How to Adapt the Code of Conduct

Published v0.1

v0.1 — Drafted May 2026

Purpose of This Document

This document accompanies R1: FREE Code of Conduct (Tulsa v1.2). The Tulsa Code of Conduct is the working document Tulsa adopted for itself, refined through actual experience with conflict, disagreement, and the everyday challenges of holding a participatory assembly together. It is not a constitution that other chapters must obey, and it is not a template to copy without thought.

This document tells you what each section of the Tulsa Code is for, what failure mode it was written to prevent, what parts are load-bearing across any FREE chapter, and where you have real latitude to adapt for your local context.

Read this before drafting your chapter’s Code of Conduct. Read it alongside R1 itself.

Before You Start

The Code of Conduct is one of the most consequential documents your chapter will adopt. It does three things at once:

It signals values. What kind of community is this? Who is welcome? What is expected?
It defines behavior. Concrete expectations members can be held to.
It establishes process. What happens when something goes wrong, and who handles it.

A weak Code of Conduct can read as a hopeful statement of values with no teeth. A strong one is enforceable, specific, and honest about what behavior the chapter is committing to address. The Tulsa version is the strong kind, refined under pressure. Use it as evidence of what works, not as a fixed standard.

Who Should Draft Your Chapter’s Code of Conduct

The drafting group should be at least three people, and ideally five to seven. The composition matters:

At least one Steward, who will end up holding the conduct process operationally
At least one member from a group your chapter most wants to protect from harm, because they will identify gaps in the language faster than anyone else
At least one person comfortable with documents and editing, because the work is partly textual
At least one person who has been in a community where conduct standards failed, because they know what the document needs to do that this one might not

Drafting from one person’s keyboard usually produces a document that reflects that person’s blind spots. Drafting from a group, with the Tulsa version as a starting reference, produces something the chapter can stand behind.

The drafting takes 2-4 weeks: an initial reading and discussion meeting, a draft, a review meeting, edits, and a final document brought to the General Assembly for adoption. Adopting under time pressure tends to produce documents nobody reviewed carefully.

Section-by-Section Guidance

”Our Commitments” (the 10 numbered principles)

What this section is for: These are the values the chapter publicly commits to. They set the tone for everything downstream. Without them, the Behavioral Standards section reads as arbitrary rules.

What is load-bearing across all FREE chapters:

The first five commitments (Respect and Inclusion, Center Impacted Communities, Integrity, Accountability, Safer Spaces) are nearly universal to participatory organizing and should appear in some form in every chapter’s version. Stripping these out fundamentally changes what kind of community the chapter is building.

The commitment to Centering Impacted Communities specifically is doing important work. It names the reality that within any group claiming to be inclusive, certain voices tend to dominate. The commitment is a structural check against that pattern. Chapters in different contexts will identify different communities as most impacted; the principle stays, the specifics adapt.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact ordering and number of commitments. Tulsa has 10; your chapter may settle on 7 or 12.
The language of each commitment. “Safer Spaces” specifically uses harm-reduction framing rather than “Safe Spaces” framing, which is a deliberate philosophical choice. Your chapter may prefer different framing.
Which dimensions of harm or exclusion you explicitly name. Tulsa names harassment, discrimination, and exclusion. Your chapter may need to explicitly name other forms (e.g., national origin discrimination in contexts where that is the live issue).

What you should think hard about before changing:

Any softening of safety language. “We do not tolerate harassment” is a stronger statement than “We discourage harassment.” If you find yourself softening, ask why.
Any removal of accountability language. The fact that members can be held to these commitments is what makes the document operational rather than aspirational.

”Behavioral Standards” (the bulleted expectations)

What this section is for: This translates the abstract commitments into specific behaviors people can be held to. It is the operational core of the document.

What is load-bearing:

The expectation of basic respect in all interpersonal interactions, with explicit prohibition of cursing/threats/intimidation directed at another person. Without this, you have no foundation for any other rule.
The restriction on airing internal disputes publicly. This is not about silencing dissent — it is about giving the chapter time to resolve conflicts before they become public spectacles, which almost always makes resolution harder.
The “respect requests for space” expectation. This single sentence protects people from low-grade harassment that does not rise to the level of formal complaint and is corrosive over time.
The non-retaliation expectation. Without it, the complaint process is theatrical.

