One concern that the drafters, the legislators, and you have—and that's why we're trying to get our head around it—is that an ombudsman creates an expectation, as I think it should, that those served by the ombudsman will get a certain quality of service when they make an appeal.
To use a quick example, I had a constituent who had a problem with a bank and complained about how the local manager handled a particular situation. So I helped them access that bank's ombudsman, and I was amazed that the ombudsman had no legal authority to tell the manager to do this or that. But just the fact that the ombudsman made the inquiry opened people's minds to different ways of looking at things, and in that situation it got resolved.
I'm not saying it always did. As long as those served by an ombudsman understand that, I don't think an ombudsman is going to be able to dictate absolutes to people, but by moral suasion, by the inquiries, sort of keep things on the rail.
Is it your sense, as you discuss these matters through the Legion, that an ombudsman would not have legislative or legal authority, but could help veterans by bringing a professional approach to inquiry?