ML19250B429
| ML19250B429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7910310028 | |
| Download: ML19250B429 (41) | |
Text
76Sh 4
NUCLEAR REGULATC RY COMMISSION l
t W s
.~.
i l.._...
i i
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING
......- -....._ " FULL ACCESS" PROVISION DISCUSSION OF OF COMMISSION PRCCEDURES
- wn.,.
.x Place -
Washington, D. C.
, -.w :
..,n,..
~..
Date -
Monday, 22 October 1979 Pages 1-40
.<g w
. - - - -. +
d a
e,..
-..-...*3
-.. - = *,
.-----Ma
-e-w#-%--
. 200R ORBM 7
883 199 rs.ewn.:
(202)347 3700 ACE-FEDERAL REPOR'NRS,INC.
OffhidReponers v
u4 Nenh Capitol Street
-Washington, D.C. 20001 7 91031 L
~T 1 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE-DAILY
- m.'-
"..'.'? T ? d 3 *$;~,.;bc' R il % } ~E:
..~.
t_
CR7825 1
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Mordav, 22 Octcber 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcrip t has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
' inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final dete.minations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed witu the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
883 200 O
2 CR7825 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l PUBLIC MEETING l
4 DISCUSSION OF " FULL ACCESS" PROVISION 5!
OF COMMISSION PROCEDURES l
l 6'
7<
Room 1130 l
1717 H Street, N. W.
8i Washington, D. C.
l I
1 91 Monday, 22 October 1979 I
f 10 l The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m.
Il BEFO RE :
1 A
12 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner i
i 17 ALSO PRESENT:
18 Messrs. Bicket and Ostrach.
19 20 21 l
22 23 24 f
al Reporters, Inc.
883 201 25 I
5 01 31 3
ngcSnH I
? R0CEEDI:13S 2
( 10: 12 a.m. )
3 CHAIRMAN HEllDRIE Let's go ahead.
4 COMMISSIONER KEtitiEDYr It was specifically a
requested tnat the matter c3 scneculed wnen all fiva a
Cocaissioners would os present.
I aon't wisa to discuss it a
unless they are.
I consider it a vital matter, one 3
aff ec ting tne legal activities of tne organization.
/
CHAIRMA1 HENDRIE:
That's correct.
I had 10 forgotten the five Commissioner thing.
11 (Pause.)
12 Le t us move -ahead, then, on discussion of the f ull 13 access provisions of Commission procedures.
This is a 14 matter which was raised by a concern of the General Counsel, 15 and I think I would do oest oy asking the Counsel to outline 16 the potential proolem and then, Len, you can tell us what il the conclusions of your office at tne moment are on the 13 potential problem.
19 MR. BICKWIT:
This is our concern.
It stemmed 20 f rom a concern that Commissioner Kennedy had that you have 21 an open-door policy where you take information from memoers 22 of the organization in confidence, and you also have a 23 section of the Energy Reorganization Act which states that 24 the -- that each member of the Commission, including the 26 Chairman, snall nave full access to all information relating P001 ORBR 883 202
3 01 02 4
" ^3MH l
to tne performance of his duties or responsioilities.
2 The question was reised whether taase two piec3s 3
of your procedures are in conflict.
4 CO MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
one is law.
The other is a
p rac t ic e.
a
'! 7.
BICKdIT:
Law.
CO MMIS3 IOJER KENNdDY:
I :hougnt you were spea'<ing 4
3 wita a oroad Bostonian accent.
/
(Laughte r. )
10 MR. BICKMIT:
Our basic conclusion is tnat there 11 is no conflict to tne extent tha t tne open-or policy 12 repra sents an implicit agreement not to exercise rights of 13 access, out tnat those rights are there and that an 14 agreement, no Commissioner is required to enter into such an is a gree me n t. *It is clear to us that --
16 CO MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When you say implicit ie agreement, does that mean individual agreement or a 13 collegial decision to such an agreenent?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
It means individual agreement.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In o ther words, an 21 individual may waive his own rights, but in no sensa can the 22 cod / waive the. rights of any?
23 MR. BICKNIT:
That is exactly rignt.
Our 24 conclusion was that you can enter -- each individual can 25 enter into such an agreement consistent with the language of 1
j gg7 203
5 01 03 5
n~cBNH I
che s tatute.
4 CO MMISS IO.1ER GILIMSKY:
dnat agreement are you 3
tal.<ing aoou t ?
?
MR. BICKWIT:
We are viewing the open-door policy a
as an agreement among Commissioners to -- not to exercisi a
rignts of access which they have unoe r the statute.
/
CD'JMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The right would 09 3
e xerc ised how?
9 CHAIRMA.i MENDRIE Creswell comes to see ? ster, IJ and the law says I an entitled to the extent that tnat 11 contract would deal in any way with agency ousiness, that I 12 have a right to know all abou t that.
But if I exercise that 13 right, then Creswell has to recognice tnat when he comes and 14 exercises tne open-door policy with any memoer of the 13 Co mmi ss ion, ' he is vulnerable to having everything he said to made known to all Commissione rs, ano he may prefer to talk s
I4 just to one or two.
IS So there is a difficulty, in princ iple.
19 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can a Comnissioner, under 20 your interpretation o f the law, ask that ano ther 21 Commissioner notify him of all open-door contacts?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
All open-door contacts that 23 relate to the business of the Commission.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You limit that to contacts 25 from the agency?
883 204 j
j
5 01 04 3
m-c 3.nd i
AR. 5IC Lil[:
No.
2 Co.'4MISSIONER KENNEJY:
The otne rs are not 3
open-door contacts.
Ex parte questions arise there, but 4
that is a different matter.
5 CO MMISSIONER GILINS KY:
Not ex parte -
3 COMMISSIONER KENN50Y:
They may ce.
I CO MMISSIONER GILI.1 SKY:
Hopefully nocody is going 8
to nave ex parte contacts.
