No Appointment

I've had a few people ask me why I didn't seek appointment for one of the Fourth District commission seats. For many, it seems to be obvious- but is it?

The people who ask usually phrase it this way- if you're willing to serve and you think you're the best candidate, why not start now?

When the primary was over, and the question turned to the appointments, the first thing I did was to recruit and push many of those who did not win their primary to seek appointment. To be honest, some really didn't want to and had to be talked into it. Why did I do this? It's a question of fairness. While Ed Shouse has more name recognition in the city areas of the Fourth District (and appointment would balance that), would it be fair to 'wrestle' some incumbent advantage I didn't have before? I've certainly heard some arguments made to me that seeking incumbent advantage would 'balance the field,' many pointing out that major media is likely to give more coverage to Shouse.

And to be clear, it's not because I think it's the "kiss of death" either to be appointed by the current commission. The sole things I had to balance in my decision were the issues of what the Fourth District needs versus fairness. We have several good appointee candidates now. If there had only been one or two names thrown out, I probably would have faxed a tentative resume in Friday (qualifying the request for appointment with an agreement to step aside if other good candidates came forward). But the voters need a fair, straight-up election. I have five months to overcome the name recognition issue, and I'm confident the voters will choose someone who stands for real change.