There were three primary areas, as indicated. If I were to simplify them, the first area is the area of skill sets on the board. There was an indication by the OAG that, in particular and more specifically, there was a shortfall in the financial skill set on the board. We concur.
In fact, we have a number of requirements relative to the skill set. We feel that it is relative to the complexity of the nature of the business and the nature of supply management. Having an individual on the board who is familiar with producer issues and an individual on the board who is familiar with processor issues is also very important. With a three-member board, it becomes very difficult to ensure that we have the breadth of skill.
To the extent that we recognized the shortfall, the recommendation was received and our response to it is that where the board feels there is a shortfall, we seek outside expertise. An example of that is our recent conversion from the previous accounting standards to an IFR, international financial reporting standards system. We solicited the services of an outside firm to assist us in that transition.
The second area of recommendation was in the area of conflict. Once again, the conflict was in the fact that we have a three-member board. A producer recommendation provides one of the commissioners and processors another, and there is an apparent conflict as it relates to the producer ruling on support prices and being part of the process that establishes support prices. We recognize that as an issue. We have changed our bylaws to ensure that at the commencement of every meeting any agenda item is reviewed to determine whether or not any individual member has a conflict of interest, and there is an expectation to recuse oneself, should any exist.
In addition, we take a position of neutrality. This is certainly the expectation we have of all members, that we have a neutral position on the issues we deal with such that we avoid any conflict of interest.