Well, I think the fundamental process is probably good.
I think what I've seen here is probably different from anything else I've ever experienced, in that senior people probably have the power to get around a number of things if they want to. We can see this in terms of access to information; if we do an ATIP request, it isn't the ATIP people who decide whether it's released, but the person who holds the document. As long as that structure remains that way, people who are going to be embarrassed by something are just not going to release it.
So that's a tremendous weakness, as it all falls within the same basic structure in the organization. You probably need to have a separate entity with real power to deal with these things, because if we're in fact right that these scores were tampered with, of course nobody is going to volunteer that information. Somehow you need to separate those pieces out.
The second and related issue is that of implementing the contract. When you compete, you expect to deliver what you're promising to do. There really is no mechanism for challenging that; those decisions are just made in the department. The only way you can challenge them is a lawsuit, and I think that's not a good thing either, because it is open to an individual manager saying, well, I like those guys and I'm just going to let them off the hook. It's pretty clear that's what happened in the case of ETS.