Minute of a Review by Three Members of Other Houses

MINUTE OF A REVIEW MIN/2004/08

Three members, of the Shore, Karst and Orchard houses. None holds office at the house concerned. None had met either party.

PAPERS READ. The complaint, of four pages. The account of the person complained of, of one page. Two rota books. A letter from a member who was present and who asked that her name not be given to either party; her wish was respected and her letter was read.

HEARD. Both parties were offered a conversation. One accepted; one declined in writing. We record that we have drawn no inference from the decline, as clause 6 requires, and we say so here so that anybody reading this can see that we were held to it.

WE RECOMMEND.

(a) That the conduct described in the complaint occurred substantially as described. We say nothing about intention, which we cannot know and were not asked to find.

(b) That a restriction be made under FRM/1990/12 for two years, in these terms: that he may not attend the house named, and may not be present at a gathering at which she is present. He may attend other houses. We considered a wider restriction and did not think it necessary for her safety, which is the only thing that would justify it.

(c) That the Institute write to her and apologise, over the signature of the steward, for the eleven months during which she raised this three times and was told each time that it would be discussed at the meeting. The apology is owed for that and not for the conduct, which was not the Institute's.

(d) That nothing be said at notices, at the meal, or in any circular.

(e) That the restriction be reviewed in August 2006 whether or not anybody asks for it, so that its continuing does not depend on somebody having the nerve to raise it.

DECISION OF THE STEWARDSHIP, entered beside: all five recommendations accepted, 2 September 2004. The apology was sent on 6 September.