This isn’t about tone.
Definitely not about personalities.

It’s about sequence.
Timing.
And what ends up in the file when the meeting is over.

At the last meeting (January 20, 2026), Commissioner Shinitsky, aka Proffer Shitsky of District #3, voted to stay with BSO. That motion failed, 3–2. No ambiguity there.

Minutes later—same meeting, same issue—he votes to leave BSO. That motion passed, 4–1. This time, he was with the majority.

Two votes. Same subject. Different outcomes.

Are you thinking, WTAF?
Is this guy some sort of Political Rainman?

Eh, no.

Afterward, residents say they were told this wasn’t a mistake. It was intentional. The explanation offered was that the second vote preserved Shitsky’s ability to bring the issue back in February. A procedural move. Positioning.

True, I’m told…

Those aren’t accusations. They’re the votes, followed by the explanation given for them.

And that’s where the discomfort starts.

Not quite, yet, gastrointestinal distress, but moving down that road.

Because votes aren’t just expressions; they lock in posture, and determine who gets to reopen an issue and who doesn’t. When a vote is explained not as agreement with the outcome, but as a way to keep leverage alive, the public is entitled to ask what the vote actually meant.

I said yes to say no.

That’s not cynicism.
That’s basic governance literacy.

The vote also doesn’t sit alone.

Public records requests are already producing emails that suggest a broader pattern—one where a commissioner (guess who?) bypasses City Manager RodneyB and deals directly with staff. Operational conversations. Directional language. Lines that aren’t supposed to blur doing exactly that.

Also, seems Shitsky likes to use the copy machines over at city hall.  Shit, I want to borrow the SWAT mobile …

Commissioners don’t run departments. They’re not supposed to. When they do, even casually, it puts staff in bad positions and exposes the city to risk it doesn’t need.

Then there’s the political material.

High-quality flyers. Four-color. Professionally done. No visible disclaimers. Distributed by an official who publicly portrays himself as having limited personal means.

As Nanny would say, “ain’t got a pot to piss in.”

By itself, that proves nothing. Flyers exist.

But when you place that next to documented access to staff, systems, and public resources, it raises questions that aren’t going to answer themselves.

And that’s the point.

Again, not to be redundant, but WTAF?

If everything was clean, the records will show it. If procedures were followed, the paper trail will confirm it. If lines were crossed—even unintentionally—that needs to be corrected now, not after it metastasizes into something worse.

Hello FEC, remember me?

The solution here isn’t outrage. It’s sunlight.

And it’s the best disinfectant.

The records will come out, clarifying the roles, and we’ll see who does what, and who doesn’t.

I am told, ain’t looking good, it’s a gold mine of … repeat after me … a gold mine of WTAF(?).

Cities don’t lose credibility because people ask uncomfortable questions. They lose it when those questions sit unanswered long enough to become assumptions.

The record exists now.

What happens next decides whether it closes—or keeps getting heavier.