In my view, as a practical matter, if a person testifies under a summons and the meeting ends and the person gets up and leaves without being told they're not excused, they're entitled to assume they are excused. Committees don't customarily get into that formality. The onus is on the committee, I think, to make it clear to the witness that they're not finished with them yet, they will want them back at another time. And I think the onus is on the committee to specify when they want them back. There doesn't have to be another summons, but there's an onus to now indicate they're expected back for this next meeting, and then the onus is on the witness to attend the second time. But if a witness were to get up and leave a meeting and no one says he's not excused, I think he's entitled to assume he is excused.
On June 15th, 2010. See this statement in context.