Appeal process approved

Judging by the presence of three conflict resolution methods for a population of barely 2,500 people, children included, one could argue that Aurovilians are a quarrelsome lot. To the triad – mediation, restorative circles and arbitration – a fourth has now been added, that of appeal against decisions of some major working groups.

The new appeal process is the baby of the Auroville Council and Koodam, Auroville’s conflict resolution centre. It wasn’t an easy birth. The gestation period was long and tiresome, even though all the working groups agreed that there is a need for an appeal process. Objections were raised mainly against the appeal body’s ultimate right to overturn a working group’s decision. Would the appeal process become something of an objector’s charter? The issues were discussed for almost two years.

Two reasons impelled the Council to introduce an appeal process. One is to improve the working groups’ decision making processes. If a working group knows that its decision can be appealed, it will take care that all processes are duly followed, such as giving a proper hearing to an affected individual, making a properly reasoned decision, and ensuring that a member of a working group who might be in a conflict of interest position will not take part in the decision-making process. The other reason is that individuals whose views went against that of the working group, now have a right of appeal if the working group doesn’t hear them or persists in its decision.

The main authors of the document, Auroville Council member Elisa and Koodam coordinator Niva, are lawyers with extensive experience in French and Israeli law respectively. They soon realized, however, that they had to put their legal education aside if something new was to emerge befitting the ideals of Auroville.

Collaboration

That ‘newness’, they say, is the concept of collaboration, of finding solutions together. “We need to go beyond our individual perceptions,” explains Elisa. “That’s why the first step of an appeal involves an attempt to find a mutually-acceptable way to resolve the conflict. We have to learn to work out our difficulties in harmony. The working group must get away from the ‘we have the power and can impose’ attitude and individuals should no longer feel they can oppose a working group’s decision by ignoring or obstructing it. A collaborative approach needs to be cultivated.”

Isn’t this wishful thinking? “No,” says Niva. “Our existing conflict resolution systems, which were created to deal with conflicts between individuals, are already being used to resolve conflicts between working groups and individuals. They come on a voluntary basis. So the willingness to find solutions together is there.”

Necessity

The incentive, however, may come not just from the desire to seek harmony but also from necessity. Many working groups experience that it is sometimes difficult to implement a decision or uphold it in the face of strong opposition. It is more practical to find an integral solution in a meaningful process that respects the positions of all involved. It has the additional advantage that there would be no loss of face of an individual who might lose the appeal, or that a working group wouldn’t feel judged and somehow punished if its decision is rescinded.

The appeal process, then, will only start when the attempt to find an amicable solution fails. This job falls to the pool of arbiters, an existing group of Aurovilians which has been constituted under the Conflict Resolution Policy. Is it competent to take up this work? “Over the years, this group of 30 people have developed experience in handling arbitration issues,” says Niva. “They’ve spent a lot of time interacting with the parties, evaluating issues and processing the outcome, both on the level of the mind and the heart. After each arbitration there is a collective evaluation of the process – what worked, what didn’t, and how things can be improved so as to provide a learning for the next time. They are definitely up to the task.”

“But when we asked them if they were willing to take up appeal issues, there was a lot of hesitation and humility – precisely because they were concerned about how their ‘power’ to take decisions would be perceived,” says Elisa. “It is very important for them as well as for the process that they are not seen as ‘authorities with power’ but more as ‘double-checkers’ of our processes. The appeal should give strength to our processes, not dilute them”.

Neither the working group nor the individual can ignore the decision of an appeal body. “The axiom is that if you don’t respect the system, you can’t be part of the system”, says Niva. “The working groups have no choice: they are part of the system. The individual has to sign that he or she will accept the appeal decision before an appeal process is initiated. If subsequently he or she does not respect the decision and refuses to collaborate with its implementation, there will be consequences which have been defined in the appeal process. One of those is that this individual would not be allowed to hold a public role for a certain period of time.”

