It’s not a personal issue with anyone. It is the process by which appointments were made that people take issue with. Whether you can trust the people in the seats or not, if you can’t trust the process it doesn’t matter.

At the very least, it looks shady, and it looks like the process may have been abused. That’s not too much of a leap considering the reported actions and reactions of several commissioners during the January meeting where all of this went down.

For the record, I’m against term limits.

“Well, I like the folks appointed in my district, but I can’t believe the people that they appointed in the (insert # here) district. What an outrage! Throw those scoundrels out!”

Unless something scandalous breaks individually for any of these appointees, I predict that almost everyone will be elected in February.

You are in the 4th district, I believe, and email isn’t your commissioners’ strongest mode of communication. However, they are good folks and I know they would like to hear from you.

This is a good opportunity to state that I’m relatively pleased with how my district’s commissioners have handled the appointment situation from the beginning. I think they did the best they could do with the situation, and I think the choice made for the replacement of the term limited seat in our district was a logical one.

Those individuals deserve to hear that as much as they deserve to hear the complaints about the commission as a whole.

I’ll send an email on Wednesday–thanks for the bitch slap!

The commission as a whole is obviously a different story.