Using the word “padded” to describe John Mauro’s resume in a front-page headline reveals a bias toward guilt (“Records: Mauro resume padded more than initially thought,” Oct. 30, 2024). This very loaded word implies intentional wrongdoing—but nothing in your article supports such a conclusion.

Think about it: you report that he has claimed responsibility for 10-20 people and $211 million, while his former employer, the city of Auckland, New Zealand, says he had six direct reports and a departmental budget equivalent to $732,189 U.S. Simple math would tell you that Auckland’s figures work out to a little more than $100,000 U.S. per headcount—barely enough to cover the fully-loaded compensation (i.e. including benefits not directly paid to the employees) of seven modestly paid employees, with little or nothing left over to cover office expenses and other overhead. If this were the whole story, then the Office of Sustainability of Aukland—a city of 1.8 million souls—must have carried out no activities or programs at all, a senseless proposition on its face. It’s obvious, then, that the costs of programs managed by Mauro’s office were accounted for somewhere else. It happens all the time.

To use my own experience as an example: in my last job before retiring, I had executive responsibility for every aspect of all real estate and facilities for an $80 billion corporation, yet I only had six direct reports. But each of them had several direct reports, and so on down the line, such that I was ultimately responsible for 250-plus employees (plus a variable number of contractors) managing a total annual spend exceeding $250 million. So the direct budget and headcount of my office were only a tiny fraction of my overall responsibility. If I were to return to the job market today, my resume would reflect the actual scope of my experience, and it would be truthful in so telling.

To my eyes, the $211 million figure provided to the council appears entirely reasonable as a scope for sustainability programs in an urban center the size of Aukland. It’s also reasonable to assume that Mauro’s office managed people, such as consultants, that were additional to its direct headcount (as he himself pointed out to you). In the end, Mauro’s and Aukland’s accounts can both be  true at the same time.

I have followed this story in your paper over several weeks, and I have found your reporting heedless, unanalytic, inflammatory, and unbalanced throughout.

Your readers deserve better.

Russ Howell

Port Townsend