Thanks, Chair.
As a clarification, the only thing I'm talking about doing in camera is discussing whether or not we're going to take any further action, based on the table we've received.
There are x number of names in here. You know how many there are. We may or may not decide to call them all in. If we haven't reviewed the document, how do we know whether or not there are some who we believe made statements of good faith. In other words, even if there's a little discrepancy, we believe that it wasn't one of intent to lie, mislead, or withhold, and therefore by majority we decide to not follow that one up.
But at that point, there may be three or four other members who felt differently. Now we've put on the public record concerns about someone's character that are not supported by the majority. From that moment forward, when we decide we're going to bring someone in—I agree and I'd fight the other way—that has to be in public.
My only concern is the decision about who gets called in—who gets a letter, if anyone—is an issue that we should debate in private, again to protect the innocent. If we're not taking action on them, why should there be one negative thing against their name during these proceedings? Why? If it was my mom, dad, son, or daughter, as a public citizen I wouldn't want their reputations slung around.
If we decide who we're going to call in, and it may end up that we do all of them, then fair enough, we let the public know; we let the media know what we're doing, and it will all happen in public.
I'm not going to push this any further—this is my last push—but I really believe that we owe it to those who we may ultimately find innocent, to the extent that we're not going to take any further action, to have those discussions in private. Then regarding only those who by majority vote we decide need further follow-up, we immediately go out of in camera and the whole procedure takes place in public.
That's what my thinking is.
Thanks, Chair.