I'm just going to do my review of MTM/ KP testimony as an aide memoire and hope that I have remembered it correctly. I know the team will help me out.
MTM worked hard to appear reasonable and responsible as NC began and had clearly rehearsed her answers to some degree.
She knew not to be truculent or bolshy and, I think, was in court for the last bit of MD's testimony so would have seen how bolshy comes off badly (it seems that they can listen in to others before giving testimony as evidenced by MC earlier) and was wise enough to realise she needs to guard herself against that.
So in the first questioning she was conciliarity – she conceded that the aspect of the contract which precluded voluntary work was really about second jobs and not about wearing a high viz jacket for a couple of hours.
Until Lucy Baxter raised the issue at the Board Meeting in May she was unaware (so no damage to reputation really given the board hadn't even heard about it).
Once the board was triggered and then further agitated by MC she asked MD to check employment contracts which suggests they had realised, from advice given, that they didn't have anything in existing contracts to sack SM for misconduct so wanted to update for future. Nothing they can do currently about SM because there were no complaints.
However, with MC agitating the board felt they had to do more and so needed to gather complaints to justify an investigation.
In the secret meaning they agree that it is only a matter of time before they get complaints anyway so MD starts thinking she can prompt them and announces that she has been toying with the idea of an event with the Bigly Screen at Pride so she can set this in motion and see what happens.
The next day she gets mailing list for LGBT groups from SM and announces the plan for this event in a very unlikely manner, asking for their input on film choice as a collaboration (very unbelievable).
There are no vaild responses to this request, no suggestions of films or comment on the event itself but three complaints in quick succession from Outburst who BFF have not worked with in nearly 15 years and two other complaints all written in similar style and in such a way that suggests there has been back-channel prompting.
Another secret complaint is 'alleged', we don't know the detail, by a filmmaker and MC puts it to MTM that this would be gross misconduct if true and immediate suspension warrented. MTM rather weakly claims it was only alleged, SM was on sick leave anyway. We can infer they knew it was manufactured but didn't need to prove it, only to have it as a complaint to justify i/x.
Based on advice the complaints meant they could go ahead witg an investigation and to look squeaky clean they hired an outside company TP to do the dirty work, as it were.
TP based the rationale for a i/x solely on the word of MD. They didn't ask for supporting evidence nor did they take notes of said meeting.
KP from TP asserts she has experience and is senior whilst also asserting she is not senior. Her boss is not giving evidence so we can infer from that that the R Counsel don't think it wise to ask him questions.
Not sure what the 5 day appeal email thing was about.
As i/x is being set up SM is told she can't have anyone with her in interview because she can only have a union rep or a current colleague. Which is a chocolate tea-pot situation so she won't agree to interview.
SM sets up grievance procedure and out of revenge BFF agree in a secret meeting on June 28 is that there real concern is that SM might refuse to work with Trans folk. Totat speculation on my part is that MD, to keep on side with MC, spiced the pool with an anecdote about SM walking past a trans identifying male artist hosting his own exhibition in the foyer of their building by claiming she doesn't want to get nails done by 'it'. Board are outraged and think that if she won't work with Trans this amounts to gross misconduct. NC has revealed that MD anecdote is untrue. They had to walk passed a big photo of pornified male fetish breast-feeding and it is very believable that SM would say she wouldn't want to get her nails done by 'it' meaning the artwork.
Grievance process means i'x can't go forward.
TP were being told what to say by LCD and MTM and that the David guy who won't testify was much admired for his willingness to do what he was told but couch in in HR speak and process so that it all looked above board. It came off as this is where the admiration lay, his ability to fancy up the stitch up.
SM was put on stat sick pay straight away unlike previous example where BFF had been v generous. She was locked out of building, web page removed, locked out of emails etc. She was de facto suspended all with board approval because they are used to letting MD do whatever she wants. The only email MD sends with details of her actions was to let them know after secret meeting that she'd set things in motion and sent THE EMAIL.
When asked about her understanding of the issues at had MTM proclaimed haughty no interest. I am above such things. This came across as total bullshittery.
As NC presented evidence that she thought she had kept her hands clean from she gets messier and messier and demonstrates that she has perhaps skated through her professional career by avoiding thinking too hard about anything other than making sure number 1 looks professional enough on the surface. Probably took the board role because quite glam to be associated with a film fest and MD flatters up and manipulates board to her will so all perfectly easy under normal conditions.