AEI Advisory Committee Members, where's the BEEF?

The AEI Advisory Committee is discussing a proposed Overview of GT education, and a proposed policy IOA, both of which are discussed in public, displayed in public, debated in public, voted in public, but have never been made public.

The Advisory Committee members vote on specific language changes/amendments--without the authority of their constituencies--creating, in my opinion, a personal Overview and Policy, not necessarily reflective of the view of the public.

It is only when the public can view the unvarnished document that a meaningful debate can take place. The Overview and the Policy are available to ALL Advisory Committee members. Some Committee members are proposing various motions and amendments related to these documents to be voted upon by their respective constituencies. Until the Policy and Overview are made public, the resolutions and amendments being proposed are, in my view, meaningless.

I believe that these Committee members have no right to withhold from the public view a document that they are apparently amending to conform to the view of their constituencies.

While the view that both the Overview and the Policy are embargoed by MCPS , i.e., they are secret, seems reasonable, I would posit that it is made possible by the Advisory Committee membership being complicit to the process. My question is to the whole Advisory Committee membership: On what justifiable grounds are you withholding the proposed the Overview and the Policy IOA from the public?

This question must be answered if Committee members are proposing that the public, i.e., their respective constituencies, support various motions and amendments based on this ephemeral Overview and Policy.

So, AEI Advisory Committee Members, where's the BEEF?