If Wednesday night’s City Council meeting is any indication, Russell Johnson will keep his job as planning commissioner.

So he should. By most accounts, Johnson has served ably; many say his service has been exemplary.

City Councilman Ken Weir’s call to remove Johnson from the commission, while allowed under the council’s appointment criteria, was ill conceived and poorly timed. It also stirred up considerable community angst, not to mention the overkill media coverage. But before we haul out the tar and feathers, let’s consider, for a moment, how selective we are in our outrage.

The dismissal earlier this month of Bakersfield Sen. Roy Ashburn from the Senate’s Rules Committee raised nary an eyebrow in these parts, even though the move was widely perceived as retribution for Ashburn’s early refusal to back Modesto Republican Dave Cogdill for minority leader.

Cogdill, who replaced Ashburn with Rancho Cucamonga Republican Jim Battin, basically said it was nothing personal, he just liked Battin better.

Back in January, local folks merely shrugged when Sen. Dean Florez successfully fought to boot a Fresno County supervisor from the California Air Resources Board, despite her years of service and expertise in the field.

Nothing personal, he just didn’t appreciate her point of view.

Weir insists his move to fire Russell isn’t personal either, but, given the timing of his proposal — the controversial Canyons project, in which a long-time friend of Weir’s is heavily invested, will come before the planning commission soon — he’ll have a hard time convincing his constituents and fellow councilmembers.

OK, so Weir’s proposal was a bad idea. That said, it does bring up the interesting question of how our elected officials select their appointees.

Johnson was appointed to the planning commission by former-councilman-now-supervisor Mike Maggard, who, like Weir, has a long and colorful history with The Canyons controversy.

Johnson is now employed by Maggard as an at-will employee, meaning Johnson does not enjoy the same job protections as other county employees, but works at the pleasure of Maggard.

Isn’t it right, then, that Weir and his fellow councilmembers should consider the possibility that a conflict of interest may exist? Weir never said as much, but should have.

In his letter to the editor blasting Weir’s proposal, Ashburn rightly points out that “planning commissioners are not appointed to be the voice of the elected official,” but must “remain objective and fair in the items that come before them.”

He went on to say Johnson should be allowed to finish his term on the commission “free from outside political influence.”

I agree. But how reasonable is it for us to expect Johnson, and others on the commission in similar circumstances, to avoid the “political influence” of those who employ them?

It’s a reasonable question with no easy answer, says Councilman David Couch.

“If I had to eliminate from consideration to any city position anyone who had an association with anyone else who might have a different opinion from me on something some day, I could never appoint anyone to anything,” he said.

True. But the employer/employee association is just too close for comfort.

Weir will have a turn to make an appointment to the planning commission next year. When that time comes, perhaps he’ll consider a candidate who’s NOT looking to jumpstart a political career; a candidate who may actually know what it’s like to build something. Now that’s a plan.