Timeline of Shame
20/02/10 10:53
Timeline of Shame
October 2008: Two senior city workers develop costing information about the library. While the Stage 2 data was a ballpark estimate, the estimate for the library costs were accurate.
November 2009: Those same senior city workers develop the Library FAQ and Library Flyer. They ignore their previous work, and make up new numbers for the library costs. These false numbers make the Renton plan look more expensive.
January 2010: One of those same city workers directs the librarians to hand out the Library FAQ with the false number. This city worker is intimately involved with the library budgeting process.
Middle January 2010: The city spends at least $5000 to distribute those false numbers to it's citizens.
Middle January 2010: People receive their ballots and many people vote immediately with the city’s bad information in their minds.
Late January 2010: An uneducated man with a cheap calculator finds that the numbers are false. It takes him five minutes using data entirely in the City's 2010 budget. The city issues a retraction, but blames the fault on the 2008 numbers, even though those 2008 numbers were correct.
Early February: One of the city workers responsible for the bad numbers fails to inform the librarians. The librarian continue to receive copies of the bad numbers and hand them to voters.
That my friend, is how you win an election.
October 2008: Two senior city workers develop costing information about the library. While the Stage 2 data was a ballpark estimate, the estimate for the library costs were accurate.
November 2009: Those same senior city workers develop the Library FAQ and Library Flyer. They ignore their previous work, and make up new numbers for the library costs. These false numbers make the Renton plan look more expensive.
January 2010: One of those same city workers directs the librarians to hand out the Library FAQ with the false number. This city worker is intimately involved with the library budgeting process.
Middle January 2010: The city spends at least $5000 to distribute those false numbers to it's citizens.
Middle January 2010: People receive their ballots and many people vote immediately with the city’s bad information in their minds.
Late January 2010: An uneducated man with a cheap calculator finds that the numbers are false. It takes him five minutes using data entirely in the City's 2010 budget. The city issues a retraction, but blames the fault on the 2008 numbers, even though those 2008 numbers were correct.
Early February: One of the city workers responsible for the bad numbers fails to inform the librarians. The librarian continue to receive copies of the bad numbers and hand them to voters.
That my friend, is how you win an election.