This document sits alongside the Code of Conduct. The Code says what we expect. This says what happens when something goes wrong.

It was written proactively, before it was needed. It is designed to be usable by a small organisation with limited time and no legal department, which means it is deliberately modest about what it can achieve.

1. Principles

We ask before we act. The person raising a concern is asked what they want to happen before any decision is made. We will not always be able to deliver it, but we will not decide over their head.

Repair before punishment, where repair is possible. Our first question is what would make things better for the person harmed and what would prevent a recurrence — not what penalty fits. Some situations do not admit of repair, and we say so plainly in Section 8 rather than pretending otherwise.

Fairness to everyone involved. A person whose conduct is questioned is told what is said about them in enough detail to respond, and is given a real chance to respond. We do not treat a concern as a finding.

Proportion. We respond in proportion to what happened. We do not minimise serious harm, and we do not allow a person to be punished beyond what a situation warrants. Both failures are real, and we take the second as seriously as the first.

Confidentiality by default. Information moves only as far as it must, and identity moves less far than information. See Section 9.

No retaliation. Retaliation against someone for raising a concern, participating in a process, or supporting a participant is itself a breach of the Code, and a serious one.

Access. Nobody should find this process harder to use because of disability, illness, language, or the shape of their life. We arrange adjustments on request, and nobody has to explain a disability to get them.

Honesty about limits. Urakan cannot investigate like an employer, compel evidence, or determine facts to a legal standard. Where a matter is beyond us, we say so and support the person to find something that is not.

2. Who can raise a concern, and about whom

Anyone can raise a concern: contributors, writers, editors, translators, collaborators, event participants, interview subjects and sources, and readers.

You can raise a concern about the conduct of anyone acting in connection with Urakan’s work, including the director, editors, and contributors.

You can raise a concern about something that happened to you, or something you witnessed. If you are raising something on behalf of another person, we will ask whether they know and what they want, and we will generally not proceed against their wishes.

You do not need evidence. Bring what you have. We will not turn a concern away because it arrives without proof.

How much you tell us is your choice. There are three ways to do this, and none of them is wrong.

• Fully anonymous. Accepted and taken seriously. Be aware that anonymity limits what we can do: we usually cannot put an anonymous account to the person concerned in a way that is fair to them, so our response may be restricted to changing arrangements, watching a situation, or a general reminder of expectations. We will not pressure anyone to identify themselves.
• Anonymous but reachable. You use a pseudonym and give us one way to contact you; an email address created for the purpose is enough. We never learn your name. This is usually the most useful option, because we can ask you questions and keep you informed.
• Confidential. We know who you are. The person concerned does not, unless you allow it.

There is no deadline for raising a concern. People take time. We recognise that the passage of time can make some things harder to establish, and we will be honest with you about that.

3. How to raise a concern

By email to urakanmagazine@gmail.com.

Or in person, or by message, to either of the editors currently on duty for concerns.

Through someone you trust. If you would rather not write to us yourself, you can ask a friend, a colleague, or an advocate to make first contact for you. They pass on only what you allow, and they can stay involved for as long as you want them to.

Through a party outside Urakan. You do not have to bring it to us first. If you would rather speak to someone outside, do that, and tell us as much as you choose. Section 5 explains how we involve an independent party from outside.

In Yogyakarta there are organisations that offer support to the public, such as LBH Yogyakarta (the Yogyakarta Legal Aid Institute) for legal support, and others that work on psychological support and gender-based violence. We do not represent these organisations and have no arrangement with them. We mention them because their services are open to anyone, and you are entitled to use them without our permission.

Through Instagram, if that is the easiest place to start. Treat our Instagram as a door, not a place to tell us everything: the account is shared and messages there are not confidential. We will move the conversation to the private inbox, or to whichever route you prefer, as soon as we reply.

There is no form and no required format. A few sentences is enough. If it helps, tell us what happened, roughly when, who was involved, and what you would like to happen — but you do not need to have an answer to that last question.

Informal first is fine. You can ask for a conversation to think something through without starting a formal process. That conversation is confidential, commits you to nothing, and can stop there. Nothing will be escalated without your agreement, unless one of the narrow exceptions in Section 9 applies — and we will tell you if that arises.

