I apologize, I only learned about this on Friday, so I didn't have a chance to research the structure of the IRB. I'm sorry that I don't know that. If I'd had time, I would have researched that.
My experience is that having the input of three people with different perspectives is beneficial. They do have different perspectives on it. It can be complicated, in terms of what scenarios might come in the door.
The other thing this does is that it keeps the chief justice, in our case, preserved from the process. One of the potential dispositions can be referral to the chief justice, who meets privately with the judicial officer and can discuss the concerns of the committee. That can be a very remedial, educational step. If she were dealing with all of the complaints, it would be harder to communicate what happened—and some of the feedback that comes out of that meeting—back to the members of the public. Having the body independent from the chief justice allows for that type of remedy, but it still allows for the body to provide that information back.
If the chief justice were dealing with all of the complaints, it would be so much more difficult to provide the degree of information and feedback back to the public, and to be transparent about what went on. I can't speak for your process; I can only speak for my own.