A Disciplinary Investigation Process of Local Administrative Organizations in Cases of Sexual Assault or Sexual Harassment.

Abstract

In 2020, the Local Personnel Administration Standards Committee (LPC), the central body setting personnel standards for Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs) nationwide, recognized the serious problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse within LAOs. This led to the promulgation of Rule 23/1 under the Announcements of the Central Committees for Provincial Administrative Organization personnel (K.J.), Municipal personnel (K.T.), and Sub-district Administrative Organization personnel (K.O.B.T.) on General Standards for Maintaining Discipline and Disciplinary Action (No. 3) B.E. 2562 (2019), effective February 3, 2020. This rule aimed to modernize and standardize local government procedures to address sexual misconduct, although it excludes special-format LAOs.

This qualitative research aimed to study the legal and practical problems in disciplinary investigations concerning sexual assault or sexual harassment cases in LAOs and to propose recommendations for resolving these issues. The study analyzed relevant concepts, theories, and laws, drawing comparisons with civil service disciplinary offenses and criminal code liabilities to examine the differing objectives of the laws. Legal experts were interviewed to gather opinions, followed by the conclusion of findings and the suggestion of appropriate disciplinary investigation guidelines to ensure fairness and operational efficiency within LAOs.

The study revealed two major problems:

1.Problems in the Drafting of Rule 23/1: The rule suffers from a lack of clear understanding regarding the distinct meanings and severity levels of “sexual assault” or “sexual harassment " Crucially, it fails to provide a clear definition or specific characteristics of either act. This ambiguity results in disciplinary committees having to exercise excessive discretion in their judgment.

2.Problems in Practical Disciplinary Investigation: The inherent lack of sensitivity in the law creates practical difficulties. Standard disciplinary investigation practices, which rely on written charges/defenses and recorded testimonies, are suitable for cases involving malfeasance in office where documentary or accessible witness evidence is readily available. However, in sexual assault or sexual harassment cases, investigation committees struggle to conduct in-depth fact-finding. The interviewed experts highlighted the difficult burden of proof in many instances, such as the inability to request physical examinations, the lack of photographic evidence, the lack of cooperation from related parties, and the need for specialized knowledge or multidisciplinary expertise, similar to that of police investigators. Furthermore, the requirement to complete the investigation within a set timeframe can negatively affect disciplinary determination. Meanwhile, victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment often experience a lack of justice or protection from internal LAO measures.