Well, I have two thoughts. One I mentioned earlier, which is that I do agree with her that the relationship between the department and SDTC would benefit from an MOU or something that spells out clearly what the relationship is and how it's managed.
The second thing, and I noticed it in her testimony, is that she raised how the 2001 act needs to be modernized. Specifically, there are issues related to membership that are reported in some of the 2017 and 2018 documents. However, the real issue for me is that the SDTC Act actually requires the directors and the chair of the board to approve projects. In my experience—especially now that I've gone to the the private sector and been on boards—most of the boards like SDTC, in fact, do exactly the opposite. They ensure that the role of the board is to provide strategy and oversight of operations, but in terms of approval of projects, this is not their job.
I personally believe that one of the lessons from all of this is that perhaps I should have taken seriously the need to modernize the act and change it. All I knew at the time was that there was this issue around members, so I didn't see that that could go throughout the House in any successful way. Now I know that I really should have focused on how we needed to change the requirement that the directors of the board approve projects.