Step 1. Filing of a Grievance
Once a grievance is formally submitted, it enters the disciplinary process for intake and review.
Step 2. Initial Committee Review
After a grievance is filed, it is brought to the next Disciplinary Committee meeting for review and deliberation. This meeting occurs once each month, after the Board of Directors meeting.
At that meeting, the committee considers the grievance and determines whether further action is necessary. At this stage, the committee may decide:
- no further disciplinary action is required
- the matter is minor and may be handled through mediation or warning
- additional information is needed
- a formal investigation is necessary
Not every grievance automatically proceeds to a full investigation. That determination is made during this initial review.
Step 3. Investigator Assignment
If the committee determines that an investigation is warranted, an investigator is assigned.
The investigator is generally selected from within the committee as someone as uninvolved in the matter as possible. The goal is to assign a fact-gatherer who can approach the case neutrally.
The investigator typically:
- interviews the filer
- interviews the subject
- interviews witnesses or other relevant parties
- gathers statements, screenshots, and other evidence
- compiles the case file for presentation to the committee
In most cases, the investigator has approximately the month between meetings to complete this work and present the file, though additional time may be needed if interviews are difficult to schedule or the matter involves many participants.
After presenting findings, the investigator will usually remain impartial and abstain from voting on the matter. This is current practice, but it is not presently a formal requirement.
Step 4. Informal Resolution of Minor Matters
For lower-level issues, the committee may determine that the matter can be resolved without moving toward suspension or more serious disciplinary action.
Because smaller or lesser matters are not currently tightly defined, that determination is made by the committee as a whole based on the circumstances of the case.
Examples may include:
- yelling at another person on the field
- conduct that may be addressed through mediation
- conduct that may warrant a warning rather than stronger action
These matters are often resolved through mediation or warning.
Step 5. Subject Response
As part of the investigation, the subject is generally interviewed and given an opportunity to respond.
This usually includes the opportunity to:
- respond to the allegations
- provide evidence
- give context regarding the events at issue
- identify witnesses or other supporting information
Under the current process, the subject is generally given an opportunity to be heard before any hearing is scheduled.
Step 6. Committee Recommendation and Board Vote
After the investigation is presented, the committee reviews the findings and determines what recommendation should move forward.
If the matter is serious enough to warrant suspension, that recommendation is submitted to the Board of Directors for a vote.
After the Board votes on the recommendation, the Disciplinary Team meets to determine what action to take, weighing both:
- its own judgment and available disciplinary options
- the recommendation that came forward through the Board vote
Step 7. Notice and Hearing
A hearing is not part of every case. Under the current process, a hearing is scheduled only if the subject is being suspended and a 15-day notice of suspension has been issued.
The hearing is an additional opportunity for the subject to:
- present additional evidence
- provide added context to evidence already gathered
- explain actions or circumstances in more detail
- present witnesses on their behalf
The hearing is not the subject’s first opportunity to be heard. It occurs later in the process, after the investigation, after the recommendation process, and after a suspension decision has been made and noticed.
Because scheduling requires coordination among multiple participants, the process can be complex. This generally includes:
- the Disciplinary Team
- the subject
- any witnesses the subject intends to bring
- the Board witness
- the lead investigator
A hearing must be requested no later than 5 days before the suspension is set to take effect.
Step 8. Final Decision
After the hearing, the Disciplinary Team typically notifies the subject of the final decision within 24 hours.
This concludes the matter under the current process.
Proposed Framework Changes
Primary Structural Change
The most significant proposed change is that the process would begin with the Disciplinary Team rather than the current structure.
Under the proposed framework, the Disciplinary Team would:
- assemble its own investigation team independently
- require all participants involved in the case to sign nondisclosure agreements
- deliberate and make its own disciplinary decision before presenting that decision to the Board of Directors
Board Review and Oversight
After the Disciplinary Team reaches a decision, that decision would be presented to the Board of Directors. The Board would then have authority to:
- ratify the decision by majority vote
- modify the decision
- deny the decision
This review would function as a check and balance in cases where the Board determines that a proposed suspension:
- exceeds the organization’s legal authority
- is unwarranted
- appears to have been made in bad faith
This approval step is intended to satisfy the requirement under Oregon law that the Board approve suspensions before they are imposed.
Purpose of the Changes
Overall, the proposed framework is intended to:
- move the process to a more independent disciplinary structure
- create clearer confidentiality requirements
- place initial deliberation and decision-making with the Disciplinary Team
- preserve Board oversight for legal and governance compliance
- make the overall process more structured, consistent, and legally defensible