[Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .

[Jeff Harkins]

When one travels to the 1998 Audited Financial Statements for the 
City of Wasilla, page 65 you get the Combining Statement of Revenues, 
Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Capital Projects 
Fund.  All police operating activities are presented in the General Fund.

This link will get you to the Document Central.  From there just 
select the 1998 Audited Financial Statements.  It takes a bit for the 
file to upload (pdf), but then go to page 65 of the official 
report.  Just to cover all bases, if you go to page 65 of the pdf 
file (remember page numbering doesn't necessarily agree with official 
report), you will be viewing the City of Wasilla Library Special 
Revenue Fund, Statement of Revenue and Expenditures and Changes in 
Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1998

http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136

Not only have I downloaded all the relevant documents at Document 
Central, I have read or scanned all of them.

Want to try again?

At 02:50 PM 9/13/2008, you wrote:
>On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is it your contention that Dr. Harkins CPA,  Professor Emeritus of the
> > University of Idaho Collage of Business, Department of Accounting is unable
> > to read a small town budget report and has the facts all wrong?
>
>No. It is, rather, my contention that he didn't, or did and then
>thought that no one would actually check. I'm not calling him
>incompetent; I'm calling him a liar. Again, for anyone that's
>interested, you can check the '98 cite on page 65. The contingency
>numbers correspond to the police chief's quotations from the
>Frontiersman article. As for anything further, I am not going to shout
>a full and unnecessary bibliography at Dr. Harkins' departing back.
>
> > Or, as is somewhat more likely given previous discussions I have had with
> > you on this forum, did you lift the whole thing in its entirety from the
> > huffington post and throw that bit about primary sources in an attempt to
> > lend a semblance of authenticity and credence to your argument?
>
>Gee, Gary. If you thought so, you'd think you'd've at least accused me
>of doing so before. We've had quite a bit of correspondence, ande
>you've actually never accused me of that, which is sort of amazing
>given the broad miscellany of personal accusations you've made against
>me over the years.
>
>Again, I'm telling you outright: no, I didn't read 300 pages of
>financial disclosures from beginning to end. Rather, I found someone
>else pointing at the cites, I looked them up, confirmed that they were
>accurate, and sent Jeff directly to the primary source, evading the
>inevitable argument about the reliability of a Washington Monthly
>comment thread and the 'those could've been cut-and-pasted from
>anywhere' argument regarding the snapshots from the PDF. Following
>bibliographic chains to primary sourcesis a time-honored research
>technique, and one that saves a tremendous amount of
>wheel-reinventing.
>
>I'm hadn't claimed at any point to have done original research, only
>that the primary sources supported my argument. Again, you aren't
>accusing me of lying. You aren't disputing the facts as they stand.
>You aren't accusing me of cutting-and-pasting language from the
>article. You're merely making an issue of how I happened to know why
>Dr. Harkins was wrong.
>
>-- ACS