Where you have real latitude:

The specific examples used. Tulsa references group chats, email lists, and meetings. Your chapter may need to name different platforms.
The recording/transcription rule. Tulsa’s version is strict (no personal recording without explicit announcement). Some chapters may want stricter, some more permissive. Think about your chapter’s relationship with media and the safety of your members.
The framing of how to raise issues. Tulsa says “through the relevant working group or the conflict resolution circle.” Your chapter may have different structures.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The “Members’ views are their own” clause. This protects the chapter from being held responsible for individual members’ public statements and protects members from being silenced for their personal views. It does meaningful legal and reputational work. Removing it is harder than it looks.
The non-retaliation clause. If a chapter does not have this, complaints stop happening.

”Raising a Concern”

What this section is for: It tells members what to actually do when they experience or witness a violation. Without a clear path, complaints either disappear or escalate into public confrontations.

What is load-bearing:

The two-track structure: direct conversation when safe, designated point person otherwise. Some conflicts are resolved best between the people involved; some absolutely cannot be. The document needs to legitimize both paths.
A named point person or named role with contact details. “Reach out to [a person]” only works if there is an actual person.

Where you have real latitude:

The contact email/role. Tulsa uses a placeholder. Your chapter chooses the actual person and the contact channel.
Whether the point person rotates, and on what cadence. Tulsa rotates this role periodically; your chapter may choose differently.
Anonymous reporting. Tulsa has marked this as “to be determined later,” which is honest about the difficulty of doing this well. Anonymous reporting is hard to operationalize without enabling bad-faith reporting; it is also essential in some safety contexts.

What you should think hard about before changing:

Removing the “all concerns handled through Conflict & Harm Resolution Process” reference. This connects the Code to the actual process document (R3, when it exists). Without that connection, the Code describes what is wrong but nothing about what happens next.

”What Happens When This Code Is Violated”

What this section is for: It establishes the range of possible responses and signals that responses are proportional. It also signals that removal exists as an option, which deters bad-faith participation.

What is load-bearing:

The principle that responses are proportional and context-dependent. Without this, the document either looks toothless (no real consequences listed) or punitive (everything gets removal).
The explicit list of possible responses, in escalating order. This is what makes the document operational rather than vague.
“The goal is always repair and accountability first.” This framing matters. The Code is not a disciplinary instrument first; it is a community standards instrument. Removal is the exception.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact list of intermediate responses. Tulsa lists private conversation, facilitated mediation, temporary pause from roles, removal from specific roles, removal from organization. Your chapter may want different gradations.
The threshold language. “Last resort when safety requires it or when someone refuses to engage in good faith” is one way to frame it. Other chapters may frame this differently.

What you should think hard about before changing:

Removing the explicit option of removal. A chapter that cannot remove members eventually has to choose between tolerating harm and dissolving. Including removal as a possibility, with a high bar, is what allows accountability without collapse.

”Scope”

What this section is for: It tells members where the Code applies. Without this, the Code is ambiguous about whether it covers, for example, a personal social media post that references the chapter.

What is load-bearing:

Coverage of in-person meetings, online platforms, public representation, and one-on-one interactions related to chapter work. The four together cover almost every context where conduct can affect the chapter.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact phrasing. Some chapters may want narrower or broader scope.
The review cadence. Tulsa says “annually / at each assembly cycle.” Your chapter chooses what fits.

Common Adaptation Patterns

Across early FREE chapter discussions, several adaptation patterns have already emerged. These are not endorsed or rejected by FREE foundation; they are observations.

Pattern 1: Local Safety Language

Chapters in contexts with active surveillance or political repression often add explicit language about not sharing member identities, not photographing members, and not discussing chapter business with law enforcement. The Tulsa version’s “Consent and Confidentiality” commitment is a softer version of what some chapters need.

If your chapter operates in a context where members face real risks for political organizing, strengthen this section. Consider explicit language about photo consent, member identity protection, and police interaction protocols.

Pattern 2: Religious or Cultural Adaptation

Chapters affiliated with faith communities or operating in contexts where religious identity is salient have sometimes added language acknowledging shared values across religious and secular members. This can prevent the Code from reading as implicitly secular-progressive in a way that excludes religious members.

