The normal life expectancy of a board is about 10 years, I agree. When the new charter was adopted for the board to obtain jurisdiction over modernization, it was a reaffirmation I think on the part of the legislator of the board's existence. For the board and its employees and the members it was an incredible compliment. It was an act of faith that the board could look at this new work and do something good about it.
There are some propositions that are fundamental no matter what happens in the next five or 10 years. I think the system has to remain non-adversarial. It's extremely important for the board to remain that way.
The second thing is to make sure the evidentiary onuses don't vary by way of too much or too prevalent expertise. By that I mean that we don't go into the realm of one expert saying this and another expert saying that and having the board rule between two experts. Always keep a relatively simple medical evidentiary basis that is reasonable. I think that will be extremely important.
The final thing is to reassert the principle of what administrative law has always been, and that is to make sure the people who are in these jobs as board members are people who are dedicated to doing the work they do.
Then you'll have a good recipe.