Dear WG chairs and Sub Team 4 members,
As requested by the Sub Team 4 members who were
able to participate in the Friday call, I’ve updated
the Sub Team 4 report to reflect that discussion.
Please note that this document has not yet been
reviewed by any Sub Team 4 member, and represents
staff’s attempt to capture the gist of the Friday
discussion. I have accepted all the changes from
Categories A through E that were in the last version
circulated by Kathy (version 3), so this document
(version 4) shows the changes I’ve made in those
five categories, while retaining all the previous
changes and comments that are in Category F and
Category G, which the Sub Team did not get through
on Friday.
Also attached is a summary document that contains
only the recommendations and conclusions from the
draft Sub Team report (as updated). I am including
this as I thought it may make it easier for Don,
Steve and Graeme to review, to see where things are.
Don, Steve and Graeme – please note that several
items have been flagged for further WG discussion,
and have been marked as such in both documents.
While each recommendation should certainly be
reviewed by all WG members, these flagged items
represent either topics where the Sub Team has not
yet come to agreement or otherwise believes the
topic should be brought back to the full WG. Of
these topics, I believe that on the Friday
call the group highlighted the question as to
whether accreditation could lead to the loss of
the right to counsel (Category D-2) as being the
one item likely to be most usefully discussed at
the Friday face to face meeting. Another topic
that could be raised at the Friday meeting is
the question of penalties for repetitive abuses
of the program (Category C-2).
Kathy, Paul, Vicky and all – can you confirm or
otherwise highlight, the topics that you think would
benefit particularly from a WG discussion on Friday?