RCR’s Response to Frisky’s Story

Earlier today, Rose City Rollers responded to the experiences Frisky shared on IHID. They stated the following (IHID has redacted the original RCR post for privacy and liability reasons; RCR’s post contains the accused’s derby name as well as the accuser’s actual name):

This blog is in response to Frisky post about her removal from RCR.

The Rose City Rollers pride ourselves in fair and transparent processes, meant to uphold the rights of all our members. Our Accountability Committee process for lodging a complaint against another member is laid out in our handbook and clearly states that a complaint will be shared with the person being complained about – a person has a right to know accusations being lodged against them. Further our AC is comprised of RCR members including lawyers and a retired judge who work through complaints in an unbiased fashion, interviewing all witnesses willing to speak on someone’s behalf and delivering their findings.

Below is an account of events that lead to Frisky’s removal from RCR:

  • Following travel team tryouts, X lodged a complaint with their captains alleging Frisky tried to injure them at tryouts

  • Frisky filed a complaint with our Accountability Committee (AC) against X alleging sexual harassment this year and last

  • X filed a complaint against Frisky alleging trying to inflict bodily harm stemming from transphobia

  • Our AC Committee declined to prohibit either party from participating in practice while they investigated the complaints

  • Frisky secured a temporary Sexual Abuse Protective Order against X the day the AC was prepared to deliver their findings

  • Once the temporary order was granted, RCR needed to let the courts take their natural course

  • The restraining order barred X from being in the Hangar and playing in Big O

  • After a WOJ team meeting, Frisky offered not to play in Big O

  • A hearing was scheduled, which would have either overturned or made the Order permanent

  • Frisky called 911 falsely claiming X was breaking the restraining [sic], putting them at risk of getting arrested, X’s lawyer was able to keep an arrest from happening

  • Frisky (via her lawyer) dismissed the protective order prior to the hearing

  • The outcome of the AC Committee was that X’s complaints were substantiated, where Frisky’s were not

  • We were told Frisky & X’s lawyers would draw up an agreement between the two of them that would also include Frisky voluntarily leaving the league – this has not been completed to date

  • Rocket Mean, RCR Executive Director, and Mike Sahagian, RCR’s lawyer, requested a vote from the RCR Board to remove Frisky

This is not a response. Rather, it is a rehashing of the timelime that is generally consistent with Frisky’s account of events. The only significant difference is that RCR asserts that X made their complaint first. IHID has been provided all email correspondence between Frisky and RCR and RCR’s assertion that X’s complaint came first is belied by the documentary evidence.

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Frisky’s allegations are, in fact, fabricated (and we don’t believe they are). This does not change the fact that RCR has very troubling and problematic policies.

Here is a short list of problems:

  1. A specific email should NEVER be forwarded to the accused. Notice of the complaint and the nature of the complaint must be required, but the actual email should not be given to any one accused of misconduct.
  2. RCR’s policy only allows a complaint to encompass the events of the 21 days prior to the filing of the complaint. This is an absurdly short and limiting time frame. It’s also at odds with all the research and data collected regarding late or delayed disclosure.
  3. A person should never be forced or pressured into face-to-face contact with someone they are uncomfortable around. Such meetings–in the name of “mediation”–do far more harm than good.
  4. IF a league insists upon mediation, it must be done by someone with a background in mediation.

We would love a substantive response from RCR that addresses poor policies that serve only to discourage people from coming forward with complaints of bullying or harassment.



  • “A specific email should NEVER be forwarded to the accused.”

    But they are lawyers and a retired judge! Such a credibility, so they know better RCR tries to establish. But I guess in this case it might very well be the Devil’s advocate?

  • It’s disgusting that their immediate reaction was to go to the local newspaper, use Frisky’s legal name, and give a biased account. They’ll be lucky if they don’t get sued for slander.

  • The Oregonian was working on this piece and speaking with the lawyers for all parties before Frisky ever published her story, but ok yeah we should all assume RCR went out seeking negative media attention at a time the league is trying to raise a half million dollars for a new practice space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ˆ Back To Top