/
COMMISSIONER KENN20Y:
In princ iple, contacts of IJ any 41nd that have any connection with the ousine ss of tne 11 agency under the full access principle, I guess could oe the 12 subject of a demand f rom any Commissioner tnat "All the resc 13 of you fork over, fellows."
14 CO MMISSIONER BRAD?ORD:
It may go further than 15 that.
The open-door polic~y can be interpreted as a specific 16 waiver of rights, but in areas where that policy doesn't il exist, I suppose one could argue that, in fact, 13 Commissioners have a duty to share information relating to 19 the ousiness of the agency, even without a cemand.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It never occurred to me 21 that that wa s not the case.
I just assumed that was the way 22 the Commission functioned -- if a matter involving saf ety or 23 something was raised by anybody or any aspect of our 24 activities, that it would be shared with one's colleagues 25 simply on tne ground that that is the only way that cusine ss Q
883 205 j
2 01 05
/
? 184H I
of the agen:y can De effectively conducted.
I have alwa/s 2
thought that was the case and proceeded in that 11gnt 3
mysalt.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think you do or any other Commissioner does detail for other Commissioners a
3 all nis discussions and contacts.
4 COMMISS IONER KENNEDY:
I cid not say that.
I 8
didn't say that, except as of course all contacts of mins
/
ars on tne record.
10 CO T4 ISS IONER GILINS KY:
On the record in anat 11 sense?
12 CO T4ISSIONER KENNEDY:
They are published in tne 13 public document room -- every call in anc out, every 14 visitor.
15 CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the substance of 16 the --
Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But if there is any IS sucstance tnat aff ects the ousiness of the agency, I mak3 19 that known.
20 C )VMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If you say if any way 21 aff ects the business of the agency, that is pre tty broad.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the full access 23 language can be read to sweep in an extraordinarily wide 24 fashion.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am speaking of the I
3 01 06 3
n-cBWH I
language -- I am trying to find it here -- tnat the Counsel 2
useu in his memorandum when he said --
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr "Informa tion re lating to the 4
performance of his duties or responsibilities."
5 MR. BICKMIT:
The only qualification we put on it 5
was that you wouldn't want to read tne statute as leading to
/
an aosurJ result, so that on page eight, in the middle of 3
paga eignt, we said the full access clause is suojec t to an u
implicit limitation in cases wnere information has only 13 remote or attenuated relationship to Commission business or 11 where the relationship to Commission business is minimal 12 compared to other interests which would ce f urthered oy 13 maintaining some element of confidentiality."
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
tiell judgment and concern 15 f or one's colleagues, in the last analysis, are really the 15 keys.
I, MR. BICKWIT:
Our reading was subject to that 13 limitation.
The clause does have a wide sweep that you can 19 contract out of the exercise of those rights of access 20 because the statute does say access.
It doesn't say that 21 you shall actually have this inf o rma t ion.
It says that you 22 shall have access to it so that an agreement entered into 23 can be legitimately entered into to waive your e..xercise of 24 those rights of access, rights that you would continue to 25 have.
And our conclusion was also that any Commissioner can
3 Cl 37
/
n--3'MM i
witadra'< from that agreement at any point.
Our reasoning 2
there was tnat you simply cannot alienate a right that you 3
have under statute.
You can decide not to exercise it, out
?
to decide in a manner that can't be revoked by a binding 3
contract is, in e ffect, to give up the right of access, and 3
that kind of alienation is frowned upon oy courts, so tnat
/
you :an enta r into an informal arrangement, but any memo 3r 3
of the Conmission could withdraw from that arrangement at any time.
IJ CO T.iI SS I O.1 ER AHEAR N E:
dould that have to oe an 11 explicit withdrawal?
12 MR. BICKdIT:
I think it would be.
Yes.
I think 13 the test would be, "Have you notified your f ellow 14 Commi ssioners" to the extent that they now know that you la want access ~-- you want to exercise your right of a~ccess, la COMMISS IONER AHEARN E:
It would be an explicit 1/
withdrawai in the particular focus that you have here from 13 the open-door policy.
19 MR. BICKNIT:
That's r ight, or from aspects of it.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could you then ask for 21 information, even during the period when you had still been 22 participating in the open-door policy?
23 MR. BICKNIT I think you could.
Yes.
24 CO MMISS IONER KENNEDY
- The point is that you are 23 not supposed to have to ask for it.
Tha t establishe s a 00
[
~~
s
5 01 09 10 r -Sad 1
presumption that you 5.now that it occurred, which may or may 2
not ce the :sse.
3 MR. BICXMIT Certainly if you have a rignt of 4
access, you should not have to ask for the informationi 3
however, if policy had been entered into which relieved 5
Commi ssioners of the duty to inform other Commissione rs of the availaoility of such information to which the right 4
3 related, then they would not ce required unaer that informal
/
a rran geme n t to notify other Commissioners of the IJ availabilit/ of the information.
11 CO MMISS IONER BR ADFORD:
dhen you withdrew, 12 presumacly you ao it with a note saying you now request 13 information on open-door contacts during the following 14 period.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or you could say, as far as 16 you were concerned, that thi open-door policy does not 11 apply.
13 CO MMISS IONER BRADFORD:
In the future.
19 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or in the past.
That you 20 are withdrawing from that --
21 C)MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You have to make it 22 explicit as to the past.
I think if somebody sent around a 23 note saying we are now withdrawing from the open-door 24 policy, I would assume on the fact of that note that they 2;
were withdrawing retroactively as well.
I 883 209 J
_~
3 01 39 11
.v c 3 tlH i
CO'IMI SSIDAER KENNEJY:
One could argue tnat tne 2
open-door policy rema ined in e ff ect, but in fact the 3
confidentiality of the whole matter would be retainea among 4
the Commissioners, out it would be understood that 3
conveyance af the information te one Cormissioner is 3
conveyance to the n all, whi:h 's wnet the law says.
00 '.!'.iISS IONER AMEAR.iE:
If we would go that route, 3
I would want to at least publish a no tice to all employees 2
to ma ke it : Lear.
1J CTC4ISS IodER KENNEJY:
Of course.
