We do look at that issue. All members are subject to an annual performance appraisal. The manner in which we conduct that appraisal has to be very careful, because we can't tell decision-makers how to decide cases. Once you start doing that, it undermines the rule of law. That said, if there are stark anomalies, like some of the ones you have pointed to, they do have to be addressed.
We try to do that through the appointment process by finding the people who we think are best suited for the job. It's not a perfect process. It's like any selection process: you set criteria and you evaluate people against those criteria. Most of the time you're right, but sometimes you're wrong. Sometimes someone is appointed to the position who is not a fit for the job. That happens at the board, and it happens in any organization.
What are we doing about it? I think there's a rigour in the appointment process that has helped greatly in that regard, and I think the training does address those things. We have to balance our obligations as an institution to ensure consistency with the fact that we can't tell individual members that they have to decide a case this way or that way.