oltmannd Sam1: Irrespective of the fraud problem associated with on-board food and beverage sales, the losses associated with this activity are eye catching. In FY10 Amtrak lost $154 million on these sales. Sales revenues of $131 million were offset by $192 million in direct costs and $93 million in indirect costs. That's $5 per passenger! Ugh.
Sam1: Irrespective of the fraud problem associated with on-board food and beverage sales, the losses associated with this activity are eye catching. In FY10 Amtrak lost $154 million on these sales. Sales revenues of $131 million were offset by $192 million in direct costs and $93 million in indirect costs.
Irrespective of the fraud problem associated with on-board food and beverage sales, the losses associated with this activity are eye catching. In FY10 Amtrak lost $154 million on these sales. Sales revenues of $131 million were offset by $192 million in direct costs and $93 million in indirect costs.
That's $5 per passenger! Ugh.
Here is another little tid bit that I picked-up from an Amtrak IG report on performance incentive payments.
Between 2002 and 2006 Amtrak paid BNSF approximately $33 million for on-time performance incentives in accordance with the authorizing contract. Of this amount $9.1 million or nearly 17% of the billings were in error.
Amtrak's management agreed with the audit findings and pledged to fix the problem, which it appears to be doing. It has hired two employees to audit all hoist carrier billings. It is likely that the company will get back most of the $9.1 million, which should cover the compensation packages (tongue in cheek) for the two new employees. However, I cannot help but wonder what took them so long to implement this conventional practice.
There is no evidence that BNSF tried to snooker Amtrak. Apparently the billing errors were a function of several variables, including complex contract language. Who would have guessed it? Lawyers writing or at least blessing a contract that most people could not understand. This issue is not fraud or waste per se, but it sure looks like poor accounts payable practices. In our company, anything more than a one per cent error rate set off all kinds of alarm bells.
The Amtrak IG submits biannually a written and oral report regarding its audit and investigative activities to the Congress. I have read the latest two reports. They are professional and as good as anything that I have seen from industry. In addition, I read the report on dinning car fraud as well as two reports on performance payments to the hoist railroads. The audit methodologies and reports comply with government auditing standards and would comply easily with generally accepted auditing standards in any environment.
Sam1 Irrespective of the fraud problem associated with on-board food and beverage sales, the losses associated with this activity are eye catching. In FY10 Amtrak lost $154 million on these sales. Sales revenues of $131 million were offset by $192 million in direct costs and $93 million in indirect costs.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 Sam1: The point of this discussion is to refute the notion that Amtrak's Office of Inspector General is not professional, i.e. uses slipshod methods, makes the numbers come out the way Amtrak's management wants, or slants its findings for political or media reasons, as suggested in a number of posts to this thread, is wrong. With this paragraph in mind this is why the point of view of the writer and The Caller has to be understood. Who are they that they are making the accusation? If you don't know who, then you have to question their credentials, credibility, source of income, ownership, and find out why they are reporting from this angle. Is there anybody reporting from the angle that the IG's report is acceptable, who are they and why are they reporting a different view than reported here?
Sam1: The point of this discussion is to refute the notion that Amtrak's Office of Inspector General is not professional, i.e. uses slipshod methods, makes the numbers come out the way Amtrak's management wants, or slants its findings for political or media reasons, as suggested in a number of posts to this thread, is wrong.
The point of this discussion is to refute the notion that Amtrak's Office of Inspector General is not professional, i.e. uses slipshod methods, makes the numbers come out the way Amtrak's management wants, or slants its findings for political or media reasons, as suggested in a number of posts to this thread, is wrong.
With this paragraph in mind this is why the point of view of the writer and The Caller has to be understood. Who are they that they are making the accusation? If you don't know who, then you have to question their credentials, credibility, source of income, ownership, and find out why they are reporting from this angle. Is there anybody reporting from the angle that the IG's report is acceptable, who are they and why are they reporting a different view than reported here?
My explanation of the IG's methodologies, which have been and are constantly being verified by a variety of sources, was to make the point that the IG's work product is of the highest quality. It is reviewed repeatedly before it goes out the door. It speaks for itself, at least to those of us who are familiar with the work product of independent auditors.
I am no fan of government, especially when it comes to operating what is in effect a commercial enterprise. Having said that the federal government has some excellent employees. And the inspector general functions of the agencies get very high marks even from those of use who spent our working lives in the private sector. In fact, as part of the training in our company, I had our auditors read the work product of the General Accountability Office (GAO), which is as good an organization as they come. Moreover, I have had, as I may have noted, numerous opportunities to swap methodology insights with GAO staff members.
