My point is not necessarily that the positions or programs should continue. My point is that this isn't the way to create or eliminate them. The people who hold the positions and/or benefit from the programs should be heard so that we all have some confidence that decisions are made thoughtfully and for that the consequences have be examined. Wouldn't that be good and open government?
Even you don't seem to want to have a discussion about it, since you won't come out and defend the positions.
I noticed that you said this wasn't the way to "create" them. Can you please point out where the previous board asked the people whether or not they wanted those positions in the first place?
The previous board quietly created those positions. Can you show me where the previous board mentioned they were going to create those positions?
Those positions were mentioned in the debates, which Kark K. attended, though I guess he didn't listen when he was there, otherwise he wouldn't claim that this is something "hidden".
How much more open can one be when one campaigns on doing these things, and then actually does them once elected?
That's about as open as a government can get. Imagine that, politicians actually following through with their promises. Sad that it is such a rare phenomenon that some people don't recognize it when they see it.
