Right off the bat, I can say that I disagree with that. A person could manage a lot of cases, but if the cases are poorly supervised or if the decisions are not quality ones, what does that accomplish at the end of the day? In fact, in the members' annual evaluation, one of the criteria, actually, is the quality of decision-making. The focus is much more on quality than quantity.
As my colleague mentioned, in terms of the experience of being a member, part of it is learned on the job, especially during the first five or six weeks of training. That's one thing. You learn about the various components of the board. Then there is the work on the ground. The experienced members are there to provide coaching and mentoring.
There's also everything before that. This is something that needs to be emphasized, because it's important. What educational qualifications are required to apply for a position as a member? What is their field of study? Is it criminology, social work or some other field that is more or less related to the board's work? Also, field experience and expertise in specialized fields should be considered. We don't just handle files. That is not true.