11 CO MMISS IOJER GILI.1 SKY:
Let ne ass something 12 here.
It seems to me that what the law says is that 13 Commissioners have got to have equal information as it 14 relates to aecisions that come before them.
Now it is one 15 thing to sa7 that if someone comes into your of fice and says 15 that some pressure vessel is cracked, you be ve got to te'11 1,
all o f the other Commissionerr.
On the other hand, I don't 13 think you have to say who it is that c ame in.
l>
COMMISSIDAER KENNEDY:
I would agree with that.
I 2]
would agree with that.
21 MR. BICKdIT:
I would agree with it to the extent 22 that who it came from is not relevant to the performance of 23 the duties and responsibilities.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If it is not relevant, 25 then --
883 210
5 01 10 12
- - '- 3' !H 1
CO T.t I SS I3c4 5R.<ENNEDY :
I a ree with that.
If the i n d i't idu a l, for example, were aware that what he would say 3
would have to ce passed to one's colleagues on the 4
Commi ssion out that whether his identification with that 5
would be made known would be up to him.
That is, ne could requ3st confiJentiality as to his o n conveyance of tnis I
inf ormation cut not as to the inf orma tion.
It seems to ma 3
that the opan-door policy would remain f ully una ff ec ted.
C0'.iMISS IOJER BR AD?o7D:
Th3re are cases we're 13 raising of :he proolem that it would identif y the person who 11 orought it to you 12 00T.iISSIONER KENNEJY:
Co n c e iv a olf.
13 COMMIS3 IOJER AHEARNE:
I thin'< automatically.
14 CO'4MISSIONER KENNEDY:
In such a case, the two la matta rs are inextricaole, anc it seems to me the law
~
la sugge sts tha t they should be conveyed.
1, COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
I have no problem with 13 nowever we come out.
I just think de just ought to make it l>
clear to all employees of the agency what it is, at least 23 certainly the gist, I think, of the comments.
Some of tne 21 comments are different than I believe the employees and 22 certainly I understood the open-door policy was.
And if 23 tha t is.the way that the Commission wants to go, that is 21 acceptacle to me.
25
'1R. BICKNIT:
The Commission is free to go with b
i j
(
3 01 11 13 a.'c 3.ed I
the 9xplanation of the open-door policy as it is now 4
understood oy those emoloyees.
It is just a question of 3
what the Commission wants to do.
CO T4ISS IONER AHEA2NE:
But what you are pointing 5
out is that it has to be a unanimous agreement.
a
'!3.
B IC.C4I T :
This is one quali f ic a tion I iant to
/
?nter into.
I don't thin'< one Commi ssioner Can, througn his 3
own action, require that this information be maJe availaole i
to tne other f our Commissione rs.
IJ COTTI55IO;1ER AMEARNE:
Su: it certainly can be -
li
~4 2. BICKVIIT:
Be made available to tha t la Co mmi ssio n e r.
13 CO'4MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Correct.
14 MR. BICK'#IT :
I am also saying that the Commission qd 10 can decide that - all five Commissioners can decids that
~
la the/ are not going to do that.
jj 12 20 21 22 23 24 883 212 es *
~
... ~
- 02 01 la
.' daH I
rne conclusion we came to casically is, wnatever 2
yo u d o -- I tninX tnis is pre tty much wnat you ere 3
saying -
you ougnt to be clear aoout it.
4 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Tha employee s must ce a
c le e r.
a
.t.l. B IC.<,1I T :
That's richt.
4 C3 filS5 I0 DER.<5NiiidY:
Anu that Co mmi ss ion -I 3
would say that NUREG-0567 does not make that clear.
9 MR. BICKNIT:
You ought to decide e xac tly what it 13 is tnat is to ce protected and exectly to wnat extent, if 11 there is to ce any forecearance as to exercise of rights of 12 acce ss, exac tly what extent that f ore bea ra nc e is to t eke.
13 So that in looking at the points that need clarification, 14 this may not be an exclusive list, out we thought it ought 15 to os clarified whether source or suostances is to os 15 protected, whether source to the extent it is not 1/
inextricaolf cound up with substance is to oe protec ted, 13 even if substance is not to De protected.
19 CO'4MISSIONER AHEARNE:
ilhose judgment would that 20 ce?
21 MR. BICKNIT:
Each indiviaual Commissione r.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For example, le t's say 23 someone comes to me and says they have got some information, 24 and we have an outstanding request -- le t's say, 2a Commissioner.<ennedy hes made it clear he wants to have 883 213
J 02 J2 15
- ~ ~ ' 3Nd i
acc ess to a ll inf ormation.
- low, is it my judgement --
2 Co?.{ MIS 3 IONER KENNEDY:
rne law maa e tnat clear.
3 C0 '.UA I S5 IO.1ER AHEAR J E Sut the open-coor policy 4
was different, and we are changing it.
CO T4ISS IONER KENNEDY:
No policy ever overtakes a
134.
Am I :orract, Counselor?
e iG. BI CCtlII:
You are correct in tnat statement, 3
out our reading is that this policy can ce antered into,
/
consistent with tne law.
1J COT 4IS5 IO:JER KENNd)Y:
.ine.
11 CO'4MISSI0 DER AHEARJE:
If I can continue, whosa 12 judgment is it whetner or not tnose are sources inextricaolf 13 tied to the suostance?
Is it mine, or is it Commissioner 14 Ke nn e dy's ?
la Mh. BICKWIT:
If that is to be the principle, that la sources to os protected only to the extent that it is not ie inextricably involving substance, I thin'< as a practical 13 matter it will have to be tne judgment of tne Commissioner 11 who nas the information.
2]
COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
So if I give it to 21 Commissioner Kennedy on the substance, and he asks who did 22 it come f rom, it is my judgment, not his, wnether I give 23 that to him.
Is that what you e e saying?
24 MR. BICKWIT:
If that is your policy.
25 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE:
I am now talking acout
') R j
gg3 214
5 02 03 15 r -BWH I
" consistent with the lew."
