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

[Andreas Schou]

Jeff --

Actually, what I'm looking at here is FY '98-'99, not FY '97-'98,
bottom half of the page, page 65 of the PDF, under 'contingency.'  I
suspect you would know whether a Jul-Jun fiscal year is generally
referred to by the starting or ending year; I obviously don't. The
file name starts with '7-1-98', so I used '98.

The contingency budget corresponds with the Frontiersman 'taxpayer
expense' that the police chief cited.

-- ACS

On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>