Mandates
ISKCON Dispute Resolution Committee (IDRC)
ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office (IDRO)
Director of the ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office
There shall be an ISKCON Dispute Resolution Committee (IDRC) and an ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office to institute and conduct a system of formal dispute resolution in ISKCON. The members of the IDRC shall be the Minister of Justice, a Co-Director of ISKCONResolve, and the Director of the ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office. The IDRC shall promulgate policies for the operation of the IDRO within the scope of these mandates. A draft of a set of initial policies for the IDRO is given at the end of this document.
The mandates are described as follows:
A. Jurisdiction—what cases will be handled?
Generally, there will be two types of cases handled by the IDRO:
1.When both devotee parties use the system as in a “civil” case (a case between two devotees).
2.ISKCON leadership or rank-and-file members can compel a case against other leaders or rank-and-file member(s) for improper behavior or breaking of an ISKCON law.
A dispute case shall be eligible for referral to IDRO and the formal dispute resolution system if, in the opinion of the IDRO Director:
Generally, it is ecclesiastical in nature, i.e. pertaining to ISKCON. Secular cases will generally not be entertained.
It is not frivolous in nature
It has substance
Generally, attempts were made to solve it via other avenues, such as alternative dispute resolution and/or a decision by an appropriate ISKCON authority
It concerns a violation of ISKCON Law
It does not conflict with or compete with the jurisdiction of the local public court system
The IDRO should safeguard this process from ill-motivation. If a complaint is considered by the IDRO to be purposely frivolous or otherwise ill-motivated, the IDRO Director may register a case according to the procedures of the IDRO against the complainant.
Individuals will not be reprimanded, subjected to reprisals or threats, or discriminated against, for initiating an inquiry or complaint in good faith.
Regarding anonymous complaints, see ISKCON’s Fair Process document.
Should a case involving the alleged violation of ISKCON law be accepted by the IDRO, participation is not optional. Sanctions as per ISKCON law will apply to those who do not cooperate with the IDRO process.
B. When is it appropriate to refer a matter to IDRO?
Appropriate:
When Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR-ISKCONResolve) doesn’t settle the matter to the satisfaction of either party.
When it is necessary to bring to light issues that can only be addressed in a dispute resolution format.
When those involved can’t participate well in a collaborative process.
When an ISKCON officer can show that a dispute resolution process is more desirable than he or she taking a managerial decision.
Where cases involving defamation of character need to be investigated.
Inappropriate:
When the alleged behavior is considered criminal in the eyes of local law. (Instead, it should go to outside authorities.)
When the substance of the complaint is theological.
When the matter requires an ISKCON authority’s decision. This system does not circumvent standard managerial decisions by ISKCON leadership nor is it meant to allow leaders to neglect their duties.
When the matter would likely be best addressed by ADR.
When legal action involving ISKCON is underway in the public courts.
C. How will the expenses be covered?
Individual parties pay for arbitration. Generally they each pay 50%, though the parties may claim reimbursement of arbitration and other costs in their complaint. There will be standard fees for various aspects, which will be as low as practical.
In other cases, especially those involving the alleged breaking of an ISKCON law, fees will be decided by the IDRO. In some cases it may be appropriate to assign expenses to parties, but not always. In cases involving whistle-blowers, for example, the devotee reporting the wrongdoing will certainly not have to pay for that reporting. The IDRO will have to have a budget to cover the expenses of some cases.
The greatest need for funding will be related to investigative work, especially when investigator(s) will have to travel far distances.
There will be expenses related to the IDRO’s travelling to different areas in order to implement procedures as well as arrange training programs.
D. What will be the standards of evidence? Will there be a presumption of innocence?
The standard for both “civil” cases (between ISKCON members) and “criminal” cases (breaking of an ISKCON law) will be “clear and convincing guilt”. This is defined as: “The trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the “preponderance of evidence” standard but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Presumption of innocence will guide all dispute resolution processes in ISKCON.
E. How will the IDRO be managed?
The IDRO will be managed by a Director appointed as per the policies of the GBC Body and will have a central office that works in conjunction with ISKCONResolve and various ISKCON authorities. The Director will be responsible to recruit and train devotees who can fulfill the various roles within the IDRO, and in general will promote a healthy atmosphere of enforcement of ISKCON law and the prompt and equitable resolution of disputes in ISKCON. Needed funding for the central office will be provided through GBC budget allocations.
As the need arises, regional IDRO offices can be established, which will be funded regionally.
Draft of Initial Policies
ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office
Director of the ISKCON Dispute Resolution Office
Steps of the Judicial Process:
1. Referrals
From a failed mediation/dialogue process
From an ISKCON leader
From the Ombuds office
From an ISKCON member
Appealing an ISKCON leader’s decision (need to show that fair procedure wasn’t followed, or ISKCON law was possibly broken, or a higher ISKCON body has made referral)
2. Assessment of the Complaint/Case
The IDRO checks for suitability—is there merit for a case? A criterion for establishing merit will have to be established.
The IDRO provides options to the person when appropriate. Options include working with the relevant ISKCON authority and contacting ISKCONResolve.
The IDRO is responsible for determining if a formal dispute resolution process is required.
3. Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE).
The IDRO will ask parties, when appropriate, if they would agree to ENE, and the IDRO would choose the ENE evaluator. After the ENE, the IDRO would see if parties would agree to some process other than the judicial one (mediation/negotiation, etc).
