Another thought regarding appointed boards and incumbents...

Since the two incumbents running for re-election this November, Commissioner Cara Jennings and Commissioner Suzanne Mulvehill, have been on the Commission, there has been a not too hidden contempt for appointed boards.  Look at how the last round of CRA applicants were treated - lining up for their interviews only to be turned away and told that the Commission may be eliminating the CRA anyway.  "We'll call you when we know what we are doing."  Then we had the Planning and Zoning board's multi-year review of the Comprehensive Plan.  Ignoring the large number of hours and opportunities for meaningful public input - including opportunities for elected officials to inject their views and comments, the Commission ignored it's advisory recommendations on height.  In one swift unilateral action, the Commission chopped property rights throughout the city.  We have yet to experience the unintended consequences of that action.  I remember a long time member of the Planning Board saying that he felt that all of his time in volunteering his efforts in review of the Comprehensive Plan weren't appreciated by the Commission due to their hasty action.

So, why does it surprise some people that an issue is being made of someone on a board who is running for office?  It shouldn't.  I can hear the chatter at the doors now, past and future campaigns.  Something like this, "Hi, I am Ms. Incumbent and I'm running for re-election." Resident "Oh, I have heard of you before.  Who are you running against?" "Oh, that would be Ms. X," hand to side of mouth as if telling secret, "Yes, she was on one of our boards but had to resign."  Resident, "Oh, really, well, that's too bad.  Don't worry, you have my vote then."

The moral of the story here is that we should utilize our appointed advisory boards better than we do.  We should allow them to do the research and solicit public input so that they can provide good advice to the Commission.  Right now, instead of having boards that represent a broad cross-section of opinions, we are getting cherry-picked appointees that are able to pass certain litmus tests.  That way, there are no surprises beyond the already scripted agenda of the majority on the dais and we continue down the road of totalitarianism.  Original thought and representing reality is not appreciated the way it needs to be in order to have effective government.  But, then maybe certain people don't want government to be effective and to represent the people - they want the actions to represent their own narrow views.