The entire problem stems from his desire to personally oversee Player Conduct issues and having NO IDEA what that might entail, or what kind of traps he was laying for himself by handing down differing punishments for similar misdeeds depending on how he reacted to meeting with the player.

In the Q&A session, he seemed to obliquely say he was willing to give up some jurisdiction or control, I'll guess we'l see if he follows through. Maybe he learned something, my money is that he has not. He refused to use his appeal authority as a bargaining chip in the CBA when the owner's were out for a big win and it could have bought concessions. I don't think he gives up so easily.