Pretty clearly if you want knowledge of a document without any bias by whoever reports it, whether Jim Doofus' blog, FOX, the WSJ or NYT, it's best to go to that document (primary source) whenever possible. Questioning the accuracy or claiming various forms of bias on the part of Amtrak's IG without a shred of evidence is simply engaging in speculation and name-calling. If one actually reads the document, it seems clear better management of Amtrak food services is needed. Whether that means bringing in a private contractor, such as Compass or Aramark or others, or reorganizing that component internally is another question.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 The point of this discussion is to refute the notion that Amtrak's Office of Inspector General is not professional, i.e. uses slipshod methods, makes the numbers come out the way Amtrak's management wants, or slants its findings for political or media reasons, as suggested in a number of posts to this thread, is wrong.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I am thinking that puts it too mildly. If the least hint of criticism of Amtrak aimed at making Amtrak better by freeing up money to improve food service or other aspects of operations provokes reflexive cries of "Biased source! Liars!" from members of the advocacy community, that community is in real trouble.
I am not in the pure free market camp that Amtrak or that transit agencies should do without subsidy. But just because something is operated by the government doesn't mean that it cannot or should not be subject to governmental and outside-of-government oversight. Just because something is operated by the government doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say, "trains and dining cars have always lost money" and write Amtrak a blank check.
And just because someone is an anti-Amtrak critic, a charge leveled against the reporter/blogger, doesn't mean that we can dismiss the criticism they offer.
I am getting to understand that trains are so full of inherent goodness to some people and such a magic-bullet solution to our environmental and resource-depletion woes that people can't in good faith discuss the engineering and economic tradeoffs of in what ways is Amtrak good and in what ways is Amtrak in need of improvement.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
"The Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3), as amended in 1988 (P.L. 100-504), established the Office of Inspector General for Amtrak to consolidate existing investigative and audit resources into an independent organization headed by the Inspector General (IG) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. Subsequently, the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-409) amended and strengthened the authority of the Inspectors General."
Amtrak's IG reports to the President and Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak, with an independent reporting relationship to the Board of Directors and the Congress. His role is similar to that of the chief audit executive of a large corporation, educational institution, etc.
The IG is required to provide an independent report to the Board and the Congress on the findings of his audit and investigative teams, which are made up of a variety of professional persons. Many of them have advanced degrees across a wide spectrum of disciplines, including engineering, accounting, finance, law, IT, etc.
If the IG suspects improper behavior on the part of any member of the management team, he is authorized to report it directly to the board and, if necessary, the Congress. Independence is a key element in any auditing and investigative organization. Amongst other things it helps insure objectivity in what is audited, how it is audited, and how the audit findings are reported.
Amtrak's IG is subject to periodic peer reviews. This means that its work as well as its work processes are evaluated by an outside organization, usually an independent auditing firm, although in the case of the government it could be the GAO.
I worked for several Fortune 500 corporations for nearly forty years; 22 of them were as an Audit Manager, IT Audit Manager, and Director of Internal Audit. I know a bit about how audit work is performed. Although I don't have any personal knowledge of Amtrak's audit and investigation methodologies, I have met many government auditors at audit and fraud management conferences. My discussions with them have led me to believe that they follow the same methodologies that we followed in the corporate world. Here is how it generally works in all large audit departments.
Audits are placed on the annual audit plan, after a risk assessment, and assigned to an audit manager. They are usually performed by an audit team, which is led by a senior auditor, who is assisted by one or several associate and junior auditors. Senior auditors in large organizations, e.g. Amtrak, usually have more than 10 years of experience as well as the educational credentials mentioned above. The audit is executed according to a carefully structured audit plan.
Throughout the course of the audit the work is reviewed at least weekly by the senior auditor, who in turn discusses the progress of the audit with the audit manager. Each fact uncovered during the audit is verified by one of the other team members, as well as the senior auditor, and if necessary by a specialist, i.e. IT auditor, legal specialist, etc. At key points in the audit the work is reviewed thoroughly by the audit manager and, as a rule, the results of audits in progress are summarized for the IG.
Finally, when the audit is completed, it is reviewed by the audit manager, and it may be reviewed by the IG. In any case, the IG will be kept informed of the results as the audit progresses. After review by the audit manager, the results are presented to the client for his or her comments. If they don't agree with the findings, providing they have sufficient evidence to refute them, additional audit work may be performed or the initial findings may be changed.
Once everyone is in agreement with the results of the audit, a report is generated. It contains the major findings of the audit, management's comments on the results, including agreed upon actions to implement the auditor's recommendations, and a detailed description of the audit methodology. A copy of the audit report is sent to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. Moreover, at least twice a year the IG's activities are summarized for the Congress.
BaltACD And when it comes to reports - any report by any party - there is one thing to be remembered Figures Lie - Liars Figure Any competent accountant or CPA can take the same raw data and PROVE any side of a argument one wants to make.
And when it comes to reports - any report by any party - there is one thing to be remembered
Figures Lie - Liars Figure
Any competent accountant or CPA can take the same raw data and PROVE any side of a argument one wants to make.
Yes, raw data can be manipulated to support any point of view.
Are you expressing the opinion that the Inspector General function in the Federal Government is staffed by persons lacking in integrity and given to the manipulation of data?
