Harassment and Grievance Policy

Harassment and Grievance Policy

Overview

Introduction

Metro DC DSA (“MDC DSA”) is committed to creating a space that is welcoming and inclusive to the multiracial working class, across all genders and identities, where everyone can organize without fear of harassment, abuse, and harm. As democratic socialists, we organize against the existing capitalist, white supremacist, colonialist, patriarchal, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, and carceral systems. To dismantle these systems, we simultaneously build alternatives informed by continuous reflection and self-criticism. In this spirit of ongoing evaluation and evolution, MDC DSA’s grievance policy is a living document that, at the time of writing, outlines the chapter’s processes to empower all members in creating a safe, restorative, and trauma-informed chapter culture.

Process

This policy was drafted by an informal committee of MDC DSA members, who engaged in two virtual committee discussions, one Harassment and Grievance Officer (HGO)-facilitated virtual discussion with other chapter members, and individual conversations with members. It was inspired by Twin Cities DSA’s grievance policy, as written by Julia Tindell in 2018, from which we draw many of the definitions below. It was also written in accordance with the Unified Grievance Policy, passed at the 2025 DSA Convention.

Scope

All forms of misconduct, except for political discipline as explicitly carved out in Article 13 of the Unified Grievance Policy (UGP), are governed by the procedural framework of this resolution. This policy is intended to operate fully within and consistent with the UGP. Further details on application and implementation are provided in the sections below.

Table of Contents

• Definitions
• Conflict Management
• Grievance Process
  • Grievance Committee
  • Advisors and Support Persons
  • Accountability
  • Conflicts of Interest, Dual Roles, and Recusal
  • Separation of Harm Infrastructure from Political/Factional Discourse
  • HGO Political Statements
  • Confidentiality Violations
  • Overview of the Unified Grievance Policy Process
    • How is a complaint made?
    • What is a disciplinary referral?
    • What happens after a complaint or disciplinary referral is made?
    • What might an HGO recommend in their grievance report to the Steering Committee?
    • What happens to the report after the process has concluded?
• Ongoing Political Education

Definitions

Organizing space: A place to build a more just world with comrades. Though it can also be a place where members make friends, or share with others who are friends, an organizing space is defined primarily by relationships with others as comrades engaged in collective political work.

Comrade: Someone you work and join in solidarity with toward shared collective goals. Comradeship is a relationship grounded in mutual respect, political accountability, and a commitment to collective liberation. It involves principled disagreement, good-faith engagement, care for one another’s dignity, and accountability to the collective and its democratic decisions. Comradeship recognizes that political work is relational and often emotionally demanding, and it encourages practices of care, honesty, and responsibility that sustain people in struggle over time. Comrades may develop trust, closeness, or mutual support through shared work and consent.

At the same time, comradeship is not in itself a friendship, romantic partnership, familial relationship, or an employer/employee relationship. While relationships of different sorts can develop between comrades, it is always important to communicate clearly with each other when crossing a boundary from comradeship to something else. Comradeship does not, in itself, guarantee personal intimacy or emotional access, nor does it override shared norms, boundaries, or democratic accountability.

Conflict: A disagreement based on opposing interests or perspectives, especially when one or more parties experience emotional distress that interferes with finding a joint solution. Conflict is a normal and expected part of political organizing and does not, on its own, constitute harm. DSA’s grievance policy is designed to respond to cases of harm, including harassment, and does not govern conflict, such as ordinary political or interpersonal disagreements. However, the chapter is committed to identifying unhealthy conflict, whether political or interpersonal, supporting members in navigating conflict with care, and intervening before or when conflict escalates to become cases of harm.

Hurt: An action or interaction that activates an existing wound or vulnerability, but the actor is not at fault for causing the underlying harm. Repair and accountability may still be appropriate depending on context and impact.

Harm: Actions or patterns of behavior that negatively impact a member’s physical, emotional, or psychological safety, dignity, or ability to participate freely in chapter life or that undermine collective trust, democratic participation, or the healthy functioning of the chapter. Harm may be interpersonal or organizational in nature, and may affect individuals, groups, or the chapter as a whole. Harm may occur regardless of intent and often involves power imbalances. Harm is distinct from crime, which refers to actions defined and prosecuted within the carceral legal system. Examples of harm may include, but are not limited to:

• Repeated behaviors that intimidate, demean, isolate, ostracize or undermine a member’s sense of safety or belonging
• Retaliation against a member for raising concerns, reporting harm, or setting boundaries
• Misuse of formal or informal power to silence dissent, control decision-making, pressure others into compliance, or avoid or deny accountability
• Breaches of confidentiality that expose members to emotional, social, or political harm
• Organizational practices that consistently marginalize certain members or groups, discourage participation, ignore or deny members’ agency, or undermine democratic processes
• Public or private actions that erode collective trust, escalate conflict, or destabilize the chapter’s ability to function in a healthy and accountable way

These examples are illustrative only and do not limit how harm may be experienced or identified in specific contexts.

