Discipline & Appeals

This process applies to complaints involving applicants, members, supporters, assessors, nominators, panellists, volunteers, or other participants acting within membership-related activity.

Complaints should describe the conduct or decision being challenged, the people involved, when the matter occurred, and any evidence or witnesses reasonably available at the time of submission.

The Foundation may decline to open a formal matter where the complaint is clearly outside scope, wholly unsupported, abusive, or duplicative of a matter already resolved without new information.

On receipt, the Foundation performs an initial screening to determine whether the matter falls within membership scope and whether immediate preservation, safety, or fairness concerns exist.

The Foundation aims to acknowledge intake promptly and to decide within a reasonable period whether the matter will be dismissed, handled informally, referred elsewhere, or opened for investigation.

Delays can occur when evidence is incomplete, parties are unavailable, or the issues are complex. Administrative delay alone does not invalidate a matter where the process remains substantially fair.

Where there is credible concern about safety, retaliation, process interference, or evidence preservation, the Foundation may impose interim measures while a matter is under review.

Interim measures may include temporary communication limits, event restrictions, recusal from review roles, temporary pause on an application, or temporary suspension of particular privileges pending outcome.

Interim measures are risk controls, not final findings, and should be tailored to the needs of the situation where practical.

An authorised reviewer may gather statements, records, communications, platform logs, public materials, and other relevant evidence reasonably necessary to assess the matter.

The subject of a complaint will ordinarily be given notice of the allegation and a fair opportunity to respond unless immediate notice would create a serious risk of retaliation, evidence destruction, or harm.

Parties may be asked to respond within stated deadlines. Failure to respond does not prevent the Foundation from proceeding on the information available.

Where a formal outcome is under consideration, a designated decision-maker or panel reviews the available record and determines whether the relevant policy was violated.

The review may consider reliability of evidence, seriousness, pattern, impact, abuse of position, cooperation, prior history, credibility concerns, and the extent to which trust in Foundation processes was undermined.

Perfect evidentiary certainty is not required; decisions may be made on a reasoned assessment of the available information and the Foundation's duty to protect participants and process integrity.

Possible outcomes include no action, educational guidance, warning, written conditions, supporter disqualification, reassignment of duties, interview deferral, application denial, temporary suspension, removal from committee roles, or expulsion.

Sanctions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and may be combined with corrective or preventive conditions where appropriate.

The Foundation may also take operational corrective action, such as revising a process, re-running a review, or reassigning a decision-maker, where the issue is procedural rather than purely disciplinary.

The affected participant will generally receive written notice of the outcome, any sanction imposed, the effective date, and any available appeal deadline or conditions.

The Foundation may limit disclosure where privacy, safety, or legal considerations require confidentiality, but it should communicate enough information for the recipient to understand the operative result.

Appeals must be filed within the published appeal window, ordinarily 30 days from the outcome notice unless a different window is stated for a specific process.

An appeal should identify the ground relied upon, such as material new evidence, significant procedural unfairness, conflict affecting the original decision, or clearly disproportionate sanction.

Appeals are reviewed independently from the original decision-makers wherever practical. The appeal body may uphold, modify, reverse, or remit the matter for further review.

Appeal decisions are final within the Foundation's internal process unless the Board authorises extraordinary review in exceptional circumstances.

The Foundation retains conduct and appeal records for governance, legal, and risk-management purposes in accordance with its privacy and retention framework.

A declined or sanctioned individual may reapply or seek restoration only where the outcome, sanction conditions, or later Foundation decision permits it.