I'm not -for- publishing. I'm not even for a moderation team. But the player committee is something probably necessary, not for staff oversight (I'm sorry, but I don't believe anyone should have control over the people running a game, particularly when it's done mostly through force of outrage), but for player advocacy. They will, naturally, have to have a decent relationship with staff in the first place, because staff will need to value their input in particular for circumstances that they will likely, at some point, pointedly disagree on.
However. That being said, to address your concerns, you can use vagueness, and have it published by the player committee rather than staff.
"3 corrective measures for players were taken this month. 2 of them came from player complaints. We have lifted one ban that was temporary. We have lifted one ban that was originally permanent after meeting. One staff complaint was addressed. Punitive measures were delayed until the next staffing change."
That's not an exact or perfect example. But you can use vagueness to both keep people updated that actions are being taken, and not out it to people at large. Staff don't do this, because people will inevitably decide they're making it up. They will do the same to the player committee as time goes on and people develop the same distrust, but it will be far less prevalent and disruptive, and can be more readily addressed without impacting the game's continued IC events.
Like I told you before: With player committees, including the moderation team, time leads towards inevitable displeasure almost across the board because in any given action, there will almost always be a party who disagrees with it. Over time that accumulates. That is intrinsic to the nature of moderation and running a game with stakes that can be lost. The hope I have for you is that you can keep that rate of disgruntlement low enough that it settles at an acceptable level by equilibrium with natural fading of those harbored feelings over time.