BC: Upshot of meeting was that no final decision was taken?
MP: Y
BC: process was to take place, with 3 outcomes. Yes?
MP: LE says that. Yes.
BC: Accurately?
MP: Y
BC: So we see, the process was not limited to claimant's VF, was it?
MP: N
BC: It was the relationship in the round. Should we continue a relationship, and if so, in what capacity?
MP: Y
BC: The decision to start an investigation was certainly because of opposition from those people in the meeting, wasn't it?
MP: Takes issue with 'investigation'. Became evident that people at SPG didn't have all the facts. We needed a full brief, particularly for MA but for others as well.
BC: We can explore that but can we agree that... The purpose of this was to establish facts?
MP: Y. And relationship with CGD.
BC: Reason for establishing facts was to ensure SPG was informed?
MP: Y
BC: And one of the judgments they had to make was whether MF's actions were improper?
MP: It was whether what she had done would prevent us from appointing her, so you could say that.
BC: Yes, but one of the judgments was going to be whether she had behaved in way that was over the line?
MP: Yes, that's a part of it. If there was anything truly improper, but also whether the discussions she was engaged in were discussions we wanted to have our name associated with.
BC: I see that, but you're not disagreeing. Part of the picture was propriety of her actions or breached a policy?
MP: Y
BC: As a matter of fairness and transparency, when you are going to make that kind of judgment, they must be given an opportunity to give their side?
MP: Y
BC: And in order to do that, they have to be allowed to do that on the basis of full information?
MP: They should be yes.
BC: So, we can quibble over 'investigation' but as MA email describes it, it was a 'fact-finding' exercise.
MP: Yes.
BC: LE describes it as 'akin to an investigation as per DEI policies'.
MP: Y
BC: Fair analogy?
MP: I don't know what is in the DEI policies.
BC: Part of unerstanding whether MF did anything wrong involved understanding the debate in the UK?
MP: Y
BC: Another part meant understanding what the culture was in the London office?
MP: Y
BC: Another part, if you are concerned to understand whether this is something CGD can tolerate being discussed at all, is to get a broad perspective of views from the workforce?
MP: Not necessarily, no.
BC: The effect of what you have said is that if one person were deeply offended but 99% of people thought it interesting and engaging, you would regard that as irrelevant?
MP: It wouldn't be irrelevant but one person's view on this can be extremely important.
BC:: Not my question. A proper and fair assessment would mean understanding what those implications are in the round, not for a few people?
MP: Y
BC: Even if you don't want to ask everyone about sex and gender, you can at least find out from the claimant who she has spoken to, and ask them?
MP: Could have been but wasn't done.
BC: As a matter of fairness, part of the contribution someone like MF should be asked to give, is to be able to say I think you should speak to witnesses X, Y and Z?
MP: Wasn't meant to be a formal investigation. The facts were the nature of the complaints, that's why the opinions of those 4-5 people were asked for.
BC: I still don't understand investigation versus process that establishes facts, but okay. What I am suggesting is that it;s about basic fairness. If you are going to find facts and pass judgments like this, basic fairness requires that you involve the person under scrutiny and give opportunity to comment and suggest and respond.
MP: Again, I think in due course MF had that chance. It was viewed as gathering information necessary to make an informed decision. We didn't think that was a wide set of questions needed.
BC: Want to let you clarify that answer. When you say she was given that opportunity in due course...
MP: An opportunity.
BC: My question on basic fairness... Are you saying MF had a chance to comment on the process?
MP: N
BC: DId she have input to suggest adjustments?
MP: N
BC: To respond to factual matters on a fully informed basis?
MP: I believe she was.
BC: Can you reflect and qualify?
MP: Can you repeat?
BC: Does.
MP: I believe yes, but we can explore.
BC: We know that LE only emailed for feedback people who he had already heard negative things from, yes?
MP: Y
BC: Were you involved in that decision?
MP: N