2 CD'1'AISS I0 DER KENNEDY:
If you wers to do that 2n 3
you asked me the question, my answer -- if you gave me tne 4
information and I said -- my question wouldn't ce 5
speci fically who.
I couldn't care less about who o
specifically.
I would be interested in whether the I
individual concernea was someone who, in your judgmant, your d
judgment, was someone who (a) would be likely to be in posse ssion of the f acts of ahich he spoke, (c) that he would 10 ce ilkely to oe someone who was in a position to reesonaoly 11 and rightly interprat those f acts as he was putting them 12 forward to you and, there fore, was a crecible sourca.
Ene t 13 woula be the only concerns I would nave, ana if you assured 14 me on that ground that that was the case and you didn't wish la to confide in me -- and I am using this as a hypothetical --
13 didn't wish to confide in me the name of the individual, at 1,
that point I couldn't care le ss, having ceen assureJ by you id of the credioility of the source.
That is all I would oe 11 caring aoout.
2J COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
That's fine, Dick, out I 21 would like to have General Counsel answer the question.
If 22 af ter I have done this and relayed the substance, and I 23 conclude that I do not have to divulge the name, and 24 Commissioner Kennedy for whatever rea son asks, "What is the 23 name", wnat does the law say?
Do I have to divulge the
~
?00R ORIGINM 885 2"
6 g
3 02 04 17 n -- d.id a
n ame ?
2
'4d. SICKWII:
The law says he can nave that name 3
if the name is relevant to the auties and re sponsiolliti3 s.
?
CO W4ISS IONER AHEARNE:
But that gets down to o
judgment.
If you were to say, I must know the nane to o
und3rstand that information --
4R. BIC.01If And you s ay no t, then under thos?
8 circumstances, you could run into litigation.
As a
/
practical matter, you have possession of the information.
IJ Me does not.
He will have to make that judgment.
A suit 11 could lie ag ainst you, and a l though as ve mentionsa in tne 14 paper, we know of no precedent for any such suit, ana the 13 court would ultimately make that determination of whe ther it 14 was relevant.
15 CO MMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Thank you.
la COT 4ISSIONER BRADFORD:
If I had to bet, I think I 11 would say tnat the cetter argument would be with tn3 16 Conmi ssioner reque sting the name.
That is, if it seemed to 19 him to ce essential in some way to determine the reliaoility 20 of the safety information, the source of it, it would be 21 hard to withhold it.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That would, I think, be a 23 judgmental matter.
As I said, my own view would ce, as to 24 any of my colleagues if I were in that position and asking 25 for the information, my concern would only es as to the D
s
o 02 Jo il 5'73#d 1
- redioility, and I woulo ac:ept tne judgmen; in that ma t te r 2
of my colleagues who say they believe this individual, the 3
sour:e, that he asked that it be protected.
For my own 4
part, I would be inclined to protect that confidentiality to a
the extent that I could do so, so long as I was aware of the a
suostance of the matter.
And if my colleague tnen saiJ in nis j ucgment that tne indivtaual was a crediole purveyor of s
3 this information, then it seems to,me I would be sa:isfied.
9 If he wers to assert to me that I think tne guy is 10 crediole or the individual is crediole ana caserves to 03 11 heara, I would say, " Fine.
- low le t's see wna t we can do 12 about looking into the f acts anc where that leads us."
fhat 13 is wnat I would propose to co, anc it wouldn't matter to me 14 particularly where the indidual came from as long as my la colleague f'elt he came from the rignt place.
Io MR. BICXNIT:
That is really the question I think ie each individual Commi ssioner has to addre ss.
13 COMMISSIONER XENNEDY:
It is the retention o f the 19 inf o rma ti on, to protect the confidentiality of the purveyor 20 of the information, that I consider certainly at least 21 unwise because it is impossicle for people -- they can n3 ver 22 shed the responsibility.
It rests with them.
They can 23 never shed that responsibility, but they cannot discharge it 24 either if they are not in possession of information which is 25 available.
It seems to me that is the issue, and the thing P00RBR3%).
5 02 J6 19
- -34d I
to Jo is ho'v to find the way in which tnat information caq z
os conveyed, anc if confidentiality is important, retain it 3
to tne extent that that is possiole.
4 It seems to me that is not an unreasonacl?
a pro po s it io n.
a 00 'N I SS IO.'IER B R AD50 RD:
The trouolesome case may I
oe somecody who is in possession of information that woula 3
oy its nature reveal who it came from anc might have a relationship of some sort with one or two Commissioners 1) f rom -- aating oack years, so that ne has special 11 c on fi de nc e, and he really might ce Je terrad f rom coning 14 forta with it if he f elt it nad immediately to te shared 13 with the whole Commission on whatever basis.
14 The 0rtant thing acout the open-door policy, as la I understuou it, was that it assured employees that they 16 coulo come f orward more or le ss on their own terms.
I Ie certainly would agree ooth with the legal conclusion as to ld other Commissioners.
It may not be possiole to give an 1/
aosolute assurance of conficentiality, and also what I took 20 to be your point, Dick, is that the confidentiality in any 21 case should only extend to the minimum necessary to protect 22 the amployes.
23 COMNISSIONER XENNEDY:
That' right.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At the same time, I would 2a hats to rewrite the policy in such a way tha t the bb3 2lb i
j e$
50231 20 r 5.id I
nypotnetical case tnat I cegan with woulo os one which tne 2
amployee would f eel safer sitting on the information than 3
coming forward with it.
4 C0 4MISSIO.iER AHEARNE:
I would hav e no proolem 5
alta rewriting it ana saying any information that came to 3
eny o f us woulo ce assumed to have come to a ll of us, including tne name of the indiviaual.
4 3
COMM ISS IOi4ER BR AD.20RD:
You don't tnink in some
/
casas that woulc discourage someone coming f orward?
IJ CO MM ISS IO:1E R AHEA.4:1E s I :nin< I would 09 etilling li to probably risk that slight chance, if the mecnanism is 12 tnat -- I taink any open-door policy is going to -- its 13 longe r term success is going to depend upon some actual 14 cases and how they have worked, and if it turns out that it 16 works well with the five of us having the in f orma tion, then la it sill oe very readily apparent to people, and they will il come forward.
