Organisational Structure

The Working Group is a democratic and main decision making body of SATHI. It monitors and reviews all projects/activities, finances, personnel and administrative matters and takes relevant decisions for implementation. It is also responsible for staff recruitment, staff evaluation, redressal of grievances and planning future strategies of the organisation. The processes within the WG represent a democratic and transparent way of functioning where decisions are taken by consensus. The members of the WG are elected by the staff. It has a representation of staff from all levels which includes administrative and project staff. The Co-ordinator is the ex-officio members of the WG.

Members: Shweta Marathe, Shailesh Dikhale, Hemraj Patil and Tushar Khaire
Ex-officio:  Dr. Dhananjay Kakade

The Program Development Committee has been constituted to provide programmatic direction to SATHI. The primary objective of the PDC in SATHI is to monitor and maintain the quality of SATHI’s work. It also monitors whether the work undertaken by SATHI is in consonance with the overall objectives of the organisation. All the materials produced namely reports, working papers, policy briefs, manuals, research proposals, posters and social messages are reviewed by the PDC. It also dwells upon the methodology related issues of all the projects and certifies them accordingly.

Convenor – Dr. Dhananjay Kakade

Internal members (AT trustees) – Dr. Vibhuti Patel, Dr. Mohan Deshpande

External members– Dr. Mathew George, Brian Lobo, Dr Kishor Khillare, and Dr. Ritu Parchure.

Secretariat – Shweta Marathe

Institutional ethics committee is a multi-disciplinary independent body which reviews all its research activities as defined in Standard operating Procedure. The IEC consists of both external and internal members which are selected by trustees of Anusandhan Trust based on their expertise and scientific knowledge.

External Members

• Anant Bhan, Independent Researcher and a visiting faculty at several institutes.
• Surinder Jaswal, Prof. Deputy Director, Dean – School of Research Methodology, TISS, Mumbai
• Nilangi Sardeshpande, Independent Researcher, Pune
• Anubha Rastogi, Independant Lawyer, Mumbai
• Kajal Jain, Program Coordinator, MASUM, Pune

Secretariate

• Sanjida Arora (Member Secretary), Research Officer, CEHAT, Mumbai
• Deepali Yakkundi, Research Officer, SATHI, Pune.

An employee aggrieved by any decision/action or dispute on any issue may approach the WG for redressal after an attempt is made to sought the grievance within the team at an informal level. While decision of the WG will be binding, the employee will have a right to appeal against it to the GB. The decision of the GB will be final. The GB should not be approached directly unless the grievance is of that nature eg. Grievance against the Coordinator. The grievance should be signed by the concerned person. Anonymous grievance will not be accepted. In case where a grievance is being put forth on behalf of someone else, consent should be taken from the aggrieved party.

WHEN THE COMPLAINT/ GRIEVANCE IS ACCOMPANIED BY THE RESIGNATION

• The acceptance of resignation should be made contingent upon completion of inquiry. Perhaps the person should be informed immediately that an inquiry is started and would report in two weeks. And till then the acceptance or rejection of resignation has been kept in abeyance and when the decision is taken after the inquiry report made available (not more than 2 weeks from the date of resignation letter), the organisation would be very flexible about the notice period.
• The authority receiving the complaint should immediately seek written reply from all persons accused in the resignation letter. Not more than a week should be made available to such persons to submit a reply. And such person, without waiting for the meeting of WG/ Trust should appoint one person to inquire into charges.
• The inquiry should be summary one, using all documentary material and the complaint cum resignation letter and replies, and of course interview of complainant and accused. The person doing inquiry should take less than two weeks to give report.
• If the decision-making bodies (WG/Trust) are not able to meet to review the inquiry report and take decision, they MUST empower appropriate person (Coordinator, Managing Trustee) to decide on the issue. Such decision must include (i) position taken by the organisation on the allegations, (ii) decision on resignation (whether person requested to reconsider or acceptance of resignation), (iii) if the allegations or some of them are found to be correct their proposal for action against the person found guilty.
• The grieved person can approach any person who he/she is comfortable with and that person can act as a staff advocate for that occasion.

Members: Shakuntala Bhalerao, Trupti Malti, Hemraj Patil, & Jessy Jacob