going forward....

[WBuchanan]

Thanks Andy. The news item does refer to a further meeting but it says

“As per the SC decision, the group to conduct this meeting would consist of the President, Chairman of SC and the PVG Lead Signatory”

It could be me that’s wrong but this did look clear. I’ll just say again I have no objection to this composition on this occasion as CS was acting as the authority on a matter between two member parties. But if CS is the de facto or actual complainant or defendant it would be hard to see how these officials or indeed any other CS officials could be expected to be neutral.

I’m not just nit-picking as usual as I understand there almost was such a case brought and (thankfully, in my view), dropped (something else I could be wrong on, peering as I am through the mist that constitutes CS transparency) and I wondered who would have heard it if the committee is full of office bearers.

Perhaps a wider pool of CS members is needed in order to cater for this situation in a fair-minded way.

[Derek Howie]

I’ll just say again I have no objection to this composition on this occasion as CS was acting as the authority on a matter between two member parties. But if CS is the de facto or actual complainant or defendant it would be hard to see how these officials or indeed any other CS officials could be expected to be neutral.

But 2 out of the 3 were also the complainants in this case.

[WBuchanan]

I don’t see that at all, Derek. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a complaint was made in some way to CS officials and it was passed to the SC as the body that it should have been brought to. That doesn't change who the complainants are, surely?

[Derek Howie]

I don’t see that at all, Derek. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it a complaint was made in some way to CS officials and it was passed to the SC as the body that it should have been brought to. That doesn't change who the complainants are, surely?

My understanding is that a complaint was made but the actual decision to refer it to the Standards Committe was made by 2 of the 3 people on the committee and not by the original complainant (although I may be mistaken in that).

The original complainant was advised by one of these 2 that the original complainant was not party to the proceedings, which backs this up.

We therefore have the situation where the people who decide to refer the issue are also making judgements on the case, which doesn't seem correct to me.

Just to clarify that I am not making any comment on any decisions but just that there should be a greater segregation of duties to put it in accounting speak. It's possibly a case of too many people wearing too many hats due to a lack of volunteers but it's something that will hopefully be looked at.