The third thing that stood out was a comment made by Newsom on the stand:
Shikman said Childs' actions had caused concern among officials, but no actual problems.
"Nothing had actually gone down," the attorney said to Newsom. "Is that fair to say?"
"The only thing that went down," Newsom countered, "was our balance sheet, because of the costs associated with this."
This is disingenuous at best -- and basically immaterial. The City certainly did shell out plenty of money dealing with this problem, but that wasn't really Childs' fault.
If he'd been hit by a bus, the city would've spent the same, if not more. If he'd been fired or quit, the same thing would have happened. The balance sheet has indeed suffered, but that's mostly due to the ineptitude of the San Francisco government. Most of that money didn't need to be spent on "fixing" the problem or on prosecuting this case. If the city IT department had any idea what it was doing, this entire situation wouldn't have cost a dime. They forced the issue, raised the stakes to the stratosphere, and are now trying to pin the ramifications of their own actions on Childs. If an organization fires someone, is the person being fired liable for the costs incurred by the company to find and train that person's replacement?
Only time will tell how this expensive, narcolepsy-inducting trial will end. If it drags on into summer, Childs will have the dubious honor of being held in jail for two full years. That's two years of the city of San Francisco pouring money down the drain, prosecuting the man they once trusted implicitly and unequivocally -- a man who ultimately protected their network until the bitter end.
Monday, March 1. 2010
as reported in Infoworld today (full article)
Posted by in SF politics at 19:48 | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: sf politics
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 1 entries)