The Code of Conduct — six pillars, in practice.

What it asks of you

You hold a role of trust. The Circle's Members have given you their money and the operational authority to coordinate the Circle. Every decision you take is on their behalf — never on your own behalf at their expense. When in doubt, the Member's position is the position you protect.

Example from practice

The situation: A Member asks for an early cycle disbursement to handle a personal emergency. The Bylaws don't explicitly allow or forbid early disbursements. You have the authority to grant or refuse.

The right response: You consult the Circle — even if briefly — before granting the request. The Members are the ones whose order will be affected; they decide together. You facilitate the consultation; you don't impose your view.

Why it matters: Granting unilaterally would put the Member's convenience above the Circle's established order. Refusing unilaterally would put your own preference above the Members' judgment. Consulting honours both — the Members decide, the Treasurer facilitates.

Common pitfalls

• Making "small" judgment calls without consulting
• Granting favours to friends in the Circle
• Putting your own scheduling convenience ahead of Member need

Reflection prompt

In the last Circle decision you made, did you consult the Members or did you decide? Was the consultation proportionate to the stakes?

What it asks of you

The Custody Framework Charter §1 names the three categories. Category A (regular cycle contributions, single-jurisdiction): your Circle chose between Member-to-member and escrow-held at formation. Category B (loans + CPR): escrow-only, never Member-to-member. Category C (cross-border): escrow-only, never Member-to-member. You operate within whichever framework your Circle adopted; you do not move funds between categories without proper procedure.

Example from practice

The situation: Your Circle voted for Member-to-member custody at formation (Category A, single-jurisdiction). A Member proposes that you "lend" them their next cycle's contribution position from the CPR balance because the Circle's next disbursement is six weeks away.

The right response: You decline. CPR is Category B — escrow-only, never lent, never advanced. The Member can apply to the Help Office for the Hardship Waiver pathway, or apply to a Lending Center pool for a formal loan. You document the conversation in your own records but do NOT move CPR funds.

Why it matters: CPR is the Circle's catastrophic-event reserve. Lending from it — even with the best intentions — breaches the constitutional commitment and exposes the Circle to risk. The proper pathways exist for a reason.

Common pitfalls

• Treating CPR as a flexible operational fund
• Mixing Member-to-member cycle contributions with personal funds
• Operating cross-border Circles without escrow-only architecture (Category C)

Reflection prompt

For each fund flow in your Circle, can you state which Custody Framework category it falls under and which custody model applies?

What it asks of you

The platform structurally separates communication surfaces — Circle messages, mediation rooms, dispute proceedings, public Pulse, confidential mentor matters. The platform enforces the walls technically. Your discipline is to not breach them through your own conduct — never carrying mediation content into adjudication, never carrying mentor content into Council reports, never carrying Member confidential matters into public surfaces.

Example from practice

The situation: In a private mediation with a Member who has missed contributions, the Member discloses they are dealing with a serious family illness. The mediation results in an agreed catch-up plan. A month later, another Member of the Circle asks you privately why Member X has been "given special treatment".

The right response: You confirm there was a private discussion, that an arrangement was reached, and that the Member's personal circumstances are theirs to share or not share. You do not disclose the family illness. You do not disclose the substance of the mediation. If the asking Member wants more clarity, they can speak directly with the Member who missed contributions, who may choose what to share.

Why it matters: Mediation privilege is the structural protection that lets Members speak honestly in mediation. If their disclosures leak afterwards, no Member will speak honestly in the future. The walls protect the future's mediations, not just the past one.

Common pitfalls

• Sharing mediation content with circle-mates "to explain"
• Carrying Council mentor conversations into compliance reviews
• Surfacing Member personal data on Pulse surfaces

Reflection prompt

What confidential information have you been entrusted with as Treasurer? Where are the walls between confidential channels, and have you respected them?

What it asks of you

The Cultural Architecture Policy v2.0 places cultural decisioning in the Members' hands through Circle Bylaws + Town Hall + DSC. Your role as Treasurer is to operate within the Circle's tradition with respect — never to impose your interpretation of "how this tradition really works" on Members who hold the tradition. If you're Treasurer of a Pardna circle and your personal background is something else, you honour the Pardna Members' practice.