ENE is a preliminary assessment of facts, evidence or case merits. It is a non-binding opinion but provides an unbiased evaluation on relative positions and guidance as to the likely outcome should the case be heard in dispute resolution system.
4. Arranging the Case
The Director will insure that the IDRO office deals with the various logistics of the case, informs parties of their rights and responsibilities and the process to be followed, arranges panelists, etc.
In rare cases, the IDRO representative and the panelist could be the same.
The IDRO can be a resource for both parties on how to build a case.
The IDRO has responsibility to make complainer and complainee stick to the evidence.
The IDRO helps in vetting witnesses.
5.Deciding if an investigation is needed, and, if so, designate an investigator. (See appendix on how the investigation will proceed.)
6.Choosing the Panelist
There will generally be one panelist, though at the Director's discretion three panelists may be chosen, such as in high-profile, weighty cases.
The IRDO will choose the panelist(s) from the pool of approved panelists. Parties will be given a short period to voice any objection to that choice. The IDRO will have the final decision as to the validity of objections.
7. Compiling Hearing Packet
The complainant compiles a packet and the complainee writes a reply. The IDRO has the responsibility to help put the paperwork together from both parties to send to the panelist. The IRDO should provide all parties with basic guidelines to prepare their paperwork. The packets then go to both parties and the panelist in advance of the hearing.
8. The Hearing
People generally speak for themselves. At the IRDO's discretion or a participant’s request, another devotee may help represent a party, especially if it is seen that a party is too shy/fearful, there is a large power imbalance, or they are unfamiliar with the language being spoken. In this event, the parties and their representative must be allowed to consult prior to the start of the meeting and to caucus during the course of the meeting.
Witnesses give statements and the adversary party can ask questions. The panelist may choose to ask questions after that. There will be closing statements. There will also be a short time, as deemed necessary by the panelist(s) after the hearing, to allow further evidence.
If there was an investigation, the results of the investigation will be presented during the hearing.
Alternative (as decided by the IDRO): Instead of a hearing, an investigator reports to the panelist and the panelist decides based on the investigator’s report.
9. Panelist(s) Deliberate and Decide
The panelist writes a decision that gives issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion. The panelist(s) considers Srila
Prabhupada’s teachings, ISKCON policy (Laws and Constitution), fairness, sastra, and Srila Prabhupada’s example. It is generally not up to the panelist to consider all societal ramifications (though they may convey such ramifications to the GBC EC), but rather decide on the merits of the case.
The panelist decides within 30 days and sends the decision to the GBC EC. After review by GBC EC, the panelist explains to the parties what the outcome means and what they need to do by what day. Any follow- up communications required shall be the responsibility of the IDRO.
The panelist may conclude that while there is insufficient evidence to sustain a charge of wrongdoing of a specific ISKCON law, there might have been behavior inconsistent with the reasonable expectation of an ISKCON member. Appropriate action should be taken here as well.
10. Appeals
Appeals will be considered in cases that are not binding arbitrations. The IDRO decides whether to accept the appeal or not, and/or which specific items are to be appealed. There will be only one level of appeal, and one appellate panelist. In order for there to be an appeal, at least one of the following must be presented by either participant:
a.There were procedural errors in the handling of the case.
b.A panelist was partial or overstepped his/her bounds.
c.The sentencing was not appropriate.
d.New important evidence is available within 60 days.
e.Certain aspects of ISKCON Law were not considered.
Qualification of Panelists
Qualities: Vaisnava seniority, understanding of sastra, embodiment of Vaisnava etiquette, equipoised, possessing moral integrity, having a positive relationship with ISKCON, insightful and preferably not holding a position as an ISKCON officer.
Training: There will need to be a basic training course. It should include an overview of restorative justice principles, how to weigh evidence, communication skills, as well as principles regarding decision-making (“sentencing”). Panelists will learn the guidelines and processes for ISKCON cases and how to apply them within Vaisnava principles. They will be trained in impartiality. They will be trained in ISKCON Law.
GBC members, regional leaders and the Director will nominate panelists. Final decision on who will be panelists lies with the GBC body.
Sentencing guidelines: Compliant with ISKCON law and considers time, place, circumstance, sastra, and Srila
Prabhupada’s example. Some guidelines may need to be written that aren’t already present in ISKCON law.
Civil vs. common law: ISKCON will follow civil law as far as possible (codified rules of ISKCON law). Common law, decisions based largely on previous precedence, is not appropriate at this time due to it being a complicated system.
Timeliness: Once a case is presented and, if appropriate, an investigation has begun, a determined effort should be made to address the matter in a timely fashion. The IDRO should acknowledge receipt of the complaint in writing within seven days, and communicate progress of complaint handling at least every two weeks, unless complainant and respondent agree to a longer interval. Similar to accepted administrative procedures, there can be an online system of checking on a cases progress.
Once a hearing is concluded, the panelist should write the decision within 30 calendar days, presenting and delivering it to the concerned parties
The execution of the decision and the consequences of not adhering to said decision will be managed by the IDRO and/or someone designated by them for this purpose and it will have the full support of all ISKCON authorities.
Relation to GBC Authority: The GBC body is ISKCON’s ultimate managing authority. The body authorizes this dispute resolution system and may chose to veto a panelist’s appointment and removal. Any GBC member can initiate the removal process.
Individual GBC members as well as all other members of ISKCON will be subject to the decisions made by this system. The results of all decisions are sent to the GBC EC who maintains a final right of review including the right to send the decision to the GBC Body for review, and in rare cases, adjustment.