Harassment: Unwelcome conduct based on sex, race, disability, or another protected class, as defined in applicable legal and organizational policies. Harassment is a type of harm. Harassment may be verbal, physical, visual, or written, and may occur in person or through digital platforms.

Abuse: A form of interpersonal harm characterized by repeated or sustained behaviors that create, exploit, or reinforce formal or informal power imbalances to control, intimidate, coerce, manipulate, or violate another person’s autonomy or consent. Abuse may be emotional, psychological, physical, sexual, economic, or social in nature and is defined by its impact, not the intent of the person causing harm. Single incidents may constitute abuse when they involve severe violations of autonomy, consent, or safety.

Survivor-Centered Approaches: In cases where harm involves interpersonal violence, abuse, sexual harm, stalking, or other violations of bodily autonomy or personal safety, MDC DSA’s grievance process will prioritize survivor-centered approaches. These approaches emphasize informed consent, respect for boundaries, survivor control over how information is shared, and meaningful survivor input into the forms of accountability pursued.

Organizational Misconduct: This term refers to conduct that violates the Metro DC DSA Chapter Bylaws, the National DSA Code of Conduct for Members, or the National DSA Meeting Code of Conduct, particularly where such conduct materially undermines democratic participation, collective governance, or the safety and inclusion of members within DSA. Organizational misconduct is governed by this grievance policy and is a form of harm that impacts shared democratic norms, organizational processes, and collective trust. It may overlap with interpersonal harm, including harassment or abuse. In some cases, organizational misconduct may involve direct harm to identifiable individuals. In other cases, it may primarily affect the chapter as a whole, even when no single victim is identifiable.

Political disagreement, internal organizing, comradely criticism, and the expression of dissenting views do not, on their own, constitute organizational misconduct. Conduct rises to the level of organizational misconduct only when it aligns with prohibited behavior under the referenced Codes of Conduct and has a demonstrable negative impact on democratic participation, safety, or shared governance. Cases of organizational misconduct may be initiated through disciplinary referral by HGOs or the Steering Committee, or through a complaint by any chapter member, and these cases will be addressed through the steps outlined in Article 6 of the Unified Grievance Policy. While the same procedural framework applies, responses will be tailored to the nature of the case. Some cases may require survivor-centered approaches, while others may primarily require organizational accountability and structural remedies.

Political Discipline: This term refers to the disciplinary process used to address conduct that is found to be in “substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization,” (defined as “political in nature” in this resolution) as defined in Article 1, Section 3 of National DSA bylaws. Substantial disagreement with the principles or policies of the organization is defined as conduct that includes patterns of political advocacy, organizing, or public actions that fundamentally contradict DSA’s stated principles. Political discipline is distinct from the grievance process and is directly adjudicated through DSA’s chapter and national political decision-making bodies under Article 13 of the Unified Grievance Policy. Therefore, the grievance process outlined in this resolution does not apply to political discipline or political expulsion. However, prior to the Steering Committee initiating proceedings of political discipline, the Steering Committee is required to consult the chapter HGOs on the matters of the case for their advice and feedback.

Person who experienced harm, victim, or survivor: We use these phrases interchangeably throughout this policy to reflect and affirm the different ways that people who experience harm choose to self-identify.

Person who caused harm or harmer: Inspired by generationFIVE’s Transformative Justice Handbook, we use the phrase “person who caused harm” throughout this policy. Because harm is not interchangeable with crime, we do not use the words “perpetrator,” “offender,” or “criminal” to refer to this person.

Restorative Justice: A framework that focuses on the harms done, and resulting needs and obligations of all parties involved. Restorative justice has roots in different Indigenous cultures around the world, especially First Nations (Canada and USA) and Maori people (New Zealand). Restorative approaches can include prevention-focused community-building circles, victim-centered restorative processes, and reentry processes for the person who caused harm. A restorative process acknowledges the harm that occurred, centers the victim’s needs, and identifies the obligations of the person who caused harm to repair the harm they caused. Engaging in this process requires that the person who caused harm admits harm and holds themselves accountable, informed consent, and confidentiality from all parties. This accountability does not require the victim’s forgiveness and includes consequences. These consequences are not inherently carceral, but are aimed at accountability, repair, and restoring the wholeness and safety of the community.