And if it works badly, even with coming to 13 one o f us, t he n i t wo n' t work.
1)
CO MMISS IONER GILINS KY:
If all of the information 20 is to be shared, they might as well go to the Chairman.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It just might ce that 24 individuals would be more comfortable discussing the 23 information with one or another of us.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
I would have no
~.
23 proolem witn a policy that says -- any open-door x.
5 O2 23 21
- '3nd i
ecolication or process with respect to any one Commissionar 2
mus t be understood that the material in:luding the 3
individual will os shared with ell, out the five will then 4
4eep it at the same level of confidentiality.
2 All I woulo like is to mate it very cleer --
avervoody unde rstands.
COMMI SSIO.iER 3R AC?ORD:
I would put a clause at 4
3 the and saying something along the line that the informatioq Will be shared to the maximum extent compatiole with the 1) indivicual's desire f or confidentiali ty.
11 CO MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you talking aoout tae 12 substance?
You woula withhold s uos ta nc e if the man want?J 13 the substance protected?
14 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that 15 individuals'have got to -- in coming uo, want to correct 15 some proolem that can only come as a result of Commission 14 action, and that can only come if other Connissioners know IS acout it.
30 the problem, it seems to me, needs to se I/
shared if it is important enough anyway.
20 Someone ought to find a way to protect indivicuals 21 to the extent that their identity is not critical.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
ile ought to be able to 23 protect, whe ther one of us knows the individual or five of 24 us know the individual, we ought to ce sufficiently '
25 responsiole that we can protect that indiviJual.
I Jon't
?00R ORG K 883 220
30239 22 "3'/M i
tnint that I would want to :oncluoe that if an indivi dua l is known to more than one or two of us, that therefore ne is in J
jeopa rdly or she is in jeoperdly.
4 CO MMISS IONER BRADFORD:
The problem isn't in tne o
reality as we sea it.
a CD1 MIS 3IONER GNNEDY:
It is cna cerception.
I fnat's rign:.
' nd tha t is wh/
3 Co.1MISSI0 DER AHEARNE:
Of course.
/
I say the practice will end uo oeing what will cetermine 1) ra tne r taan the explicit policy.
Il CD.(MISSIONER BRAD?ORD:
fou can't slide over tne 14 phrase, "if the information is important enough", oec aus ? I 13 thin'< we all agree that in the case of impor tant safety 14 information, it would have to be shared.
The difficulty la tnat arose in the Creswell case, which is the one that I am to most familiar with, is in the time perica required to assess 1.
Just how important the information was, given that the 13 individual in question had a very strong desire to nave it 19 all kept confidential and given that we had no immediata way 20 to de termine whether it was highly significant.
The 21 question was what to do during this period in which we 22 devised a mechanism ge tting a better handle on how 23 significant it was.
24 Now I agree with John that I wouldn't have any 20 difficulty sharing tne information and the identity with
?001 OREL 883 221
50210 23
~ 3.1d i
other Commissioners in terms of my own cerception of how the 2
Commi ssion works.
But I have to say that I think in taras 3
of Creswell's perception of the Commission, if that nad oeen 4
the rule, it is at least possible tnat ne woulc not have a
coms forwaro at all.
CO TTISSIO:lER XENNEJY:
Enen we ougnt to oo something aoout enanging tne percepcion.
6 CO MMISS IO:1ER BR AD/ORO:
It mignt ce worth asking
/
nim that question.
1)
COMMISSIO.IER GILI.iSKY:
I can't :nink you c an ge t il around the fact tnat increasing the nuacer of persons wno 12
'cnow acout confidential matters increas3s tne risk of a 13 oreach of confidentiality.
However responsiole all the 14 Commi ssioners are, the fact is that they have assistants, 15 and there is always the possibility that such 16 confidentiality will be breached.
And from the point of 17 view of someone speaking of, talking to one of the 13 Co mmi ss ione r s, it seems not an unreasonaole way to view the 1) situation.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sinc e we have now oroacned 24 the subject, I think we now have to reach a resolution of 22 the subject.
It would appear to me appropriate to have soma 23 new language draf ted that would addre ss it, and perhaps 24 General Counsel working with Commissioner Kennedy, since he 22 seems to be --
'00R BRGIN!
883 222
a 02 11 24
- 3 &i C:LDtI SS IO.J SR XENN5Jf r I a.n only one.
I nave 2
nearc a suostantir1 numoer of statements at the table which J
souna very much like my own.
There are nuance ciff erences, 4
out not very much, and it seems to me, Counsel, on tne oasis a
of tnis very extensive oiscussion and his previous very a
careful ana tnorougn analysis, ougnt to ce dole to Jraft a
some language which would oe helpful to the Conmission in 3
reaching a conclusion aoout how it should deal with these
/
tnings.
1]
?or my own part, I thin 4 I share the view whien i
J 11 l.ir. Gilinsky has that, if I understand it correctly, that g[
12 wheraas there is no doubt aoout sharing the suostance of the 13 information cecause that goes to our statutory 14 responsioilities, and af ter all as he so well puts it, if a
~
15 decision -- if an action has to be taken in the interest of la saf 3 ty, the Commission has' to take it, and i f the 14 Commissioners don't know aoout it, they are not likely to.
16 19 20 21 P00R OR BfG.
23 24 gg3 223
~
25 o 03 01 myci,id 1
As to tne conficen ciality. I certainly agree that 2
wr.a tever we 41gnt uo or whatever we mignt feel, ceople will 3
tena to f eel ena t eney would rather in some cases, in the 4
interest of confidentiality, speak with one rather than 6
five, just because five people are less likely to be o
confidential than one -- no t because anyone of them is.
It 7
is just the way life is.
So if it is,cossicle to protect o
t na t confidentiality if it does not directly aff ect -- and I v
indicateo earlier my own view about how that could be taken 10 care or -- if it does not directly af f ec t the character of Il the inf orma tion, it seems to me that confidentiality can be 12 protectea as to the individual bu t no t the substance.
