<html>
<body>
Andreas, <br><br>
Well, you put your response out to the viz, so I am compelled to respond
accordingly.<br><br>
First since we are going to be discussing McClatchy, I would like to
provide you with the link to McClatchy Terms of Use - here it
is:<br><br>
<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/186" eudora="autourl">
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/186</a><br><br>
It is my suggestion that you read it carefully.<br><br>
Back to the issues at hand. <br>
Yes, your reference to Fiscal Year (FY) 98 Wasilla Financial Statements
was incorrect. The proper designation is FY99. And the
contingency numbers presented in the financial report do tie with items
included in your original email. However, there is no indication in
the financial report as to what the numbers refer to. You
apparently assumed that the material posted by McClatchy contributor
Bryson was correct. <br><br>
Had you properly cited that source, you would of course be off the hook
on that issue.<br><br>
But you didn't - you posted material from someone else (you have
acknowledged this) under your name. That is plagiarism.<br><br>
Furthermore, the organization of your description of events does match
rather well the material posted on the Huffington Post - the story by
Alperin-Sheriff. Only you know what you did so I am not going to
comment further on this matter. If you used the Alperin-Sheriff
material, in any substantive way (or someone else's material) it should
have been cited.<br><br>
For me, an analysis piece normally covers both sides of an issue.
But you presented only one side of the story. There is nothing
wrong per se with doing that, but it does leave one wondering why you
chose to present only one theory. Had you explored further, you
would have seen the crack in the conclusion by the original author.
The financial statements did not provide any explanation about the
contingency item - other than the fact the original budget for 1999 was
for $3,000 and the actual expenditures for the year totalled $205.
The contingency expenditures for FY 98 totalled $3,454. But there
is no indication that the expenditures were for rape kits or some other
item. And you have no direct info to the contrary - other than the
words put together by someone else, who had in turn relied on the
comments of a police chief who had been fired. See the
problem?<br><br>
Here is something else for you to ponder. Contingencies are a
specific item defined by accounting standards. Here is the
description from the 1999 financial report defining contingencies as
implemented by the City of Wasilla:
<dl>
<dd>(15) Contingencies<br>
<dd>The City, in the normal course of its activities, is involved in
various claims and pending litigation and has accrued amounts it
considers sufficient to cover settlements that may be payable as a result
of unfavorable outcomes. The City intends to vigorously defend
actions against it and pursue claims in its favor, and in the opinion of
management and legal counsel, the disposition of these matters is not
expected to have a material effect on the City's financial
statements.<br>
<dd>Amounts received or receivable from grantor agencies are subject to
audit and adjustments by the grantor agencies. Any disallowed
claims, including amounts already collected, would become a liability of
the applicable funds. [Wasilla Annual Financial Report, FY99, page
31, Footnote 15]<br>
<dd>Notice: No mention of any rape kits. It would be
"unusual" to include "rape test kits" as a
contingency item. In my opinion, it would make more sense to
include "rape test kits" as part of the sub-object budget
category of "Professional Services" or because the amount of
expenditure is very small, to include it in the "Other"
category. But those kinds of expenditure classification issues are
one of the reasons I find "Accounting" so intellectually
stimulating. <br>
<dd>Further, to conclude that all the budget and subsequent expenditures
are tied to rape kits would be indefensible. The only way to really
know what was included would be to access the original line item budget,
presented at the sub-object level - that is usually not available -
especially after 7 or 8 years.<br>
<dd>Also, in the McClatchy article, Bryson attempted to pin the
"blame" for the rape kits issue on Palin, citing that because
she signed the Management Report as well as the transmittal letter, she
acknowledges that she has oversight over that expenditure. In
theory, true enough, but I want you to consider this point. In
FY99, Wasilla worked under a budget of over $6 million. The
contingency fund of $3,000, managed by the police chief accounts for less
than 1/20th of 1% of the city's budget. You honestly expect a mayor
to have that item on a radar screen - especially when actual expenditures
for the period were less than 10% of the budgeted expenditures?
</dl>For what it's worth, I do want to take a moment to commend the City
of Wasilla for its attention to preparing an excellent example of high
quality financial reporting . Wasilla has received the GFOA
Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting numerous
times (including FY98 and FY 99). This is a significant signal
about the commitment of Wasilla officials to be responsible and
accountable for their responsibilities (a population of approx 6000 in FY
99). You might be surprised at how few ID small towns pursue and/or
receive this award.<br><br>
You raise a couple of issues that warrant my attention. First, you
indicate that I have threatened you in some way. I am not aware
that I made any threats to you, but if you took any of my comments as
threats to you, please point them out to me and I will try to clarify my
intent.<br><br>
Second, you state:
<dl>
<dd>I'd appreciate even more if you could have civil disagreements over
issues and facts without threatening your correspondents' careers
</dl>I think it is very important for you to realize that I did not
threaten your career - you did that to yourself. All I did was to
point out that there was a problem with the appearance of a sole-authored
writing under your name.<br><br>
Also, I referred you to the Student Code of Conduct as well as the Law
Student Honor Code. You have chosen to study law at the University
of Idaho - you have the obligation to follow the standards of the program
you have chosen to pursue.<br><br>
Finally, you assert that I am angry with you. Well, I am not. But I
am disappointed. I appreciate the zeal you have for your choices
for President and Vice President, but I am disappointed that it appears
you have used poor judgment in making a case to discredit an individual
running for the party you aren't voting for. I am disappointed that
you would, after the fact, have so much concern for your own career,
without considering how your actions and the actions of other like-minded
blogsters would impact someone else's career.<br><br>
In any case, I hope this clears the air on where I stand with this
matter. You, and only you, know what you did or didn't do. And what
you do, or don't do, is entirely up to you.<br><br>
I trust that we are done now.<br><br>
Consequently you are At 04:52 PM 9/13/2008, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Jeff --<br><br>
Actually, what I'm looking at here is FY '98-'99, not FY '97-'98,<br>
bottom half of the page, page 65 of the PDF, under 'contingency.'