Support person. At any stage you can bring someone with you: a friend, a colleague, an advocate, or an interpreter. This applies equally to a person whose conduct is being questioned.

4. Who receives it

The editors on duty. Concerns are received by Urakan’s editors, always two of them, together. Two people rather than one, so that no single person holds a difficult matter alone or decides it alone. They handle concerns in confidence and are the point of contact throughout. You can ask who is currently on duty at any time, using the address in Section 3.

The director is never one of the two. This is a standing rule, not a matter of who happens to be available.

The arrangement is reviewed once a year, and changes when one of them steps back. As Urakan grows and others can take on this role, we will name them on this page.

Recusal. Neither of the two handles a concern in which they have a personal stake — where the concern is about them, about someone close to them, or about a matter they are involved in. Recusal is automatic and does not need to be argued for. Where one recuses, the other continues together with an independent party from outside in place of the recused member.

What they must not do. They must not disclose the identity of anyone involved beyond what this document allows. They must not leave a concern without a response. They must not take the side of the person a concern is about. They must not discourage anyone from raising a concern or from seeking help elsewhere. A breach of any of these is a matter for the independent party.

5. Concerns involving the core team, including the director

This is the section the whole process depends on, so it is written strictly.

Where a concern involves a member of Urakan’s core team — the director or an editor — it is never handled by the person concerned, and never by anyone reporting to them.

Concerns about the director are handled by an independent party from outside Urakan: a person or organisation with no stake in Urakan. In these cases:

• The director is not told who raised it unless that person consents, and is not consulted about how it is handled.
• The independent party runs the process from receipt to outcome and decides what the outcome is. Their decision is not subject to the director’s approval.
• The director is told the substance of what is alleged, in enough detail to respond, and is given a fair opportunity to respond — the same fairness anyone else receives.
• The director stands back from any working relationship in question while the process runs, where that is practically possible.
• Where the decision concerns the director’s own role in Urakan, the independent party may recommend rather than impose. Urakan commits in advance to publishing whether a recommendation was accepted, and if not, why.

What the director is told about other concerns. For concerns that do not involve the director, the director is told only what is needed to run the work: that an arrangement is changing, or that someone is no longer working with us. Not who raised it, not what it says, and not why.

Concerns about an editor are handled by an independent party from outside, or by the remaining editor together with that independent party, at the choice of the person raising the concern.

Appointing the independent party

The independent party may be a person or an organisation. What we look for: no financial, employment, or close personal relationship with the core team; standing and trust within queer and arts communities in Indonesia; experience of facilitation, mediation, community accountability work, support work, or organisational governance; and the confidence of people likely to use this process, which matters more than formal credentials.

The person raising the concern has a say in the choice. We propose a name, and you can refuse it and propose someone else. If you already have a support person or organisation you trust, we will work with them, as far as they are willing.

The independent party is paid for their time where they are willing to be paid. Unpaid dependence on goodwill is not a stable foundation for this role.

What we are still working on. We are approaching people and organisations who might agree to take on this role before it is needed, and we will list their names on this page once they have agreed. Until then, the appointment is made when a concern arrives, with the right of refusal in the hands of the person raising it. We say this plainly so that nobody believes we are more prepared than we are.

6. Stages

Timelines are commitments, not aspirations. Where we cannot meet one, we tell the person waiting, and say when we will.

Stage 1 — Acknowledge (within 3 working days). We confirm we have received the concern, name who is handling it, and check whether the person raising it needs anything immediately — including a change to a working arrangement while things are worked out. No assessment happens at this stage.

Stage 2 — Listen (within 10 working days). A conversation, in whatever form the person finds easiest, to understand what happened and what its effect has been. We listen before we evaluate. We do not cross-examine. If the person prefers to write rather than speak, that is fine.

Stage 3 — Ask what they want. Explicitly, as its own step. Options include: nothing for now, a record made in case of a pattern; an acknowledgement or apology; a change to working arrangements so they do not have to work with someone; a facilitated conversation; a commitment to changed behaviour; or the end of a collaboration.

We are honest about what we can and cannot deliver, and we do not promise an outcome at this stage.

