The arbitration has to also consider who is affected by the Uranium ban and what [if any] that impact would have to this company and others for that matter.
This then comes to the decision making process and whether all avenues were tested and whether having the Schmith Law Firm analysis would affect someone's decision making process. To present this to others would imply that ETM was to be singled out. But, the legal analysis will review whether such information would change someone's vote. if the answer is yes, then it will be deemed she held back information. In Naaja's eyes to not present it, is to imply that its not about ETM and all about Uranium, however, what we have discovered is that she has failed to properly inform her colleagues which is why there is a lot of bad taste on the ground at the moment.
This opens Naaja as one that knowingly knew the risks but failed to advise her fellow politicians if you vote for the bill you may end up in court. it will also discover who else had been shared this information and was there a duty by the others to share the facts. Its no differeent to having Town Hall meetings and only presenting one side of a story and doesn't share all the facts. If one doens't know all the facts then they will never know any better [or worse]
Those that voted relied on being told that everything to do with Uranium is bad without understanding the facts, the impacts and so the question is then should the report have been released to advise on any potential legal ramiications thereafter. The answer is yes if you are truly transparent.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