Transformative Justice: Though often used interchangeably with the term restorative justice, transformative justice builds on restorative justice by focusing on systems and transforming the initial conditions that made harm possible in the first place.

Community Accountability: A strategy of responding to violence that centers community responsibility rather than prison/police-based strategies. From INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, community accountability is a process by which communities:

• Create and affirm values & practices that resist abuse and oppression and encourage safety, support, and accountability.
• Provide safety & support to community members who are violently targeted that respects their self-determination.
• Develop sustainable strategies to address community members’ abusive behavior, creating a process for them to account for their actions and transform their behavior.
• Commit to ongoing development of all members of the community, and the community itself, to transform the political conditions that reinforce violence and oppression.

Conflict Management

Not all disagreement, tension, or interpersonal difficulty rises to the level of grievable harm. For example, conflict alone falls outside of the grievance process. At the same time, unresolved or mishandled conflict can escalate into harm — particularly when it is ignored, minimized, or addressed without care. A healthy internal democracy requires both a robust grievance process to address harm and misconduct and proactive infrastructure to support members in navigating conflict constructively before it escalates. There are forms of interpersonal and inter-formational disagreement, misunderstanding, political difference, or stylistic or tactical choices that may lead to conflict without necessarily constituting grievable harm. These conflicts may result in hurt feelings, damaged relationships, breakdowns in trust, or misalignment within the chapter, and they deserve support and opportunities for repair when the people involved wish to pursue that. However, conflict should not be automatically understood as harm. While conflict can cause harm when mishandled, it is essential to ensure that all disagreement, critique, or political strategy are not mischaracterized as inherently harmful. To build consistent, chapter-wide capacity for addressing conflict in healthy and preventative ways, the Conflict Support Commission (CSC) will support members in navigating conflict constructively and reducing the likelihood that conflict escalates into harm.

As outlined in CR2, passed at the MDC DSA 2025 Convention, the CSC will collaborate with the National Committee of Grievance Officers (CGO), chapter HGOs, and relevant external partners to prioritize political education, skills-building in trauma-informed organizing, peer accountability, and conflict transformation. The CSC will also maintain a living resource hub of conflict navigation tools, feedback models, facilitation guides, and peer support protocols.

They will also offer these forms of support:

• Voluntary peer mediation or facilitated dialogue between members;
• Restorative conversation models and conflict coaching;
• Consultation and resource referrals (e.g. to external facilitators or trainings);
• Guidance on distinguishing between interpersonal conflict and grievable harm;
• Feedback practice workshops where members can develop skills in offering and receiving criticism grounded in solidarity, humility, and clarity;
• Conflict story circles and peer-led debrief formats for reflection and learning from past or ongoing tensions;
• Self-initiated conversation templates and tools for navigating hard conversations and giving feedback across political and positional differences.

Participation in CSC-facilitated processes is voluntary for all parties. This consent-based structure is intentional and reflects the CSC’s preventative, non-enforcement role, which is distinct from the grievance process. The Conflict Support Commission shall not receive, investigate, adjudicate, or otherwise address grievances. The CSC shall not collect evidence, make disciplinary recommendations, or mediate active grievances or disciplinary referrals. Grievance and disciplinary matters are the exclusive responsibility of the HGOs and the grievance process outlined in this policy.

In addition, CR6, passed at the MDC DSA 2025 Convention, creates chapter-wide spaces for open discussion of political differences. Any member can propose topics for these discussion forums, which will be facilitated by Steering Committee members or appointed members, in consultation with the Campaigns Council, Member Engagement Department, and Political Education Working Group.

Grievance Process

Grievance Committee

To ensure meaningful capacity and distribution of decision-making power and responsibility, we propose the creation of a Grievance Committee composed of all chapter Harassment and Grievance Officers (HGOs). The Grievance Committee functions as the primary coordinating and accountability body for the chapter’s grievance work. Participation in the committee is a core responsibility of serving as HGO and includes comprehensive training, as outlined below, regular coordination, and adherence to the Unified Grievance Policy as detailed below (i.e., HGOs shall not simultaneously hold a position on the chapter Steering Committee). The Grievance Committee may develop internal structures, roles, and meeting practices as needed to support consistent process, mutual accountability, and the effective handling of grievances.

HGOs shall be appointed by the Steering Committee through a rolling application process, for a minimum of two in the Grievance Committee and a maximum of ten. The Steering Committee shall actively recruit HGOs from a diversity of branches and Working Groups, both to raise awareness of the grievance process across the chapter and to reduce the chances of conflicts of interest that may require recusal. At least one current or former HGO will also simultaneously serve on the Conflict Support Commission, as outlined above.

