I don't look at it that way. I look at it this way: one member from an industry that is heavily regulated as an air emission source (a paint company); one member who is a health care professional who specializes in respiratory diseases and who brings a level of competence to the ARB on the health effects of air pollutants; one member who is an executive of another "stationary source" of air pollution (an airport); one member who is an executive from the industry that produces the greatest amount of air pollution in California (the auto industry); and one member who is a local government official who has served on the board of the air quality management district with the worst air quality in the nation (the South Coast District).
These appointments seem balanced, relevant, and thoughtful.
OK,that makes sense,