Brian McCollister's reasoning of his argument is logically inconsistent ("Abuse of process," The Daily Astorian, Aug. 7). He wrote that "the recall provision was designed to protect citizens against abuse of power."

It is my understanding that this is precisely what the supporters of the recall are claiming. They are claiming that these commissioners are abusing their power by refusing to adhere to the wishes of those they are elected to represent, and are instead imposing their personal wishes and viewpoints, and the interests of powerful energy companies, in place of those of the voters.

The recall proponents cite as evidence of the voters' wishes the recent election wherein the vast majority of the county voted against the decision made by these same commissioners. They feel that the evidence showing the abuse of their power lies in the county commission's immediate disregard of the results of the vote (as was shown by their subsequent actions reaffirming the original action).

Thus to make his argument, McCollister must claim that the refusal of elected representatives to abide by the wishes of their constituents does not constitute abuse of power. I'm not sure that it is a tenable argument that a representative can represent the people by doing an action that the people do not want done.

The underlying issues aside, and whether or not the recall is ultimately successful, the process itself is being used exactly as it was designed. If McCollister accepts the premise that failure to abide by the wishes of your constituents is an abuse of their power, his argument is simply not logically consistent.

Luckily, then, we can all rest assured that William U'ren can roll back over and continue doing whatever it was that he was doing prior to McCollister's illogical tirade. Perhaps he can even rest more soundly than before, content in the knowledge that for once the voters are actually paying attention to the actions of their elected representatives ... a rarity in America.