Dear Editor:
I am perplexed why some of the proposed constitutional amendments and laws related to the Department of Conservation are being portrayed as a threat. Doesn't it make sense for a state agency to be held accountable to the taxpayer? What's wrong with allowing voters to decide periodically if they are happy with the way the agency is spending money? Other state agencies are required to do this annually.
I also don't see why increasing the size of the commission is such a terrible thing. I would think having representation from eight regions of the state would be more representative of the people than only having representation from four regions.
There have been several conservation-related proposals submitted this year and some of them may deserve criticism but the ones mentioned above deserve consideration. Few would argue that the Department of Conservation isn't highly thought of but the proposals above have to do with increasing accountability and representation, which is a good thing if you're a taxpayer. The Department of Conservation, as well as their defenders should keep that in mind.