I think the chair has a variation on a conflict of interest because on the one hand they want their board to have a good reputation, which means they don't want to highlight or be publicizing issues where board members have not met a standard of care in relation to issues of this kind. They are most able to maintain the integrity and the assessment by the public of integrity if the process is external to the board so that is taken away from the chair. The point the letter-writer wrote about, the small number of complaints, suggests to me that the process is so daunting people don't complain.
I think also the nature of the complaint process, for example, in the manner in which they treated complainants, is generically different from complaints, for example, that somebody ignored evidence or fell asleep during the hearing, or those kinds of things, and they should be dealt with by external bodies.
I don't think this is rocket science. I think institutions including the police, the law societies, the judicial education system, universities, institutions in general are having to figure out how to deal with it.