Inspectors Dispute Report Over Who Investigated Members Disputes arise over many issues, but when the dispute involves two Inspection Members, there is an even higher level of scrutiny required to ensure a fair outcome. 

In 2019, an investigation into a disagreement between two who investigate members took place, and the resulting report has sparked an even bigger debate around the best way to handle such disputes.

What Lead up to the Dispute? 

In the early months of 2019, two Inspection Members were assigned a joint investigation. They had different backgrounds and conflicting approaches to the process, which caused friction between the two. The two were unable to come to an agreement on how to proceed, leading to an impasse.

At this point, the dispute was referred to a higher authority, which began its own investigation into the matter. This investigation was conducted by a third member, who had been appointed to serve as a neutral mediator in the dispute.

The Third Member’s Role 

The third member was responsible for conducting the investigation and ultimately deciding which of the two members had acted properly. It was an intensive process, requiring the third member to weigh all the evidence and testimony from both sides.

In order to ensure that their decision would be impartial and fair, the third member was careful to remain objective throughout the investigation. They also received support from colleagues, in the form of advice and counsel, to ensure that their decision would be truly unbiased.

The Report Findings 

After a lengthy investigation, the third member issued their report. In their findings, the member concluded that both members had acted properly, but had not reached an agreement on how best to proceed. Additionally, the report stated that there were successes and failures on both sides, and recommended that the two investigate members should come together to find a solution for resolving their dispute.

Reaction to the Report 

The report of the investigation provoked mixed reaction from the public. On one hand, many felt that the decision was fair, as it acknowledged that there had been successes and failures on both sides. On the other, some argued that the investigation was not thorough enough, and that the third member had not addressed the core issues facing the two members.

The investigation into the dispute between the two investigate members proved to be a contentious one. In the end, the report issued by the third member, though not without criticism, provided some degree of closure and direction, if not resolution. As to how the two investigate members will resolve the dispute, that remains to be seen, though it is likely that the report will prove to be a useful tool in any compromise that can be reached.