The Community Support Squad (CSS) were mobilized throughout the conference to respond to violations of the Code4Lib Code of Conduct and address any other related issues. Anne Slaughter was the coordinator. Mike Giarlo, Jackie Gosselar, Tess Grynoch, Francis Kayiwa, Ann Marie Mesco, Chad Nelson, Eric Phetteplace, Daniel Sanford, Andromeda Yelton and Bobbi Fox served as Community Support Volunteers (CSVs) in online and in-person capacities. Francis Kayiwa was also the Local Planning Committee (LPC) Liaison to the CSS. CSVs were provided with background reading before the conference, and an online training session was held a few days prior to the Buffalo conference.

There were at least two CSVs on duty in person during all official conference proceedings, including the reception and game night, and during every shift there was an additional online-only CSV dedicated to monitoring online activity. CSVs were identified by black-and-white striped lanyards and posted in the back of the main room. CSVs were made available to take reports in person and via web form. We used a private Slack channel to coordinate logistics, discuss issues, and come to consensus on responses.

In a departure from previous in-person conferences, there was only one coordinator instead of two, and the coordinator came on board approximately six weeks before the conference, which dramatically shortened the typical timeframe for planning and volunteer recruitment, vetting, and preparation. Because work needed to start immediately, and because the coordinator had been previously vetted in 2019, 2020, and 2021, there was no coordinator vetting process. In addition, repeat volunteers were not vetted - which was particularly important to the compressed timeline when additional volunteers were needed after the initial recruitment and vetting process.

No incidents were reported.

1. Reserved seats for CSVs in the conference space should be next to each other, and not across an aisle, to facilitate quiet discussion of any issues that arise.

2. Regarding the coordinator role:

   1. There should be two CSS coordinators, and the CSS recommends that we implement a new model with each coordinator serving a two-year term that rolls over in alternating years (first year as vice-chair, second year as chair). The relative success of having one coordinator in 2022 was due to the fact that the coordinator had previous experience as a co-coordinator and as a CSV, the 2020-2021 coordinator served as a CSV and sounding board, and the LPC liaison had previous co-coordinator and CSV experience. However, the role requires a great deal of administrative and emotional labor, and it is not ideal for the community, the CSVs, or the coordinator themselves for it to be a solo role. Additionally, in recent history coordinators have served the same term with the norm being 100% turnover from year to year, but institutional/historical knowledge has proven to be critical to many aspects of CSS operations.
   2. Find other ways to make the coordinator job less labor-intensive, and/or more attractive. The 2022 and 2020-2021 coordinators consulted with Concentra on ways the Concentra staff may be able to help reduce some of the administrative workload, and agreed that Concentra staff would assist with some of communications and administrative tasks involved with recruitment and scheduling in 2023. This will be evaluated as part of the post-conference debrief for effectiveness and continued collaboration. They also discussed possible incentives for coordinators, including a formal letter of appreciation for their service, which will be further discussed during the planning process for the 2023 annual conference.

3. Explore opportunities to streamline the challenging process of identifying and recruiting a sufficient number of volunteers to serve as CSVs. The CSS suggests that the LPC actively assist with the recruitment process, in addition to leveraging Concentra’s participation in the process.

4. Continue with not offering overnight support, as this is out of scope for a volunteer without the appropriate professional training. In an emergency situation outside of official conference hours, it is likely best for an affected individual to immediately contact emergency services. If a situation arises that doesn’t require emergency services, an affected individual may still make a report via other available means and CSVs will respond in the morning.

5. Continue with not offering phone support, in conjunction with discontinuing overnight support, and because there are multiple other readily available means of access to the CSS (including Slack, email, report form, and direct in person contact) for expressing concerns and making reports. Coordinators should not feel obligated to incur personal expenses securing a burner cell phone to be passed between volunteers, or for one coordinator to assume 24/7 on-duty responsibilities by publishing and using a Google Voice number that rings to their personal cell phone.

6. Regarding the procedural changes made to the vetting process for 2022 in the interests of time, the CSS should generally revert back to previously established practices. There was no consensus among the CSVs as to possible acceptable longer-term changes to the process, and general agreement that the vetting of coordinators and volunteers, while not perfect, has value as one method of ensuring community safety.

7. Continuity of community support outside of the annual conference remains an issue that many of us who are invested in this effort have thus far been unable to sustainably address. A two-year commitment on the part of coordinators may address a small facet of the issue, but it still seems that some additional minimal structure and volunteer support is needed to be able to address any code of conduct issues that arise throughout the year.

   1. The community needs more specifically articulated and codified values. In addition to the Code of Conduct, this would provide a lens through which the community understands and models acceptable behavior. (Recommended in 2019; reiterated by all subsequent coordinators)
   2. The CSS should be a standing committee (as articulated in Maria Matienzo’s lightning talk in San Jose 2019), or have some form of continued ongoing structure for responding to code of conduct concerns. As Code4Lib is more than an annual conference, the official enforcement of the Code of Conduct should not be limited to the conference. (Recommended in 2019; reiterated by all subsequent coordinators. Implementation of various specific ideas articulated in these past reports has been attempted, but from year to year there has typically only been 1-3 involved individuals, and despite the best of intentions they have generally been unable to maintain the high level of commitment and emotional labor required to develop and implement a sustainable ongoing system.)
      1. The 2022 CSS discussed possibilities for a minimum viable structure that would still ensure some level of ongoing attention to code of conduct issues, based on the concept of establishing a pool of people who could discuss and respond to issues as individual bandwidth allows. These ideas included setting up a Slack channel of willing CSV “alumni” from the past several years, or adding those individuals to an announcement-only Google Group to receive reports. These ideas are recorded here for future reference, but are not formal recommendations.
   3. The handling and maintenance of confidential information regarding reporters and those who have been reported on is a weighty responsibility. Recordkeeping and transfer of records has been uneven and involves reliance on oral history. Paper files have been lost in the mail, including reports that identify individuals whose past actions merit continued attention to their patterns of behavior, or potentially being limited in their community participation. The 2022 CSS has no specific recommendations for changes at this time, but acknowledges it as an ongoing concern.

Submitted by Anne Slaughter