The Council's White FudgeYummy! And here's the deal. We are now fully rested individuals ... and are ready to talk turkey. As promised (tho it took longer than we ever expected), we ran some numbers regarding Quinn's firing techniques ... and we'll gladly share with you what we discovered. But first, we must mention this one caveat ... that unlike the Council, we DID NOT have access to Council records, and only had limited access to Council staff. And so, our numbers are only as good as we think they are. But we will share with you our calculations anyway, and they follow: On February 22, 2006, Quinn staff said: 1. That 46% of staffers fired were people of color. We agree; 45.9% to be exact. 2. That 43% of staffers fired were women. Ummm ... apparently ... genitalia ... not the Council's strong suit. 44.26% were women, to be exact. And we're not sure how we could give the Council any leeway here. 3. That before the firings, 45% of the Council's central staff was female. Again, off on the genitalia tip; 46.4% is our answer. 4. That before the firings, 43% of the Council's central staff were people of color. And we say - NO WAY! Our number is 39.21%. And under our most generous of scenarios, the Council only gets up to 40.6%. Under the most generous scenario, the numbers would look like this: Non-Hispanic White: 165 (59.35%) Feel free to talk amongst yourselves... [CM Liu News]
Wait, wouldn't the relevant numbers be the percentage of female and minority staffers before and after the firings? You seem to be missing the before.
reply | email this comment
roomie, look at the new hires. so far my impression is that they are overwhelmingly white and political operatives at all levels (top to bottom). btw what is the new central staff composition, 75% white? quinn may not care about this, but we do.
3-2817:22, you mean to say "why would any recist like me care about this?" obviously Post new comment |