No further appeal

The appeal process states that the appeal body’s decision is final and binding. There is no possibility of a review of the appeal body’s decision, for example by the Secretary or the Governing Board. “If the Board is to promote the ideals of Auroville, this includes promoting the principle that Aurovilians resolve their conflicts among themselves,” says Elisa. “Neither the Secretary nor the Board should become an ultimate appellate court. In any case, it is a function they probably wouldn’t want to take up and most likely, the Aurovilians wouldn’t appreciate it if they did.”

But there is one area where direct involvement is possible. The Auroville Foundation Secretary was recently appointed as ‘estate officer’ under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, which gives him quasi-judicial powers to decide on issues of occupancy of land and houses belonging to the Auroville Foundation. It is in this function that he is at present dealing with the occupancy of a dilapidated house in the Fraternity community. In 2015, the Funds and Assets Management Committee had issued a vacation notice to the occupants, so that the house could be demolished because of structural defects. This notice was ignored, the occupancy continued and the FAMC was powerless to intervene. “If this would happen today,” says Elisa, “this conflict would be brought to the appeal process. The Secretary should only be asked to deal with occupancy cases if both parties request his intervention, or if one of the parties refuses to go for appeal. This, of course, apart from his power to take action suo moto.”

Going for appeal also ends the possibility that a person can try to canvas support against a working group’s decision by going to the Residents’ Assembly. “We are aware that some people will try all avenues to get someone or some group to decide in their favour. If an issue is very emotional, the person can call for a General Meeting to vent frustrations or hear the views of others. But one cannot ask for a decision of the Residents’ Assembly where appeal is possible,” says Niva. “The appeal applies to issues where one or a few individuals only are directly impacted and it does not apply on collective issues which are the responsibility of the Residents’ Assembly”.

“The Residents’ Assembly can only come in if the arbiters refer an issue to it because they feel it is beyond their scope,” says Elisa. “But a decision of the appeal body cannot be overruled by a vote of the Residents’ Assembly, for if that would be the case, politics would come into play.”

The new appeal process has been approved as a one-year experiment and the Council will now study how the process works in practice to see what needs to be improved or changed. After this trial period, it will be reviewed and fine-tuned and the decisions of more working groups may become eligible for the appeal process

If you didn’t vote …

Only 237 people (13.8% of Auroville’s population of 1718 registered residents aged 18 and above) voted on the appeal policy. This is 90 people less than voted on the new Entry Policy and the new FAMC mandate in April 2016. The Council has called for feedback to understand if this low participation is due to lack of interest, or because the appeal process is difficult to understand, or if the entire decision-making process of the Residents’ Assembly should be overhauled.

“The true spirit of Auroville is collaboration and must be more and more so.

True collaboration paves the way to divinity.”

The Mother

Intention

The intention of the Appeal Process is to create a framework to meaningfully address occasionally occurring serious dissatisfactions of individuals with Working Groups’ decisions. It answers to a pertinent need in our community to restore a balanced collaboration between Working Groups and individuals.

The Auroville Appeal Process intends:

* to support fair, open and transparent decision-making processes

* to encourage accountability from our Working Groups (WGs)

* to enable WGs to revise or change a decision

* to encourage the Auroville community * to move towards shared responsibility

* to provide a framework to meaningfully address serious dissatisfactions of individuals with WGs’ decisions and thus harmonise and improve the relationship between WGs and the community

Who can appeal?

A person who is directly, personally impacted and affected by a WG’s decision or non-decision, and who is either an Aurovilian, a Newcomer, a Working Group, an Auroville Unit, Trust, Service or registered Activity, or a registered Friend of Auroville.

Whose decisions can be appealed against?

Decisions of:

* The Working Committee

* The Auroville Council (in which case, the Working Committee shall oversee the process)

* The Funds and Assets Management Committee (FAMC)

* L’Avenir d’Auroville also known as the Town Development Council (TDC)

What kind of decisions can be appealed against?

