I think Ms. Robinson had an excellent suggestion earlier in terms of the training, that it include training from the perspective of potential claimants. Whether you have that by way of an advisory committee or video vignettes or whatever, that's number one.
Number two, the content of the training would include how to ask questions. I have real sympathy for the job of the IRB, because you have to ask extremely sensitive questions and evaluate the answers for credibility when you know that the person may have had to lie to keep alive for all of their lives. It's not an easy thing, so it's training in that particular area of how to ask those questions.
I think that the standards are possible to articulate. For example, misgendering a transperson, using derogatory or dated language like “homosexual” or “transsexual”, which is likely to create the impression in the claimant that the board either doesn't know or doesn't care about their individual situation. There are specific kinds of things, such as any kinds of comments that are likely to have a derisive impact or suggest that the claimant is somehow morally or religiously bad.
It's not difficult. You think about standards that will, quite apart from the substance of the complaint, count as whether or not the member is delivering a competent service as an adjudicator.