prune inactive topics?

["Paul Tiger - LPBC Publicity" <Publicity@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Last month someone removed all links to the ERC document and in their
comments said "prune inactive topics"

The ERC is still pretty damn active. Yes, we were disbanded, but we didn't
forget about the work that we did and we all continue to beg the question
with the commissioners and clerk. Mostly with the commissioners.

The CVV site was THE ONLY PLACE where the work of the ERC was presented. The
county refused to give us web space. When our final report was published it
took weeks for the county to publish it, and then it wasn't what we had
published but doktored by county ITS and the clerk.
Since then the county has removed most of the references to the ERC. It is
as though we never existed.

Please restore the links to the ERCs work and final report. Anyone looking
at the latest RFP should be able to look at the work that was done and see
that the clerk has once again completely ignored the work of the ERC and the
research that was done at county expense.

ERC members are hopping mad about the latest pronouncements by the clerk.

Whoever decided that the ERC's work was INACTIVE needs a reality check.

Paul Tiger -- former ERC member