A decision which directly and personally impacts and affects the person requesting the appeal (this to differentiate it from collective impact that is to be reviewed through the RA process), and which shall be either:

a) A decision made by an Auroville WG;

b) A refusal of a WG to take a decision; or

c) A decision that was not taken by the concerned WG within a reasonable time period, as evaluated by the Auroville Council (AVC) on a case by case basis.

Registration of the appeal

The person appealing submits an appeal request to the AVC. The AVC checks if the appeal request is valid. If found valid, the AVC informs all parties that the appeal can go ahead.

I ACCIDENTLY DELETED THIS HEADING.......

Within one week from the AVC’s communication to all parties that the appeal has been accepted, the AVC appoints a qualified facilitator to initiate friendly discussions between the WG concerned and the person appealing in order to reach either a new decision or a common understanding of the initial decision. The AVC refers to Koodam or other skilful facilitators in order to give a real chance for a restorative process to solve the disagreement. If no agreement is reached, the process proceeds and an Appeal Body is constituted.

The Appeal Body

The Appeal Body will be composed of 3 (or more) Appeal Arbiters.

Before nominating an Appeal Arbiter, the AVC will verify that s/he is not connected to any of the parties or the issue.

The Appeal Body is bound by all Auroville policies, guidelines and decision making processes. Its decision cannot be against them. However, they may recommend a WG to change a policy.

The Appeal Arbiters will make an effort to reach their decision by full consensus, with Auroville’s Charter and ideals as a common ground. If, after prolonged efforts, full consensus cannot be reached, the decision will be taken by simple majority vote.

The Appeal Body is the final authority and its decision is binding.

Functioning of the Appeal Body

The Appeal Body:

* obtains all necessary information and documents pertaining to the case from the AVC (meeting minutes, reports), WGs, Units and individuals.

* assesses the WG’s decision and decision-making process (i.e. impartiality, alignment with Auroville’s values, mandate, policies and guidelines).

* assesses the validity of the appeal request according to specified criteria.

* makes sure that all parties (including any third party who may be affected by the appeal process) will have a fair hearing.

* acts impartially,

* takes a decision within one month after the hearing process has been completed and will announce the decision to AVC immediately after that.

* shall consult or obtain the approval of a concerned WG before deciding on a specific action that require its prior consultation or approval. For example, in the case of a decision involving financial aspects, the Appeal Body will give its recommendation/decision after approval of the FAMC and BCC. In case it’s a decision of the FAMC that is being appealed, the Appeal Body will refer to the Working Committee and obtain its approval. The same counts for appeals regarding other WGs.

* shall nominate, before the announcement of the final decision, an Implementation Monitoring group, including an AVC representative, and define steps of implementation and timelines for its functioning.

Decision of the Appeal Body

The Appeal Body may decide to:

* Validate the Working Group’s initial decision

* Recommend the Working Group to change its initial decision. In this case, the WG has 10 days from the receipt of such a recommendation to make a new decision which is mutually agreeable between the WG and the Appeal Body. At this stage, the person appealing will be consulted but the decision will remain between the Appeal Body and the Working Group.

* Take a final decision in case the WG maintains its initial decision and is not willing to review.

Closure of the appeal process

The AVC will publish the outcome of the appeal process unless it decides that confidentiality is still required. The AVC follows up on the implementation of the final decision.

Implementation of decisions

Decisions reached through the Appeal process are binding. In case the decision is not respected, the AVC, if necessary in consultation with other Auroville WGs, will decide on an appropriate course of action in relation to any individual or group who refuses to cooperate with the decision, which may include but is not limited to:

* Removal of a person as member of a Working Group, Unit or Project and /or ensure that s/he does not take any such position for a specified period of time;

* Ending monetary support from Auroville or from any of its units and trusts to a resident, unit or project for a specified period;

* Advising the Working Committee to start a review process which may lead to the removal of the person’s name from the Register of Residents and/or Master List.