No, I understand; I understand. But she says it's “founded”. She doesn't say it's “well founded”. What criteria did she use? What rules of evidence did she use? Did the commissioner have someone there to represent her interests? Did she have a third party, an objective person, or did these auditors arrive—who, by the way, usually do mathematics, and economics, and financial statements—and all of a sudden start questioning people and come to conclusions? What due process was there for the commissioner?
Anybody can look at this and see how it looks, but what was the process? What criteria were used to evaluate testimony? How, on the face of it, can you decide if it wasn't one big nasty-detailed personality conflict that just got totally out of hand?
I'm concerned with a lack of a due process. When I came here, I determined I was not going to become part of a lynching, and I want to make sure that this isn't a lynching. I want to find out what the criteria were and how the evidence was evaluated. I want to find out what the true conclusions are.
When somebody says to me that something is well founded, I understand that: “That's well founded. Yes, we found evidence.” But it doesn't say that here: it says it's “founded”.
What does that mean? Well, founding something means to put it in place, to set it up.
So I'm really concerned about dealing with this as a hot issue, as an emotional issue, while it's in the media. I'd like to be very clear on what we expect to get out of this before we start going into a whole lot of personnel issues when somebody has already resigned.
Thank you.