Example from practice

The situation: You're Treasurer of a Susu circle. A Member proposes a cycle-order rotation that differs from the Bylaws-recorded order, citing "the way Susu has always worked in my community". Another Member objects, citing the Bylaws.

The right response: You facilitate the conversation between Members. You do not arbitrate which interpretation of Susu is correct — that is for the Members of the Circle to decide together, perhaps with consultation with elders in their community. You enforce the Bylaws as written until the Members formally amend them through the proper Bylaws-amendment procedure.

Why it matters: No Treasurer is the tradition's owner. Different communities practise their traditions differently. The Members' shared agreement (the Bylaws) is the operational truth; cultural disagreements are resolved by the Members themselves, not by Treasurer fiat.

Common pitfalls

• Imposing your interpretation of "how this tradition works"
• Privileging one Member's tradition reading over another's
• Treating Bylaws ambiguity as Treasurer authority to decide

Reflection prompt

When was the last time you encountered a cultural disagreement in your Circle? Did you facilitate or did you decide?

What it asks of you

When a concern arises — missed contribution, cycle-order disagreement, communication breakdown — your first response is to engage the affected Member privately, listen, and offer mediation. Adjudication is escalation; the DSC is the path when mediation does not resolve. Demotion, removal, and Standing impacts are downstream consequences, not first responses.

Example from practice

The situation: Member X has missed two consecutive contributions. The Circle's other Members are starting to ask questions in the chat. Member X has not responded to two of your private messages.

The right response: You attempt one more direct outreach — a phone call, an in-person meeting if possible, a message in a different channel. If Member X responds, you discuss privately and offer DSC mediation if appropriate. If Member X does not respond after a reasonable additional attempt, you formally open mediation through the DSC. You do not broadcast the missed contributions to the Circle's chat. You do not unilaterally demote Member X's Standing.

Why it matters: Most concerns dissolve in mediation when the Member has space to speak. Public surfacing forecloses options. Unilateral action breaks the relationship. The structured pathway preserves dignity + gives the system its best chance to resolve at the lowest stage.

Common pitfalls

• Broadcasting concerns to the Circle chat before private outreach
• Skipping mediation and going straight to adjudication
• Treating the first private outreach as the only attempt

Reflection prompt

In the last difficult cycle you handled, did mediation precede every escalation step? What was your first response?

What it asks of you

When you make a Treasurer decision, your reasoning is available to Members who ask. When you receive TEP fees, the aggregate is published (per the TEP transparency surface). When you face a conflict of interest, you disclose it. When you make a mistake, you acknowledge it. Transparency is not the same as publishing everything — it is making your reasoning visible when asked.

Example from practice

The situation: A Member asks you, "Why did you schedule next month's contribution due date for the 5th and not the 1st?". You decided this because most Members are paid on the last weekday and the 1st creates timing pressure. You haven't communicated the reasoning previously.

The right response: You explain your reasoning: most Members are paid on the last weekday, so the 5th gives 3-5 business days of cushion + reduces the timing-pressure risk that produced two missed contributions in the prior cycle. The Member can agree or propose an alternative. You invite the conversation in the Circle chat rather than 1-on-1, so the whole Circle sees the reasoning.

Why it matters: A Treasurer's decisions affect Members. Members deserve to know the reasoning. The transparency builds trust + invites correction when the reasoning is wrong + creates a culture where Members feel safe to ask "why?".

Common pitfalls

• Treating reasoning as "obvious" and not explaining
• Defending decisions instead of explaining them
• Communicating decisions but not the why

Reflection prompt

For your last three Treasurer decisions, can a Member find your reasoning? Is the reasoning accessible to all Members, not just to the Members who happened to ask?

When you sign.

You sign the Code at each tier certification: Intermediate (T1 → T2), Advanced (T2 → T3), Multi-Jurisdictional (T3 → T4 → T5). The same six pillars; the responsibilities scale with tier. Material amendments to the Code require re-signature per Code §7. The Treasurer Council reviews compliance routinely; the Selection Committee adjudicates material breaches with full procedural protections.