The risk on the other side: language that accommodates religious framing in ways that exclude LGBT+ members or other groups historically harmed by religious institutions. Drafting groups should include voices from both communities.

Pattern 3: Restorative Justice Strengthening

Some chapters have strengthened the “repair and accountability” framing by explicitly referencing restorative or transformative justice traditions, with specific language about harm circles, community accountability processes, and the rejection of punitive logic.

This is consistent with the Tulsa version’s framing but goes further. If your chapter’s members come from restorative justice movements, your version will likely reflect that more explicitly.

Pattern 4: Online-Heavy Chapters

Chapters that operate primarily online (because members are geographically dispersed, or because the chapter is in early formation) often need stronger digital-specific language in the Code itself, rather than relying on R2 (Digital Communication Norms) as a separate document.

If you anticipate the chapter being primarily online for the first six months, consider folding more of R2 directly into your Code.

Process for Adopting Your Chapter’s Code

Drafting group formed at the first or second General Assembly (3-7 people, composition as described above)
Drafting group meets to read the Tulsa version, this guidance, and discuss what your chapter needs different
Draft produced (typically 2-3 weeks after the first drafting meeting)
Draft circulated to all chapter members at least one week before the General Assembly that will adopt it
General Assembly discussion and ratification using the chapter’s adopted decision-making method
Designated Point Person identified at the same GA (often a Steward)
Document stored in the chapter’s shared repository with version number and adoption date
Review scheduled for the date specified in the Scope section (annual or at assembly cycle)

This process takes about 4-8 weeks end to end. Compressing it tends to produce documents nobody actually read or agreed to.

Translation Considerations

If your chapter operates in a non-English-speaking context, you have two paths:

Path A: Translate the Tulsa version, then adapt. Good for chapters that want a strong starting point and trust the Tulsa framing. The Documentation Circle (when formed) can help coordinate translations.

Path B: Draft your own in your native language, using the Tulsa version as reference. Good for chapters where local cultural and political context makes a direct translation feel imported.

Either path is valid. Be explicit about which path you are taking so the chapter is not confused about whether they are adopting a translation or an original.

A note on translation specifically: terms like “harassment,” “discrimination,” “safer spaces,” and “consent” carry significant legal and political weight that does not always translate cleanly. Translators should be fluent in both the source language and the political vocabulary of the target language. Machine translation alone is insufficient.

Common Mistakes in Adaptation

These have all happened in early chapter Code drafting:

Stripping out the accountability and removal language because it “feels harsh.” Result: when a harm occurs, the chapter has no real process and either tolerates harm or descends into ad hoc conflict.
Softening the commitment language (“we encourage” instead of “we commit to”). Result: members read the document as aspirational rather than binding, and behavior drifts.
Removing the “centering impacted communities” commitment because it “feels like identity politics.” Result: dominant voices dominate even more, and the chapter loses the people it most wants to attract.
Adding so much specificity (lists of every possible identity, every possible scenario, every possible response) that the document becomes 20 pages long and nobody reads it. Result: same as having no document.
Adopting without ratification. A Code that the drafting group wrote, posted, and called done is not the chapter’s Code. It is the drafting group’s Code, and it has no buy-in. Always ratify at a General Assembly using the chapter’s adopted decision-making method.
Treating the Tulsa version as sacred. Some chapters have copied it verbatim without thinking, then discovered that specific phrases do not fit their context. The Tulsa version is evidence of what worked in one place. It is not the standard against which deviation must be justified.

A Final Note

The Code of Conduct is the easiest governance document to write badly and the hardest to write well. Errors in this document do not show up immediately. They show up six months later when an actual conflict occurs and the chapter discovers what the document was supposed to do, and cannot.

The Tulsa version is strong because it was refined under conditions where it was tested. Yours will be refined the same way. Adopt a first version that you stand behind, knowing it will evolve.

If your chapter has questions during drafting, reach out to FREE foundation. The Documentation Circle (when formed) will be available to consult.

A Note on This Document

This is v0.1 of R1-Guidance, drafted in May 2026. It will be updated as more chapters complete their Code of Conduct adoption and surface patterns and pitfalls.

This is a living document. It will be reviewed and updated as the network grows.

The FREE Chapter Starter Kit is published by FREE (Forum for Real Economic Emancipation). freefreeforum.org