Yes. We do have a funny structure right now in the sense that we have an organization that is fully government funded, has its civil service salaries, purpose, unionization, but that thinks of itself in many ways as an NGO and wants to function as an NGO in terms of policy and direction. And there's a mismatch.
The global perspective of the NGO community has moved on from the date when Parliament legislated the creation of this organization. We've had these various revolutions in countries—the Green Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and so on—that were led by NGOs and that have been foreign financed. And this has changed, often, the perpetrator perspective of human rights NGOs. And this notion of arm's length through this type of organization doesn't really exist the way it used to.
We've also seen the corruption of the NGO community through the Durban I process, this kind of anti-Israel ganging up. If one puts these grants at their best, one can say that the institution simply was blindsided by this because they didn't have a fully developed Middle East program. They weren't quite aware of the high politicization of all of these NGOs operating in the area and they just walked into this problem.
In terms of the institution, (a) it is not functioning the way it was set up to function; and (b) even functioning the way it was set up to function, the world has moved on. As a result, we have to think through... The purpose instructs the organization, and the answer to that, to me, means much more control of the board over the staff than there has been in the past. Certainly, that's what I've been trying to do with the various resolutions I've been presenting, and that's why I welcome the invitation to present a plan to that effect.