treas. Reg. 1.501 (c)(3) – 1(d)(3)(i) as:
ď‚· The instruction and training of the individual for the purpose of improving or
developing his or her capabilities.
ď‚· The instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to
the community.
Were existing laws referenced? Simply stating that you are not aware of any differences doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
The letter of the law is the most relevant factor when things get sticky. A fairly famous lawyer once argued about the meaning of the word “is” while trying to avoid a grand jury perjury charge. Such matters may be comical but they can also be expensive.
IMO a more practical NDP would simply acknowledge compliance with existing laws. This both limits liability to the greatest extent possible as well as covers future legal responsibilities of the organization is when applicable laws are updated.
The wording chosen was based upon widely available legal advice to nonprofit organizations. Such wording is fairly commonplace in society.
For sheer curiosity, I would like to hear what your proposed wording would sound like. Then I would like an example of a nonprofit which has chosen such wording. It would be even better if you could provide case examples where such wording proved superior in court.
I would start with applicable state laws. What out of state organizations do may not be pertinent to KS. What existing organizations do can then be evaluated with that informed filter.
If MakeICT’s adoption was modeled on existing pertinent advice then that obviously moves it beyond the “it’s just a good idea” level of relevance. I’m not sure why it took 18 posts to state that.
Good idea or not, I’m happy to see that this goal was pursued based on existing models and motivated by a legitimate need. Stating such creates reasonable barriers to the consideration of other “good ideas” that may not be not as well based even if they are well meaning.