I<br>
suspect you would know whether a Jul-Jun fiscal year is generally<br>
referred to by the starting or ending year; I obviously don't. The<br>
file name starts with '7-1-98', so I used '98.<br><br>
The contingency budget corresponds with the Frontiersman 'taxpayer<br>
expense' that the police chief cited.<br><br>
-- ACS<br><br>
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh@moscow.com>
wrote:<br>
> When one travels to the 1998 Audited Financial Statements for the
City of<br>
> Wasilla, page 65 you get the Combining Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures<br>
> and Changes in Fund Balance for the Capital Projects Fund. All
police<br>
> operating activities are presented in the General Fund.<br>
><br>
> This link will get you to the Document Central. From there
just select the<br>
> 1998 Audited Financial Statements. It takes a bit for the file
to upload<br>
> (pdf), but then go to page 65 of the official report. Just to
cover all<br>
> bases, if you go to page 65 of the pdf file (remember page numbering
doesn't<br>
> necessarily agree with official report), you will be viewing the
City of<br>
> Wasilla Library Special Revenue Fund, Statement of Revenue and
Expenditures<br>
> and Changes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1998<br>
><br>
>
<a href="http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136" eudora="autourl">
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136</a><br>
><br>
> Not only have I downloaded all the relevant documents at Document
Central, I<br>
> have read or scanned all of them.<br>
><br>
> Want to try again?<br>
><br>
> At 02:50 PM 9/13/2008, you wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM, g. crabtree
<jampot@roadrunner.com><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Is it your contention that Dr. Harkins CPA, Professor
Emeritus of the<br>
>> > University of Idaho Collage of Business, Department of
Accounting is<br>
>> > unable<br>
>> > to read a small town budget report and has the facts all
wrong?<br>
>><br>
>> No. It is, rather, my contention that he didn't, or did and
then<br>
>> thought that no one would actually check. I'm not calling
him<br>
>> incompetent; I'm calling him a liar. Again, for anyone
that's<br>
>> interested, you can check the '98 cite on page 65. The
contingency<br>
>> numbers correspond to the police chief's quotations from
the<br>
>> Frontiersman article. As for anything further, I am not going to
shout<br>
>> a full and unnecessary bibliography at Dr. Harkins' departing
back.<br>
>><br>
>> > Or, as is somewhat more likely given previous discussions I
have had<br>
>> > with<br>
>> > you on this forum, did you lift the whole thing in its
entirety from the<br>
>> > huffington post and throw that bit about primary sources in
an attempt<br>
>> > to<br>
>> > lend a semblance of authenticity and credence to your
argument?<br>
>><br>
>> Gee, Gary. If you thought so, you'd think you'd've at least
accused me<br>
>> of doing so before. We've had quite a bit of correspondence,
ande<br>
>> you've actually never accused me of that, which is sort of
amazing<br>
>> given the broad miscellany of personal accusations you've made
against<br>
>> me over the years.<br>
>><br>
>> Again, I'm telling you outright: no, I didn't read 300 pages
of<br>
>> financial disclosures from beginning to end. Rather, I found
someone<br>
>> else pointing at the cites, I looked them up, confirmed that
they were<br>
>> accurate, and sent Jeff directly to the primary source, evading
the<br>
>> inevitable argument about the reliability of a Washington
Monthly<br>
>> comment thread and the 'those could've been cut-and-pasted
from<br>
>> anywhere' argument regarding the snapshots from the PDF.
Following<br>
>> bibliographic chains to primary sourcesis a time-honored
research<br>
>> technique, and one that saves a tremendous amount of<br>
>> wheel-reinventing.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm hadn't claimed at any point to have done original research,
only<br>
>> that the primary sources supported my argument. Again, you
aren't<br>
>> accusing me of lying. You aren't disputing the facts as they
stand.<br>
>> You aren't accusing me of cutting-and-pasting language from
the<br>
>> article. You're merely making an issue of how I happened to know
why<br>
>> Dr. Harkins was wrong.<br>
>><br>
>> -- ACS<br>
><br>
></blockquote></body>
</html>