That's certainly my understanding of what the government would do in naming any board: make sure that it has disparate views, disparate geography, disparate gender, disparate language. All of that comes into the mix.
With respect to this particular process, we had to apply—at least, that was the original process—and we had to outline what our views were and what skills, talent, and knowledge we thought we would bring.
One thing I would like to stress for this committee is that one of the things I wrote in my letter of application was that I was deeply committed to consensus-building, and so I find it ironic to have ended up exactly where I am today.
In the course of this journey, if you will, at one point I actually had occasion to cite from my letter in correspondence with the chair--namely, that I'm attempting to do what I said I would do, so I'm being true to who I am and to the reason, I take it, I was chosen for this board, and I don't view what's happening as allowing that to go forward.
I personally believe it would have been important to have somebody with ethics expertise. If it hadn't been me, I would hope it would have been somebody else with that expertise. I left in March. I have not been replaced.