13 MR. BICKWIT:
?fhy don't we try our hand a t 14 some t hing.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's just my view.
C' AIRMAN HENORIE:
For myself, I would have no H
Io 17 cif ficulty in agreeing wi th providing, for myself at least, 16 that where someone under the open-door policy addresses 19 himself to anotner Commissioner, tnat I simply will not ask 20 who the individual was and that as the matter goes along.
21 whe ther or not I am eventually told wtc the open-door was, 22 would de pend on the o pen-door and the Commissioner to whom 23 that individual-talked.
24 Now in saying that, I think I would then leave it 25 to the discretion of the Commissioner who receives the
5 03 02 26 ig c '.in i
o pen-coor vi sit to decice what pur sui t of the ?.*rits of the 2
issue is appropriate ano or what scale and anether you f eel 3
that you ougnt to come and tell me about it immediately and 4
the rest of us or whether you want to poke around first or 5
w ba te ve r.
o I think the open-door policy is calculated to 7
cover the broadest possible range of employee interests in o
talking to one or another of the heads of the agency and can run all the way f rom nighly personal ma tters to very y
10 impersonal concerns about agency conduct and so on.
I think 11 there neecs to ce some range of discretion, as I con't 12 particularly f eel a need to have Commissioners rushing to 13 no tify me tna t some individual doesn't like the air 14 conditioning in their office or there isn't any and there 15 ought to be some or they con't like the way the Payroll lo De par tm en t is treating them or the supervisor has been 17 harsh.
16 It may be that for any given case, there ought to 19 be some looking because you don't want to be unresponsive to 20 these individual concerns, especially where somebody has 21 f elt strongly enough about them to want to come and talk to 22 one of the heads of the agency.
On the other hand, I can't 2s see necessarily that each one of those mandates a vigorous 24 Commission initiative in the collegial sense.
I would just 25 leave it up to whoever hears it to decide what level of j
27 5 0'3 03' agccWn 1
action anc wnetner the rest of us all need to hear about it 2
immediately or it is a matter of looking around and calling 3
a f ew peo ple first to see what it is.
4 But I don't have any difficulty in saying for 5
myself that I will not ask you who the individual was in the o
sense of exercising any right I may have under the 7
iegislation.
I con't know wne ther that sort of a view is o
neld unif ormly across the table.
If it were, then I think it might serve as the basis f or what is now then an y
10 expre ssec public discussion and agreement among u s that 11 visits, the iden ti ty o f the visitors, encer the o pen-door 12 policy may be kept confidential, if the visi ar wishes, from 13 other Commissioners as well as f rom the outside world.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How do you distinguish 15 open-dcor visits f rom o ther visits?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the ones I have had are 17 f or t he mo st part -- I am trying to think if there have been 18 any exceptions -- I can't remember one -- distinguished that 19 way by the visitor.
That is, I have had visits in which 20 people said, "I would like to come and talk to you 21 conficentially under the open-door policy."
I think, at 22 least among a number of employees -- I can't say for sure on 23 the part of all, bu t a t lea st on the part of a number of 24 employees, it is viewed as a mechanism in which the employee 25 say s, "O pen-door.
I want to talk to Hendrie."
\\
~
5 b3 Od 28 ag c B /.H I
Then enere is a direct channel ano, indeed, access 2
that nobocy will say, "No.
Not this year."
And the visits 3
I have hac -- One re haven't been an enormous numoer, but a 4
few, and they have all been identified by the visitor.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because if it is an e
o pen-door visit, he doesn't have to inform his su pervisor.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
It is a way in which e
anyboay can come to talk on any subject without having 9
breached any organizational protocol.
All you have to do is 10 say, "Open door", and tha t means that those intermediate 11 steps -- checking with supervisors and on up the line and so 12 on -
you don' t have to do it.
13 I think it is a very useful safety valve.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No t only tha t.
Presumably 15 then, he also is protected f rom any retribution on the part 16 of any of those people in between.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is a right of his to do 19 this, anc it cannot be infringed.
20 MR. DORIE:
Generally, visits that are out of 21 channels and normally the result of some f rustration on the 22 part of an individual, but the system (inaudible).
23 The re f or e, he goes straight to a Commissioner.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And the open-door also applies 25 at other levels down the line.
Tha t is, you open-door to 88 7
P00RORGINL
29 5 03 05 agcBaH I
the EEO, open-door to your of fice director and so on.
2 Wha t is the f eeling among the Commissioners?
If 3
we felt this way uniformly, did not seek to exercise, to 4
give names of open-door visitors under the law, would t ha t 5
provide a sufficient basis for simply maintaining the language of the policy as it is, or do you f eel some other o
7 discussion needs to 'oe laid out?
e CO:.tMISSIONER KENNEDf I snare John's view in this v
regard.
The clear inaication now is -- I don't know what 10 the employees tnink.
I gue ss they f eel that when tney come, il the f act of the conversation will be a confidential matter.
12 COMMISSIONEH BRADFORD:
Or at least can be.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
And I. think they 14 should be disabused of tha t, if our view is no, the fact 15 tha t such a conversation has occurred can't be kept 16 confidential, among the Commissioners that is.
It can be es 17 f ar as the staff is concerned but not as to the 16 Comm i ssione r s.
But the identity of the individual, as the 19 Chairman suggests, unle ss it becomes, as C'ommissioner 20 Gilinsky has pointed out, inextricably linked with the 21 substance, it can be protected it seems to me.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There would be situations 23 where you just regard the whole matter as not im por tan t 24 enough.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, yes.
Sure.
I mean the 883 228 nopR BR,GIML s
5 03 06 30
..gccan I
air conoitioning problem or some guy, as he old one day, 2
calleo up and was calling f rom the middle of Kentucky.
He 3
was terribly upset because he couldn't seem to get anybody 4
to pay a ttention.