Stage 4 — Put it to the person concerned (unless Stage 3 concludes otherwise). They are told the substance of the concern in enough detail to respond meaningfully, and given a fair opportunity to respond, with a support person if they wish. Where the identity of the person raising the concern is not already obvious, we ask before revealing it, and we discuss with both parties whether the matter can proceed without it.

We hold the possibility that a concern is mistaken, or that two accounts of the same events are both sincere. Being asked to respond to a concern is not itself a sanction.

Stage 5 — Assess (within 30 working days of Stage 1, where possible). The handlers consider what happened, its seriousness and effect, whether it forms a pattern, what the person harmed wants, whether the person concerned recognises the harm, and what would prevent recurrence.

We work to a standard of what is more likely than not, and we say honestly when we cannot reach a conclusion. “We could not establish what happened” is a legitimate outcome, and it is not a finding against either person.

Stage 6 — Decide and act. A proportionate response is chosen from Section 8, and both parties are told.

Stage 7 — Follow up (after 3 months). We check in with the person who raised the concern, and where an agreement was made, we check it is holding. Accountability that ends at the announcement is not accountability.

If we stop. We may stop a process when the person concerned cannot be found or contacted, when the person who raised the concern asks us to stop, or when there is not enough to go on. We tell both parties. If something new comes to light later, a stopped matter can be reopened.

7. Facilitated and restorative conversations

Where both people agree to it, and only then, a conversation may be held between them with a neutral facilitator present.

This is never the default, never required, and never a condition of anything else. Nobody is asked to sit in a room with someone who frightens them, and declining carries no penalty and is not held against a person’s account. Where power between the parties is significantly unequal, we are cautious about this route and will usually not propose it.

Where a conversation is not appropriate but repair is still possible, a facilitator may carry messages, agreements, or an apology between the parties without them meeting.

8. Range of responses

Responses are chosen for proportion, not escalation, and more than one may apply.

• No further action, where the concern is not made out or falls outside the Code. Recorded, and the person told why.
• A conversation with the person concerned about expectations.
• Acknowledgement or apology, where it is meaningful and wanted. Never demanded performatively.
• A facilitated or restorative conversation, by mutual agreement.
• An agreement about future conduct, written down, specific, with a review date.
• Changed working arrangements — reassigning work, separating people, adjusting who attends what.
• Restriction of role — stepping back from editorial responsibility, from event facilitation, or from contact with contributors.
• Suspension of a collaboration while a matter is worked through.
• Ending a collaboration and declining future work.
• Removal from Urakan spaces, including events, channels, and programmes, permanently where warranted.
• Withdrawal of published work, where continuing to publish it would itself cause harm.
• Support to seek outside help. Where conduct may be criminal, or where the matter is beyond our capacity, we tell the person plainly that this is beyond what a magazine can resolve, and we help them find legal, medical, or specialist support if they want it. The decision to involve outside authorities belongs to the person harmed, not to us, and we will not make that choice for them or against them. Where we hold a legal obligation of our own, we say so at the outset rather than discovering it later.

What makes a response heavier. Serious or lasting effect on the person harmed; more than one incident; more than one person affected; a marked imbalance of power between those involved; the person concerned holds a position at Urakan; the person harmed was in a vulnerable position; retaliation or pressure after the concern was raised.

What makes a response lighter. Limited effect; a single incident out of character; the person concerned recognises the harm without having to be pushed; steps already taken to put it right; the person harmed themselves prefers a lighter response.

Restoring someone’s standing. Where a concern is not made out, we say so to everyone who knew the matter was under way, and any working arrangement suspended during the process is restored. This is not just a note in a file nobody sees. Where we cannot establish what happened, we record exactly that and do not let it stand as a shadow finding.

On public statements. Urakan does not, as a rule, publicise the outcome of an individual process. We will not brief the community about a person, and we will not stay silent in a way that misleads people we are about to put in the same room as someone.

Where a decision affects people who need to know — that someone no longer writes for us, or is not present at an event — we say what is necessary, in the fewest words, without narrating the concern. Any statement naming a person requires the agreement of the person harmed and the involvement of the independent party.

9. Confidentiality, records, and identity

Written specifically for a context where being identified can carry consequences well beyond a professional one.