Advisors and Support Persons

Pursuant to the Unified Grievance Policy, at any stage of a grievance process, both the complainant and alleged harmer may each designate one chapter member to serve as an advisor or support person, provided that the named individual agrees to serve in that role and is not otherwise a party to the incident or a named witness to the conduct described in the complaint. The Unified Grievance Policy explicitly permits an alleged harmer to designate a support person. This provision extends equivalent access to a support person for the complainant at the chapter level in order to promote fairness, reduce power imbalances, and support the wellbeing of all parties navigating a highly stressful and sensitive process.

The advisor or support person’s role is strictly limited to providing guidance and/or emotional support to the person they are supporting. They may not speak on behalf of the member, participate directly in proceedings, interfere with meetings, contact other parties involved in the case, or otherwise influence the grievance process. They may attend investigatory meetings with the person they are supporting as emotional support only.

Advisors or support persons hold no formal authority within the grievance process and must comply with all confidentiality and conduct requirements outlined in this policy and the Unified Grievance Policy. Failure to adhere to these standards may result in their removal from the process. Any conduct by an advisor or support person that constitutes retaliation, intimidation, or interference with the grievance process will be subject to a separate disciplinary referral under the Unified Grievance Policy.

While this policy does not establish formal Survivor Support Teams or Accountability Teams at this time, the chapter recognizes the importance of robust survivor support and accountability structures beyond the minimum requirements of the grievance process. MDC DSA is committed to continuing to develop its grievance infrastructure over time, including exploring survivor-centered support models and accountability mechanisms that strengthen care for impacted members and increase the likelihood of follow-through on accountability. Through ongoing political education, training, and collaboration among the Grievance Committee, Conflict Support Commission, and chapter leadership, the chapter intends to build the capacity necessary to responsibly implement more structured survivor support and accountability practices in the future, grounded in trauma-informed, anti-oppressive, and survivor-centered frameworks.

Accountability

We recognize that in the course of resolving grievance cases, the person who caused harm (and potentially their enablers) may try to avoid accountability or responsibility in a number of ways, including but not limited to retaliating, driving opponents out of the chapter, “rules lawyering,” and breaking confidentiality without consent. When investigating and resolving cases, HGOs and chapter leaders should be aware of and consider such behaviors (i.e. DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender).

Though outlined in the Unified Grievance Policy, we strongly emphasize that our grievance process:

• Centers and supports survivors by prioritizing their agency, safety, and expressed boundaries. People responding to a grievance should listen to a survivor and respect their wishes regarding how their story is shared (if at all) and what steps will be taken to respond to the harm caused. Survivors should never be pressured to choose one response over another, including any number of restorative practices the chapter offers.
• Respects the confidentiality of both the survivor and the person who caused harm. If anyone believes it would be helpful to share any portion of a survivor’s story with someone, they must get permission from the survivor first and understand what information is okay to share and what information should stay private.
• Acknowledges the possibility of power in personal relationships affecting the outcome of grievance cases by requiring investigators and decision-makers with conflicts of interest to recuse themselves from all discussions and votes related to the case.
• Recognizes that “restorative” language can be weaponized to avoid accountability. MDC DSA rejects pressuring survivors to forgive, prioritizing chapter or group optics over repair, and forcing reconciliation. Restorative processes must never be misused to override survivor boundaries, rush closure, avoid structural accountability, or substitute for discipline when warranted.

Cultivating a chapter-wide culture of accountability includes building and practicing the muscle of introspection. Part of the intent of the grievance process in ensuring accountability means creating opportunities for members who cause harm (and any enablers) to reflect on their behavior. Accountability is also not limited to individual behavior alone, but may require collective or chapter-wide responsibility when harm is enabled, minimized, or reproduced through organizational culture or group dynamics. In such cases, accountability plans may include expectations for leadership, working groups, or the broader membership to engage in political education, behavior change, boundary-setting, or structural reforms as appropriate.

Through ongoing training and political education (see the “Political Education” section below), chapter members are encouraged to recognize these dynamics, resist enabling behaviors, and uphold shared norms that prioritize safety, consent, and survivor autonomy. While formal accountability decisions rest with HGOs and chapter leadership as defined policy, meaningful cultural change requires active participation and responsibility from the membership as a whole.

