Jim, I hesitate to defend Ken, but it looks like your "sensitivity" to Ken's ideas & comments interferes with your common sense. What Ken said about value for money ( essentially, relevance to the membership) is emminently sensible. Because Ken opposes supporting a program, is not a valid reason for automatically pooh-poohing the idea of reviewing that program, or any other.

He doesn't speak for anyone but himself, however, the generic concept of program review is a good one.