This Times-Standard reader says public officials should make decisions based on the public’s best interest.
He must not be from here.
Sidestepping the process
Public officials should make their decisions based on what is in the public’s best interest. This should be the ultimate benchmark in their decision-making process. Injecting factors such as whether someone will feel “slighted,” “inconvenienced” or “hurt” have no place in the political, decision-making arena. There will always be someone “hurt,” “slighted” or “inconvenienced” by their decision.
It was encouraging to me that the new faces on the board recognized that the normal appointment process was being unwisely sidestepped. Once one starts short circuiting a well-tested appointment process it makes it easier to do it in again in the future. Why establish a vetted and proven appointment process if it can be sidestepped so casually? If the appointment term is four years, why choose an applicant who has publicly informed the board that they are not prepared to serve out the full term? A new appointee with “fire in their belly” may add a new and needed perspective to a commission that is publicly growing frustrated with the pace of the update process.