The decision to reinstate Ms. George was made in advance of a report from this committee on the investigation of this pension fiasco. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you wouldn't wait for this committee's report, a report that condemned the actions of Ms. George and took great exception to what occurred there. Yet she was reinstated before that report came into place. And while we know you can't consider the testimony, it certainly is public. Why have you not at least waited for the outcome, given a couple of very specific facts?
We heard from Ms. George today that it was a shot out of the blue when she was asked about whether or not she was involved in the removal of this officer. We know from the Paulson report that she was specifically advised in advance—this is point 9(c) on page 24—that Mr. Frizzell was going to be raised as an issue, and yet she said it was a bolt out of the blue. And then she took the time in her testimony to state in absolute, unequivocal terms: “I can state with absolute finality...”—and these aren't equivocating terms—that she had “anything whatsoever to do with...”--