For that reason, would you see any need for any kind of a challenging mechanism or a reviewability mechanism? The reason I ask is that we may have misunderstood the testimony, but public safety officials on Monday suggested that if the chair of the commission disagrees with the commissioner's request, then he or the commission can go to court to seek to overturn that.
I'm wondering if you think that's feasible, if that's correct, if your legal advisers can help me on that. If it's correct, do you think that's a desirable mechanism, or would you prefer to see it end with the text as is, which is that the commissioner asks, it stops, and that's the end of it?