Conflicts of Interest, Dual Roles, and Recusal

HGOs and Steering Committee members must disclose potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from investigating or adjudicating any case where their involvement could reasonably undermine the fairness, integrity, or perceived legitimacy of the process. Recusal is not based solely on a person’s self-assessment or “impartiality.” All participants are expected to recognize that everyone holds biases and social positions, and to take a structural approach to conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest may exist when an individual holds a “dual role” or overlapping relationship with any party to the grievance, including but not limited to:

• Close personal friendships, romantic relationships, or familial relationships
• Coworker or supervisory relationships
• Ongoing close collaboration in a project, committee, working group, or campaign where the individuals regularly coordinate strategy, share responsibility for outcomes, or rely on mutual trust to carry out work
• Other relationships where actions taken in the grievance process could reasonably affect the external relationship, or vice versa.

Structural co-membership on the same elected body, standing committee, or working group, on its own, does not constitute close collaborative relationships for purposes of recusal. If any HGO or Steering Committee member believes that participation in the grievance process could place strain on another relationship, create pressure to act in a certain way, or reasonably call their role into question, they must recuse themselves. When uncertainty exists, individuals are encouraged to err on the side of recusal and may consult with other HGOs or the Committee of Grievance Officers to determine appropriate next steps.

This policy recognizes that relationships within the chapter are often overlapping and complex, and that closeness or shared history may shape how people understand situations. However, in the context of the grievance process, maintaining fairness, survivor trust, and the perceived legitimacy of outcomes requires prioritizing structural safeguards over individual judgement. Even when relationships are positive or well-intentioned, close personal or collaborative relationships may create pressure, bias, or the appearance of bias, and therefore generally warrant recusal.

Because bias is often unconscious and shaped by social position, relationships, and institutional context, and because the chapter does not yet have consistent, robust mechanisms for bias mitigation, recusal functions as a structural safeguard rather than a personal judgement. As the chapter builds greater shared capacity to recognize bias and power dynamics through training (see the “Political Education” section below), the goal is to rely less on individual discretion and more on transparent, consistent structures that protect all parties.

Separation of Harm Infrastructure from Political/Factional Discourse

Individuals serving in HGO roles may not reference, allude to, summarize, characterize, or invoke grievance-related information, complaint histories, or grievance-adjacent material in public political, factional, or strategic debates, including Slack threads, meetings, or member-wide communications. This includes indirect references (e.g., “as an HGO I’ve seen…”, “based on grievance experiences…”, or citing prior incidents as illustrative examples) when such references function to legitimize or advance a political argument.

HGOs may discuss general, anonymized, and pre-approved trends or procedural issues only in designated internal governance contexts (e.g., with other HGOs, Steering, or designated national oversight bodies), and not in live political disputes. The purpose of this boundary is to preserve trust in grievance processes, prevent retraumatization, and ensure that harm infrastructure is not perceived as politically or factionally aligned or politically instrumentalized.

HGO Political Statements

While HGOs have the right to political engagement and discussing political beliefs in public spaces, they are expected to recognize that any perception of hostility towards the political beliefs of some chapter members may lead those chapter members to fear bias and rejection by those HGOs if they report a grievance. As such, HGOs are expected to hold themselves to higher standards than other chapter members in their perceived openness to and understanding of political positions outside of their own. Criticizing other members’ beliefs or political actions as contrary to the goals of socialism or the stated values of DSA, particularly in a public forum, is likely to undermine trust in the ability of HGOs to understand and support chapter members in the grievance process regardless of their political beliefs.

Confidentiality Violations

Any Steering Committee member, HGO, or Advisors and Support Persons who discloses protected grievance information outside of established grievance protocol and without the explicit consent of the impacted party shall be subject to immediate disciplinary referral under the Unified Grievance Policy. Any member who violates confidentiality must recuse themselves from the grievance in question and any related proceedings and may face potential consequences, including suspension or removal from their leadership or appointed position. Confidentiality violations involving sexual harm or intimate testimony will be treated as aggravated misconduct due to heightened risk of retraumatization. All of the aforementioned chapter members must sign a confidentiality notice before reviewing any confidential information.

Overview of the Unified Grievance Policy Process

• Read the Unified Grievance Policy in full here.
• Read the HGO Investigation Guide in full here.

How is a complaint made?

Complaints by members are confidential reports of how another member’s conduct is negatively affecting the member sharing the report. Complaints can include the filing of formal grievances, reports of alleged violations of the Chapter’s Code of Conduct (outside of complaints related to political discipline, as stated in Article 2, Section 3 of Metro DC DSA bylaws and Article 1, Section 3 of National DSA bylaws), or voicing concern about another member’s actions without being sure if that behavior violates the Code of Conduct. Complaints can be sent to an account that only HGOs can access: hgo@mdcdsa.org.

What is a disciplinary referral?

