Fair enough.
When we had Mr. Aterman before us earlier in the week, we were trying to get a sense of what type of conduct should come before the disciplinary panel. Typically, it's just matters related to code of conduct that would be addressed, not issues related to knowledge of the law because they would be subject to appeal. If justices of the peace had demonstrated over a period of time that all of their decisions were being overturned, or they just didn't have the law right, or their competence was beginning to suffer, would that be something that would come before your body as well?