Some background, which is probably pedantic but I want to err on the side of over sharing:
Your question was addressed to Chana, but, despite not being involved in the initial handling of this case, she felt it would not be appropriate for someone on the community health team to limit the scope of any investigation. So this question should probably be addressed to Max, the executive director, not her.
Max has since resigned.
I, his temporary replacement, was not involved in that decision, but I believe that I have the power to override that decision if I disagreed with it. Or, at least, I could attempt to override it, and I have not tried to do so.
So this comment is my thoughts on having an external party review broader processes apart from this specific case. I expect itâs similar to things that Max would have said, but probably not identical.
We already had a proposal from an external entity to audit some of the CH teamâs general processes before the news of this specific incident broke, and I expect (~70%) we will end up working with them, although Iâm not sure exactly what the details will be like. We have done this kind of external review before and have had mixed results; as with any kind of peer review/âbest practice sharing, the median result is that there arenât major changes. Still, I think the potential upside is probably enough to justify doing something like this.
Note that this audit is âexternalâ in the sense that it will be performed by people who donât work at CEA, but is âinternalâ in the sense that itâs triggered by CEA, rather than the board. And in yet a third sense of the word âexternal:â I am involved, so the audit is âexternalâ in the sense that it involves me, a person not on the community health team but who has the power to fire/âreassign/âetc. anyone on the community health team.
It seems like itâs best to start the investigation into this particular incident and announce it as quickly as possible, so I donât have a full plan about other audits we might do, but this comment resonates with some of my thoughts on potentially sharing information that comes out of this kind of review.
Thanks. Can you clarify whether the investigation is being handled by EV UK or CEA? I read EV UKâs statement as saying they triggered it and are responsible for it (emphasis added):
we are commissioning an external investigation by an independent law firm into Owenâs behaviour and the Community Health teamâs response.
But you are saying that it was triggered by CEA and not EV UK, and also that the ED of CEA is responsible for overseeing it.
I think we might be talking past each other â I understood you to be asking about Chana/âCEAâs thoughts on commissioning an investigation whose scope is broader than the one the board commissioned. Is that wrong?
Some background, which is probably pedantic but I want to err on the side of over sharing:
Your question was addressed to Chana, but, despite not being involved in the initial handling of this case, she felt it would not be appropriate for someone on the community health team to limit the scope of any investigation. So this question should probably be addressed to Max, the executive director, not her.
Max has since resigned.
I, his temporary replacement, was not involved in that decision, but I believe that I have the power to override that decision if I disagreed with it. Or, at least, I could attempt to override it, and I have not tried to do so.
So this comment is my thoughts on having an external party review broader processes apart from this specific case. I expect itâs similar to things that Max would have said, but probably not identical.
We already had a proposal from an external entity to audit some of the CH teamâs general processes before the news of this specific incident broke, and I expect (~70%) we will end up working with them, although Iâm not sure exactly what the details will be like. We have done this kind of external review before and have had mixed results; as with any kind of peer review/âbest practice sharing, the median result is that there arenât major changes. Still, I think the potential upside is probably enough to justify doing something like this.
Note that this audit is âexternalâ in the sense that it will be performed by people who donât work at CEA, but is âinternalâ in the sense that itâs triggered by CEA, rather than the board. And in yet a third sense of the word âexternal:â I am involved, so the audit is âexternalâ in the sense that it involves me, a person not on the community health team but who has the power to fire/âreassign/âetc. anyone on the community health team.
It seems like itâs best to start the investigation into this particular incident and announce it as quickly as possible, so I donât have a full plan about other audits we might do, but this comment resonates with some of my thoughts on potentially sharing information that comes out of this kind of review.
Thanks. Can you clarify whether the investigation is being handled by EV UK or CEA? I read EV UKâs statement as saying they triggered it and are responsible for it (emphasis added):
But you are saying that it was triggered by CEA and not EV UK, and also that the ED of CEA is responsible for overseeing it.
I think we might be talking past each other â I understood you to be asking about Chana/âCEAâs thoughts on commissioning an investigation whose scope is broader than the one the board commissioned. Is that wrong?