Gotta say, you do bring up some good points, but the take away of your article is simply not doable. People do an HO job, because they care about the league and want to make it better in some way. Whether or not they manage to achieve that goal, is not the question now. The point is, you don't care about the league when you don't have a player in it. And you really, really don't want people in HO who don't care about the league.

We need people in HO who can be impartial, which I believe most if not all current HO members can be. I feel the flaw in the Anaheim case, was that they felt personally attacked after the first ruling and weren't able to handle that too well. I know, it's easy to get to that point in HO, you do have to deal with a lot of uncalled for shit. That's why I think, if the appeal was handled by a different team than the original one, it would have come out a lot better, no matter what the ruling would've been then. They either would have come closer to what the other side expected or they would have been able to explain the reasoning differently and from a more believable point of view.