The Chairwoman then reads from a prepared note the words she intends to say to the Parties.
“There is a matter that the Board wishes to bring to the attention of the Parties. Yesterday evening a member of the Board met with the Observer. The meeting, I am assured by the Board member, did not discuss any matters relating to the arbitration. That said the meeting, innocent and social in nature though it was, should not have taken place. The Hearing is ongoing + whilst it is accepted that our trade sector is relatively small in number there are proprieties that need to be observed especially during a Hearing. Such meetings/encounters will not be repeated + the Arbitration can proceed in the certain knowledge that nothing has been said or done that compromises the proceedings.”
The Board has questions; First, is it necessary to make the statement at all? Second, should the Board member be identified? Third, should the Chairwoman have checked the facts with the Observer; Fourth, should the Chair ensure that the Observer is present when she makes her statement.
In response to the Chair comments to the Board; First, it is better to speak than to be silent with the possibility that the issue will germinate. Second, if the Board member is not identified it leads to gossip about his/her identity which reflects adversely on the other four Board members – you are persuaded that it is right to refer to the IBM (Icelandic Board Member)-the Observer knows and will surely reveal if asked. Third, the Chair is satisfied that IBM is being truthful and no further investigation is necessary. Fourth, the Chair is persuaded that the Observer should be present – and the transcribers too as the Chair’s words are part of the proceedings.
EPISODE 6. 28 SEPTEMBER 2021
THE CHAIR LIGHTS THE BLUE TOUCH PAPER
THE PARTIES COMMENT