When a chapter member has concerns about another member’s conduct that harms other chapter members or the chapter as a whole, they may inform the HGOs, even if they do not consider themselves the directly harmed party. The HGO will consult with the reporting member and may, as appropriate, speak with other potentially impacted members to assess the concerns raised. Based on this preliminary review, the HGO will determine whether to issue a disciplinary referral, which triggers an investigation into the alleged conduct. The Steering Committee or Grievance Committee may also initiate a disciplinary referral when they believe a member has allegedly violated the Unified Grievance Policy, Codes of Conduct, or other governing authority. Such referrals will be made in the same manner as a complaint and will be treated as a complaint under the Unified Grievance Policy. All disciplinary referrals must be routed through the HGOs for investigation and report-writing prior to any Steering Committee deliberation or vote. The Steering Committee may not independently investigate or adjudicate misconduct outside this process, with the exception of political discipline.

What happens after a complaint or disciplinary referral is made?

When a chapter member brings forward a concern, HGOs may first meet with the person to understand the nature of the concern, the information available, and what outcome or support the person is seeking. This initial intake conversation is intended to clarify options and does not, on its own, initiate a formal grievance or trigger investigative timelines.

Following this intake, the member may choose to:

1. File a formal grievance and proceed through the grievance process;
2. Pursue mediation, conflict support or other non-grievance resources, including the Conflict Support Commission, where appropriate; or
3. Take no further action at this time.

HGOs remain the primary intake point for formal grievances. Use of mediation, conflict support, or other informal processes is voluntary and does not preclude a member from later filing a grievance. HGOs must not discourage or delay the filing of a formal grievance when a member wishes to pursue one.

When the HGOs receive a formal grievance from the person who filed it (complainant), or a disciplinary referral, they must inform the alleged harmer (respondent) within 7 days of receiving the complaint that an investigation will take place. The respondent then has 7 days to respond. If they submit a response, HGOs first determine whether an informal restorative process is possible. If involved parties agree to this process, it may be used to resolve the grievance. If any party does not agree, or if the respondent does not submit a response, HGOs will proceed with a formal investigation.

In cases involving interpersonal violence, abuse, sexual harm, stalking, or other violations of bodily autonomy or personal safety, HGOs will consult with the complainant regarding safety needs, desired supportive measures, and boundaries around information-sharing prior to determining investigative steps. This consultation is intended to inform how the process is conducted, consistent with the Unified Grievance Policy, and does not require the complainant to participate in any way they are not comfortable with.

During an investigation, it may be appropriate to implement supportive measures that preserve or restore the complainant’s access to chapter spaces and ensure their safety, including (but not limited to) issuing a unilateral no-contact order prohibiting the respondent from contacting the complainant or sharing chapter spaces with the complainant. If this is warranted, the HGOs handling the investigation will communicate this to the respondent, after consulting with the complainant, on the method and content of communication to ensure confidentiality is respected.

After completing the investigation, the HGOs will determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred and whether that conduct constitutes a violation of DSA policy warranting discipline against the respondent and/or continued supportive measures for the complainant. If the HGOs determine that a violation warranting discipline occurred, they will issue a written report containing findings and recommendations to the Steering Committee within 30 days of the complaint or referral being filed. The report must be shared with the Steering Committee five days prior to any scheduled meeting at which the report will be discussed. To respect confidentiality, any Steering Committee meeting in which an investigative report is reviewed, discussed, or voted upon shall be held in closed session. The report will also be shared with the complainant and the respondent. In complex cases involving more than two parties, the HGOs may redact information that a given party is not entitled to access, including portions of testimony that would compromise another person’s privacy or safety.

Prior to reviewing any confidential information, all non-recused Steering Committee members must sign the Chapter Impartiality Form. Any conflicts of interest or inability to remain impartial must be disclosed to the HGOs prior to receiving or reviewing confidential information. The Steering Committee must issue a disciplinary decision within 30 days of receiving the HGOs’ report.

The Steering Committee shall not vote on disciplinary measures at the first meeting in which the report is discussed. Instead, the Steering Committee will hold an initial meeting to review and deliberate on the report, and then schedule a separate meeting, to occur within 2 weeks, at which a vote on discipline will be taken. The Steering Committee may vote on discipline at the initial meeting only by a two-thirds vote of the full Steering Committee to suspend the standard 2-meeting process. While this option is available, it is not recommended as a best practice and should be used only in cases where consensus is clear.

The Steering Committee may schedule additional closed-session meetings to deliberate as necessary prior to voting, provided that the final disciplinary decision is rendered within a 30-day window. If any party disagrees with the outcome, they may file an appeal to the National Grievance Panel.

What might an HGO recommend in their grievance report to the Steering Committee?

