^ But, just like in politics, those who lobby to address the concerns of a receptive electorate are often the ones who get the winning vote(s).
If nobody else gives a toss to put forward winning arguements to address the expectations of other parties, then it really isn't relevant to delve any deeper into the wider experience of the elected members. Otherwise where this is heading is towards an appointed Select Committee, rather than elected Policy Advisory Body.
If one sector proves to be dominant in securing votes, then let the other sectors up their efforts to secure election. I don't see how it can be either healthy or fair to even consider questioning the wider experience of people who have been voted in fair and square, especially so soon after the election has been conducted. On a personal level it may be of interest to you, but these people have been successfully voted in.
None of them have even had the opportunity to sit their first PAB meeting after this election, and i am surprised that you can't see why your comments may not be seen as anything else other than likely to undermine the new PAB members before they've even had a chance to get their feet under the table, because that's how it looks from here.
Purely out of interest, perhaps you could profile exactly what types of people you think are more inline with your expectations for PAB members, then perhaps we can encourage such types to put themselves up for election in the future.