They had lost his checks, and he wasn't 5
getting his --
I would be delighted to give you the f ull o
story on all that, but we helped him find out w he re the 7
c hec 4s were.
6 But I suppose t ha t is a simple thing tnat one 9
would just pick up a phone and say, " Hey, this guy got losti 10 can you help him?"
And sure enough, they didn't know he wa s il lost.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Did it turn out you were able 13 to help hime?
!4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me write your name down.
16 (Laughte r. )
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You would be surprised 16 people don't realize they are lost.
But I t hink t ha t is ly what you are talking about.
And the guy calls up and says 20 his air conditioning doesn't work, which is a very serious 21 thing to him, and some thing that should be dealt with.
But 22 on the other hand, it probably doesn't deserve a Commission 23 mee ting.
24 It seems to me there are the three 25 considerations.
But in a substantive ma tter, I am not
?001 ORSM 883 229
5 03 07' 31 agcdWn I
concerned about the individual himself.
I am concernea 2
about the substance of the matter, being confident in my own 3
mind tha t everything is being oone that will lead to 4
whatever we need to know to resolve the issue, if there is 5
one.
And I think we all would f eel that way.
o Bu t as to the individual, I don't care who he is.
7 It doesn't bother me that I don't know, so long as my o
colleague is confident that that individual is a credible 9
purveyor of the inf orma tion.
That's all I am concerned 10
- about, 11 I think that is essentially what the Chairman is 12 suggesting.
13 COMMISSIONER BRAUFORD:
I think I have no 14 difficulty with a policy that says that if the information 15 has safety significance, to tha t e x ten t it will be shared 16 witn the other Commissioners.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think -- my f eel,ing is tha t 16 open-door visitors who may pref er to remain, not to be 19 identified very broadly, I don't recall any that I ha ve 20 talked to who would not be delighted if I took the substance 21 of the matter and discussed it with other Commissioners.
22 Af ter all, one of the reasons it is coming up --
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They want a solution.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Creswell originally took 25 the position that he really -- that at least initially he P00R ORGIML 885 23o
32 5
3' 06 mgc6'.d I
wanted --
2 COMMISS IONER AHEARNE:
Now, there is an 3
interesting case in point.
He brought the information to 4
Peter and me, anc we talked witn him and tried to figure out 5
exactly what should be done.
And we told him that what we 6
were concluding we would do is ask I&E and NRR to icok into 7
t ha t particular plant.
But we also told him at the stage e
that we went forward and made tha t request, we were going to y
have to share that inf ormation with the other Commi ssioners, 7
10 which we did the same day.
Y 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Tha t is the problem we 12 referred to earlier.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So the' day we went to I&E, 14 we went to the other Commissioners to explain what we were 15 doing, but, yes.
16 16 I
il iv 20 21 22 23 24 25 883 231
o 04 31 33
-l d.in 1
001MISSIOciER AHEA.iclE:
I nave no proolem with 2
anytning that we are going to do.
The law says it doesn't 3
refer to safety; it ref ers to coth tne --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They sweep a whale of a lot croader than safety.
a CO MMISS IOd2R AHEAR.'IE:
So it isn't a safety issue in many of the issues.
It might ce quite aifferent.
I 3
think it would be, af ter this issue has oeen raised and, particularly given some of the General Counsel's points, I v
IJ c ain'c that any emoloyee should well rec 7gnize taat the 11 open-door is a policy, but the overriding aspect is the 12 legal requirement, and I think I would certainly have to 13 tell any emoloyee that the way the law is wri tten, that if 14 any Commissioner wants to know not only the substance but 13 who is giving it, there is a serious question as to whether 13 that Commissioner doesn't have the right to get that and Il that although a current body or group may say they don't la nave to, I think a t least the employees I have spoken with 19 felt that tne open-door policy as it stood at present was 23 one where even when they raised a substantive issue, that 21 that didn't have to De divulged.
22 Now I think it is clear tnat that is not the 23 case.
I would have to say that I would not want an employee 24 believing. that there is a high procacility that the name 20 would guaran tee to ce protected.
That is why I would oe 3001 DPtGIM 883 232
~
50432 34 TM d.in i
- omf o rta ole with saying that any information, incluain; che 2
name -- they ought to consider it divulged to five.
3 Ca!.t1IS5 IONER BR ADFO RD:
Is there a way to solicit 4
views from staff representatives of some sort as to what the a
e ff ect of a change in that airection would ce ?
I don't knew a
whatner the labor reoresentatives woulc ce the right people 4
to as k.
In a sense, of course, I
'<n o w wn a t the answer is 3
soing to be, but I guess I would like to hea r --
9 CHAIRMAN dENDRIE:
Peter, there is.
Recently the 1) oissant coo.c went around, craft, ans so on.
There is sone 11 cetailing of open-door, the open-door policy in there, and 12 it is sort of a goou place to have it laid out among the 13 other mechanisms in that area.
And what I am beginning to 14 think is that Counsel ought to confer with Commissioners and lo see about s5me -- aoout a -- some possiole amenced language 15 in the open-coor policy whi:n would point out that cecause 1/
the power and authority of the Commission to act is vested 13 in the colla gial commission and because the law, in fact, 19 s ays that tne Commissioners all have -- must have access, 20 have a right to have access at any rate, to everything that 21 a ffec ts the performance of their duty, that open-door 22 visitors should recognize that for a Commissioner to help 23 them, it is very likely going to ce necessary that at least 24 the substance of their difficulties be made known to the 23 othar Commissioners and that that may also include -- m ay i
1 e
50433 3d ad 3.d i
include having to say vho tae open-door visitor was.
I think it could also include, however, the 3
Commi ssion's expre ssed intent to maintain every reasonaole
~
4 element of confidentiality and protection of the individual 5
that can be maintained.
I would propose that you araf t a
som3 thing along this line, ethich would simply amend the
/
open-door lenguage as laid out in tne aiffering views bool 3
and then provide some explanation of the background, including tne f act that there has caen this discussion, that
/
IJ Commi ssioners have no tea that tnere vas a potential 11 cifficulty oetween confidentiality under open-door and the 14 f ull access provisions of tne Act and that, hence, this 13 amendment to the ten-door policy lan guage seems 14 appropriate.