HGOs may recommend mediation, training, talking circles, discussion, or other restorative justice practices. They may also recommend suspensions with or without conditions (note that no suspension can last longer than three years), removal from chapter committee(s), voluntary resignation, or expulsion (note that, according to the Unified Grievance Policy, chapter expulsions will begin a national expulsion process).

What happens to the report after the process has concluded?

The HGO tasked with investigating the grievance should make reasonable efforts to guard the complainant’s confidential information by providing both a redacted report and a password-locked version of the original, unredacted report for filing purposes.

Ongoing Political Education

The goal of providing ongoing political education and training is not merely to implement a functional grievance policy, but to meaningfully build and foster a chapter culture that is safe, accountable, and humane for all its members. Education must therefore occur at all levels of the chapter and be grounded in trauma-informed, anti-oppressive, and survivor-centered frameworks. Political education is also intended to reduce the likelihood that survivors will be asked to repeatedly explain or defend basic concepts of power, coercion, or harm to be taken seriously

In this context, political education can include, but is not limited to, participating in training, reading and exploring resources, and seeking additional support in community as listed below. There is no “end goal” where one arrives at being completely informed. Rather, political education in its various forms is a continuous journey of engaging individually and collectively to identify, understand, and strengthen healthy relationships with ourselves and with others.

The minimum requirement for chapter training is outlined in Resolution 2025-06, passed by the chapter in 2025.

Training for Grievance Committee members or HGOs: Because HGOs are responsible for receiving disclosures of harm, supporting impacted parties, and stewarding sensitive processes, it is essential that they are trained to recognize and understand the complex dynamics and impacts of trauma, power, and coercion. All HGOs must complete the CGO’s HGO 101 and Conflict Resolution trainings, and are strongly encouraged to complete training on Conflict Engagement, Navigating Confidentiality, Crafting Appropriate Remedies for Misconduct, Writing a Report, and related topics, in addition to pursuing additional training by and beyond the CGO. HGOs are also expected to familiarize themselves with the grievance filing process, investigation guide, grievance document, chapter impartiality form, and other relevant materials.

This training is intended to minimize the risk of retraumatization, increase survivor trust in the grievance process, and strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of harm response. Grievance Committee members are encouraged to seek outside training from organizations not affiliated with DSA in order to deepen their understanding of trauma-informed and survivor-centered responses, and training should be updated over time to reflect evolving best practices.

Training for chapter leadership: Steering Committee members and other chapter leaders play a decisive role in shaping how harm is understood, addressed, and prevented within the chapter. While leadership can help create safer conditions for accountability and repair, it can also unintentionally cause harm when power is used to protect individuals, relationships, or the chapter’s reputation at the expense of members who experienced harm. For this reason, it is vital that chapter leaders understand both formal and informal power dynamics inherent in leadership roles, including how credibility, access, social relationships, and decision-making authority can influence grievance outcomes.

As deliberating and voting on Code of Conduct (CoC) violations and grievance matters is a core responsibility of Steering Committee members and should be done responsibly and skillfully, all newly elected and non-consecutively re-elected members must complete the CGO’s HGO 101 and Conflict Resolution trainings within 60 days of the start of their new term. All consecutively re-elected members must renew required training within 90 days of the start of their new term. Prior to presenting any grievance report, HGOs will request documentation of completed training.

In addition to required trainings, all chapter leaders, including Steering Committee members and branch and Working Group leaders, are strongly encouraged to pursue ongoing trainings focused on confidentiality, conflict deescalation, restorative justice, and centering survivors grounded in anti-oppressive and trauma-informed frameworks, as well as implicit bias, affinity bias, conflicts of interest, and the limits of individual impartiality.

Training for rank-and-file members: Rank and file members are the largest group within the chapter, with thousands across all eight wards of DC, Northern Virginia, Montgomery County, and Prince George’s County. They play a critical role in shaping chapter culture, responding to conflict, and preventing harm. Broad-based political education on conflict, power, and grievance processes therefore has the greatest potential impact. The Grievance Committee will work with the Member Engagement Department to incorporate training on the grievance policy in all new member orientations and new member cohorts, as well as with the Steering Committee to incorporate training on the grievance policy in at least four General Body Meetings or chapter-wide gatherings per year. As relevant, they will also work with the Conflict Support Commission to raise awareness of additional support, political education, and skills-building.

Political education for rank-and-file members is also intended to equip bystanders and third parties with a shared understanding of power, coercion, and harm so that responsibility for recognizing and naming these dynamics does not fall disproportionately on survivors. By building common language and baseline understanding across the chapter, members are better prepared to respond supportively, interrupt harmful dynamics, and avoid reproducing patterns where impacted people are asked to repeatedly explain or justify their experiences in order to be taken seriously.

