Everything you say is factually accurate. And I think you also said what I am thinking, that the fact that no law was violated is a pretty lame excuse for what he did. There's a difference between what's legal and what's proper [or ethical]. The best solutions are those that are both legal and proper which, in this case, would have been extending the terms, or holding off on replacements, in order to allow the investigation to be completed.

I still want to know if he routinely does this with other commissions. Is it really “routine” as his spokesperson claims? Something tells me the answer to that question is no.

The commissioners he replaced all had just recently had their terms expire. That said, extending their terms through the hearing would have been the proper thing to do.

He did wait until some time after the term expiration had occurred to do the replacements, for the likely reason of ensuring a delay.

Adds to my earlier comment that this doesn't pass the smell test.

It is my undxerstanding that other than saying that changing the commission members was routine, his prerogative, etc. I have not heard other reaosn. However, a few days before fire scientist Craig Beyler who was hired to to look into the case by the Texas Forensic Science Commission,was scheduled to present his findings to the Commission, (Beyler said the arson investigation that contributed to Willingham's conviction was based on faulty science), that meeting was canceled when “Perry replaced three members of the nine-member panel, including its chairman. Later, he replaced a fourth.

The new chairman, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, said he needed more time to study up on the case. Some of Perry's adversaries said the governor was trying to deflect attention from the Willingham case until after the Republican primary in March”

As I understand it, Perry's explanation has been that it's routine, just business as usual. This is a nine member commission. It would be interesting to know how many other commissions have had nearly half of their members replaced in two or three week's time. Maybe then we could assess how “routine” or “business as usual” it really is.

To me, what's going on with Perry and this commission doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't the first three dismissals from the commission occur two or three days before the commission was to hear evidence that the arson investigation was faulty and that it probably wasn't arson at all?