Ar-2 then we circulate that to the whole list 15 of people that are on the differing opinions review list.
10 which is -- covers all employees and assorted il organizations.
We ll, it certainly include s the union, all 16 41nds of organizations who have been interes ted in these 19 questions of employee rights and access to Commissioners and 23 open-door policies and so on and, in eff ect, provides you an 21 extremely broad list of people whom you have invited to 22 co mme n t.
23 How does that strike you as a way of moving 24 f o rwa rd?
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Fine.
I dl
.g
.a 04 04 35 x c d.M 1
CMAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us a gree to do that, taan.
2 Jhat that means then is that we will have to regard the 3
final, sort of final Commission decision ana final language 4
on this matter as part of, in due time when we get comments cacs, adoption of the differing views policy cook and a
a speci fica 11/ within it tne open-coor policy.arovisions.
CO TTISS IONER KEN:iEDY:
Inst's correct.
- Going, i
however, with the caveat that the Counsel's original
/
admonition is that we cannot collegially aoridge the rigats 13 which are conveyed to us individually of tne law.
11 CO MMISS I0 DER KENNEDY:
I tnink the oackground ana 12 explanacion section of this memoranJum has to note that.
[3 74R. BICKNIT:
Let me at< one policy question on 14 this.
What is the view on re troactivity of this policy?
15 CO VMISSIO.lER AHEARNE:
I thought you made it clear 16 that if the Commissioner requests the information, he has to 1/
have it.
13 MR. B ICK,1IT:
I kno v.
But we also tried to make 19 it clear that the Commissioners can agree that they not go 20 to the full extent of what the law requires.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have not had any 22 open-door contacts that I can rememoer for the last year, 23 mayce two years.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
None at all?
25 COMMISSIONER GILIN5KY:
I don' t think so.
883 235 P00R OR E.
- g 5 04 Jo 3I r : 3'.9 i
CHAIRMAN d5NDRIE:
Are you sure?
~
d (Laughter.)
3 Co.4MISSIONER <ENNEDY:
It's intere sting, ?e ter, if 4
you can think of one anc the rest of us can't.
2 (Laughtar.)
a CH AIR!.i AN d5NDRIE:
Vic, I can chink of one Nicain i
the past two years.
o CO MMISSIONER GILLi3KY:
I guess I don't rememoer, unless you say something aoout it.
1)
CMAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You just don't rememoer it as 11 an open-d oor.
12 ile ll, le t's see.
Jo you have to speak to it?
13 Isn't it proolem enough?
14 MR. BICKWIT:
You can go anyway you want to.
la CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think a discu ssion which la points out that under the law that Commissioners have thet 1:
access right, even though tney may voluntarily forego it in IS a given case makes it clear or is as clear es I care to mate 19 at tnis time.
20 CO MMISS IONER BR ADFORD:
I don't have personally 21 any pressing need for retroactivity.
As I understana, you 22 raised the standard that if we adopt a new policy, will it 23 apply to open-door contacts while the present policy was in 24 e ff ec t?
25 MR. BICK'dIT:
Yes.
h t
50406 33 a ' : 3.e 1
00:1.!ISS IOdER 3 RAD?ORO:
I voula ce more 2
comfortacle, since tnose contacts took olace under the j
employee's understanding of the rule as written, that we not 4
make this policy re troactive.
a CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's fine with me.
That is a
cerfectly consisten:
/
00'4 MIS 510NER KENNEDY:
It is fine with e on tne d
presumption, of course, that my colle ague s will have, as 9
'they always have -- make availaole ;o all of their 1)
Colleagues those things which cear airectly upon the 11 responsioili ties of the agency, and, therefore, we don't 12 neeo to make it retroactive oecause, in fact, it would have 13 oeen --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is it so clear we are 15 changing - '
13 00MMISSI0 DER AHEARNE:
I tnink it is clear to s
17 employees.
Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Certainly the language will 11 change.
20 COMMISS IONER GILINSKY:
de are not changing all 21 tha t much.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am not sure we are doing more 23 than recognizing explicitly something which has been --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am not.
I have no iaea 20 what othe rs think.
az 2 04 31 39 Y : d.in i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
However, I tnin k to be, as chey d
say, perfectly clear aoout the matter tnat a memorendum 3
circulated to the same distribution rith dif f ering views 4
document, since it would amend some language and that draft a
diff ering views policy book, I think it would be 3
approprietely treated that way.
It will oe circulated for 3
c o mme nt.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
The intent would oe tr f]
circulate tne explanetion and the proposed new language, 11 cac% ground of the 12 CottMIS5IONER XENNEDY:
Sut in doing that now, it 13 should oe understood, whatever the comments may be, they 14 cannot be deemed to have any effect unless an individual 15 Commissione~r wishes to allow them to be, bec ause it is a la matte r which rests not with the collegiel cody out with the 1/
individual Commissioners as Counsel nes well pointed out, 13 and that should be clear.
19 It should not be understood to be in the normal 20 sort of comments action where the collegial cody will be 21 will reflect those co mments.
22 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
The commentor has to 2J convince all five Commissioners. instead of just three.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The commentors might have 25 oetter language to explain the matter or the policy or
~
?0DR ORGEL 883 238 e
- v..
o 04 08 40 7 c 3'/!M i
point out some aspect that we haven't cuite focJsed on nere.
2 00T.(IS5 IO.iER XENNEJY:
It is just the way it is 3
presentea.
I aijn't want to give the t misapprehension.
4 CMAIRMAN ME.NDRIE:
All right.
/ie have the 3
agreement to go snead that way.
It dould be useful for us J
to see Jraf:s of thet.
People mey vant to see that the cone
/
agree s with Inat they have uncerstood from this meeting.
d Le t us close on tais subject now.
(ahereupon, at 11 : 15 a.m., the hearing vas 1) aojournea.)
11 I
3, 14 la la
/
is y
13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 883 239
.