Identity travels less far than information. Wherever a matter can be handled without disclosing who raised it, it is. Where it cannot, we say so early, explain why, and let the person decide whether to continue. We do not disclose identity to the person concerned without asking first.

Who sees what. Only the two handlers, plus the independent party where involved. Not the wider team. Not the board of any partner organisation. Not funders.

Minimal records. We keep the least that allows the process to be fair and a pattern to be noticed: date, general nature of the concern, who handled it, what was decided, and whether follow-up occurred. We do not keep transcripts, recordings, or detailed narrative accounts unless the person raising the concern asks us to, and we do not keep documents that would expose someone’s identity or circumstances if the file were ever read by the wrong person.

Storage. Records are held in a single encrypted, password-protected location accessible only to current handlers. Not in personal email, not in shared drives, not in messaging apps. Handover on rotation is deliberate and documented.

How long. Kept for three years from resolution, then destroyed, unless an ongoing agreement or an unresolved pattern requires longer. Anyone who raised a concern can ask for the record of it to be destroyed sooner, and we will do so unless it forms part of a live matter involving someone else.

Limits of confidentiality. There are narrow situations where we may not be able to hold something in confidence: where there is a serious and immediate risk to someone’s life or safety, or where the law requires disclosure. These are rare. If one arises, we tell the person before we act on it wherever it is safe to do so, and we discuss it with them.

Confidentiality binds both directions. Everyone involved in a process is asked to keep its contents confidential. This protects the person who raised the concern as much as the person it concerns.

Nothing here silences anyone about their own experience. Confidentiality applies to Urakan’s process, not to a person’s account of what happened to them. We do not ask anyone to sign away their voice, and we do not treat someone speaking about their own life as a breach.

10. What this process protects against

For the person raising a concern: you are asked what you want before anything is decided; your identity is not disclosed without your agreement; retaliation is itself a breach; you can bring a support person, an advocate, or an interpreter; you are entitled to adjustments that make this process usable for you; you are told what is happening and what was decided; you can stop at any point; and the director cannot influence a matter concerning themselves.

For the person a concern is about: you are told what is said about you in enough detail to answer it; you are given a fair chance to respond before a decision; you can bring a support person, an advocate, or an interpreter; you are entitled to adjustments that make this process usable for you; a concern is not a finding, and being the subject of one is not a sanction; responses are proportionate, and disproportionate social punishment is something this process exists to prevent, not to deliver; where nothing can be established, that is recorded as such and not as a shadow finding; your standing is restored, and any suspended working arrangement resumed, where a concern is not made out; and no outcome is announced to anyone who does not need to know it.

11. Support

We are not counsellors, lawyers, or doctors, and we will not pretend otherwise. Where someone needs more than we can give, we will help them find it.

Depending on what is needed, that may mean psychological support, legal advice, medical care, crisis support, or an advocate who can accompany someone through a process elsewhere. We will help find the options, make first contact if that is easier, and cover what we reasonably can.

We do not list named organisations here. A referral that mishandles someone is worse than no referral at all, and we are not willing to send anyone somewhere we have not checked. We are building that list by speaking to organisations directly, and we will share what is relevant when someone needs it.

12. When this process fails

If someone believes a process was handled unfairly — by the editors on duty or by the independent party — they may ask for it to be reviewed once, by a different independent party. A review looks at whether the process was fair, not at whether a different person would have decided differently. We chose this deliberately: in a scene where everyone knows everyone, a review that can reopen the substance turns into a second argument with the same people, and the person who raised the concern pays for it twice.

13. Review

This process is reviewed once a year, and after any matter that shows a gap in it. Review looks at whether it was used, whether people found it usable, whether timelines were met, and whether anything in it deterred someone from raising a concern.

Reviews are recorded in a single line: date, who reviewed, what changed. Nothing about individual matters appears in them.

14. What this is based on

See Section 11 of the Code of Conduct. In short: nothing requires us to have this, we chose it ourselves, and we drew on UU TPKS, UU PDP, Permendikbudristek 55/2024, and UGM Rector’s Regulation 1/2020, while departing from all of them wherever they did not fit an independent magazine.

Contact: urakanmagazine@gmail.com Version 1.0, 6 August 2026. Next review: 5 August 2027.