All chapter members, from leadership to rank and file, are also encouraged to seek out opportunities for ongoing political education on the following subjects:

• Historical trauma, including dissecting and analyzing the first harms (colonization and chattel slavery) and exploring ways we can hold one another responsible for repairing those harms
• Oppression rooted in sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy), race, color, national origin, disability, class, religion, and other protected classes
• Circle keeping, pods, and other restorative practices methods
• Dynamics of abuse and coercion, including the role of formal and informal power, how to recognize abuse, and respond to it
• Distinctions between harm, misconduct, and abuse, and how power dynamics shape severity, impact, and appropriate accountability responses
• Power, bias, and decision-making, including implicit bias, affinity bias, conflict-of-interest dynamics, and how structural power operates even in volunteer organizations
• Trauma: symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); how victims and survivors experience trauma; and how to support people coping with trauma
• Safety planning tools
• Foundations of healthy relationships, including enthusiastic consent and how power dynamics affect consent and agency
• Toxic masculinity and its effects on individuals and communities
• White supremacy and its effects on individuals and communities
• Other various subjects related to conflict and grievance, including but not limited to: varying communication styles, effective self-care practices, mediation

Text-based communication: Communication on asynchronous, text-based platforms like Slack, Signal, or social media posts have unique potential to cause hurt due to their lack of nonverbal cues of positive intent, humans’ cognitive biases to interpret ambiguous information as negative, and the potential to reread the same post multiple times and develop an increasingly hostile narrative about the poster. Members often make social media posts when they are isolated and distressed, resulting in greater impulsivity and less felt obligation towards their comrades, further compounding the likelihood of hurt.

The hurt/harm a member experiences in response to a social media post is valid and should be supported as such. Nonetheless, members who make harmful posts on text-based platforms, particularly when they occur in isolation, shall be evaluated in the context of their global behavior within the chapter and towards chapter members who experienced harm from these posts. HGOs, Steering Committee, or the Conflict Support Commission may choose to incorporate education on how online platforms influence social communication and interpretation into any grievance or conflict management process as appropriate.

Trusted Resources and External Support

In addition to chapter-based training and political education, members may benefit from access to trusted external resources that provide guidance, education, or support related to harassment, grievance processes, trauma-informed responses, and survivor-centered practices. These resources are intended to supplement, not replace, chapter processes, and to offer additional context, learning opportunities, or support — particularly in situations where members are seeking information independently, need clarity about their options, or prefer to engage in resources outside of the chapter.

This list of resources and support is meant to change and grow over time. If you have additional suggestions, please email them to hgo@mdcdsa.org.

DC Metro Area Resources

Metro DC DSA Abolition Training Series — Managing Conflict & Harm in Organizing Spaces

Training on identifying and responding to harm, restorative and transformative justice practices, and creating safe organizing spaces.

DC Rape Crisis Center (DCRCC)

Provides confidential crisis support, counseling, advocacy, and professional training related to sexual violence and trauma.

DC Survivors and Advocates for Empowerment (SAFE)

A 24/7 crisis intervention agency for domestic violence in DC.

DC Peace Team

A community-based organization providing nonviolent accompaniment, de-escalation, conflict intervention, and training rooted in collective safety and anti-oppressive practice.

Sliding scale therapy services are available through the DC Department of Behavioral Health, the George Washington University Center Clinic (DC), the George Washington University Meltzer Center (DC), the James J. Gray Psychotherapy Training Clinic (DC), the Fairfax County Community Services Board (Fairfax, VA), the George Mason University Center for Community Mental Health (Fairfax, VA), the Arlington Community Services Board (Arlington, VA), the Alexandria Community Services Board (Alexandria, VA), or The Women’s Center (Vienna, VA).

National Education & Support Resources

DSA National Harassment & Grievance Resources

National training and guidance on harassment prevention, grievance processes, and conflict management strategies within DSA.

INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence

A national movement organization advancing survivor-centered, anti-carceral frameworks for addressing violence through community accountability and power analysis.

National Sexual Assault Hotline (RAINN)

24/7 confidential support for survivors of sexual violence.

Phone: 800-656-4673

GenerationFIVE

A national resource hub focused on non-carceral responses to harm, accountability, and community-based safety.

The Duluth Model — Power & Control Framework

An influential framework for understanding the dynamics of abuse and intimate partner violence through the lens of power and control, rather than isolated acts of harm.

Creative Interventions Toolkit

Community-based tools for addressing interpersonal harm and violence outside of punitive systems.