Hello petitioners! I wanted to add in two helpful resources in reviewing the petition:

1) The Mountaineers Prohibited Behavior Policy: On last week's call, we heard the organization's leadership say they'd welcome more awareness around their Prohibited Behavior policies and procedures. I would like to point you to a particular section:

Conduct Outside of Mountaineers Activities: Member interactions outside of Mountaineers activities and/or off of Mountaineers property are generally outside the reach of this Policy on Prohibited Behavior. However, The Mountaineers will not tolerate conduct by a current Mountaineers member that The Mountaineers determines creates a negative impact on The Mountaineers or otherwise creates or furthers a physically or emotionally unsafe environment for Mountaineers members or guests during Mountaineers sponsored events or activities, or on Mountaineers property.

Mel's notes: This section was updated in May (shout out to the women who helped me bring this to the staff's attention) but many aren't aware of its implications. While sexual assault is now explicitly listed as a prohibited behavior, conduct outside of Mountaineers activities or off-site of Mountaineers property is generally 'outside of reach'.

Implications of this policy could vary, but in my opinion, sexual violence convictions need to be within reach of this policy as it explicitly creates an emotionally unsafe environment for survivors of SA. Specific members of this petition have been convicted of crimes such as child rape. Members who have survived childhood abuse have been very clear- they do not want to interact with members who behave in sexually violent ways. It's not only an emotionally unsafe environment, but it could be physically unsafe as well.

2) The 2014 Rape Allegations of Tacoma Member. Please review case "142012816" with Pierce County on Washington Courtfinder (you can use Case Search then pull documents on Odyssey). This case is important as it relates to a report of violence offsite from Mountaineers property of a member. I believe this case makes an argument that this reported behavior should be relevant to the Prohibited Behavior Policy. Thank you to the person who came forward with this information.

Mel's additional notes: I have often wondered if the 2015 order to complete Domestic Violence Perpetrator Education Programming was fulfilled as it was ordered in this case. The 2nd restraining order in this case instructs the recipient to participate in rehabilitative training, but it is unclear to me if he ever did. Please notify me if you are aware! Thanks-

All for now!

Mel