DMUinCT The report looks like the Government Inspector General wants to hire a large staff of government employees to watch the Amtrak Government Employees. One way to help the un-employment problem!
The report looks like the Government Inspector General wants to hire a large staff of government employees to watch the Amtrak Government Employees.
One way to help the un-employment problem!
Don U:
Do you have any specific evidence that the Inspector General's office is engaged in gold bricking? Or is it your opinion that internal oversight within government is a waste of taxpayer money? Or perhaps is your concern that any criticism of passenger rail, criticism aimed at cost efficiencies that could improve the money available for passenger service, that such criticism is automatically suspect as being politically motivated?
PNWRMNM Sam, The authors of this report did not "document" any particular amount of loss. They simply applied restaraunt industry average losses as a percent of sales to ATK sales. All this report did was keep two sets of bureaucrats employed rearanging deck chairs on the Titanic. Mac McCulloch
Sam,
The authors of this report did not "document" any particular amount of loss. They simply applied restaraunt industry average losses as a percent of sales to ATK sales.
All this report did was keep two sets of bureaucrats employed rearanging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Mac McCulloch
The report claims that spotters were used to identify specific occurences of loss.
BaltACD Let's bring in Bennigan's and Steak & Ale .... oh wait - they went bankrupt. Making money on food is not a gold plated guarantee for any individual or chain, including those mentioned. Were those mentioned to provide service for a outfit such as Amtrak - the entree price would, at a minimum be doubled because of increased costs....double the price and quarter the sales, that is the real ticket to make money. oltmannd: nyc#25: When passenger trains were operated by the private sector the dining services always lost money. The one exception was the New Haven and that was because they had very high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining. I'm well aware of the history and how food was prepared in the past. Also, I'm aware that Amtrak no longer does it that way. They typically use airline food caterers. That was then. There were no alternatives to doing dining services. Restaurants were nearly all local mom and pop operations. People didn't eat out much. RRs had to run their own commisaries and do the cooking on the train. Now, people eat out quite a bit. There are large national chains that encompass many brands that have unified product distribution supply chains. For example, Darden owns Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn, Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Season's 52. OSI owns Outback, Carrabba's, Bonefish Grill, Flemings and Roys. Brinker owns Chilli's, Maggiano's and Macaroni Grill. Each of these have more expertise than Amtrak at food and beverage service. Why not let them bid on it?
Let's bring in Bennigan's and Steak & Ale .... oh wait - they went bankrupt. Making money on food is not a gold plated guarantee for any individual or chain, including those mentioned. Were those mentioned to provide service for a outfit such as Amtrak - the entree price would, at a minimum be doubled because of increased costs....double the price and quarter the sales, that is the real ticket to make money.
oltmannd: nyc#25: When passenger trains were operated by the private sector the dining services always lost money. The one exception was the New Haven and that was because they had very high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining. I'm well aware of the history and how food was prepared in the past. Also, I'm aware that Amtrak no longer does it that way. They typically use airline food caterers. That was then. There were no alternatives to doing dining services. Restaurants were nearly all local mom and pop operations. People didn't eat out much. RRs had to run their own commisaries and do the cooking on the train. Now, people eat out quite a bit. There are large national chains that encompass many brands that have unified product distribution supply chains. For example, Darden owns Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn, Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Season's 52. OSI owns Outback, Carrabba's, Bonefish Grill, Flemings and Roys. Brinker owns Chilli's, Maggiano's and Macaroni Grill. Each of these have more expertise than Amtrak at food and beverage service. Why not let them bid on it?
nyc#25: When passenger trains were operated by the private sector the dining services always lost money. The one exception was the New Haven and that was because they had very high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining.
When passenger trains were operated by the private sector
the dining services always lost money. The one exception
was the New Haven and that was because they had very
high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm
sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money
on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining.
I'm well aware of the history and how food was prepared in the past. Also, I'm aware that Amtrak no longer does it that way. They typically use airline food caterers.
That was then. There were no alternatives to doing dining services. Restaurants were nearly all local mom and pop operations. People didn't eat out much. RRs had to run their own commisaries and do the cooking on the train.
Now, people eat out quite a bit. There are large national chains that encompass many brands that have unified product distribution supply chains. For example, Darden owns Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn, Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Season's 52. OSI owns Outback, Carrabba's, Bonefish Grill, Flemings and Roys. Brinker owns Chilli's, Maggiano's and Macaroni Grill.
Each of these have more expertise than Amtrak at food and beverage service. Why not let them bid on it?
Demand would be pretty inelastic because the clientele can't go across the street to the competitor. The provider could charge the monopoly price. Just look at airport food prices, where there is some competition...
oltmannd nyc#25: When passenger trains were operated by the private sector the dining services always lost money. The one exception was the New Haven and that was because they had very high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining. I'm well aware of the history and how food was prepared in the past. Also, I'm aware that Amtrak no longer does it that way. They typically use airline food caterers. That was then. There were no alternatives to doing dining services. Restaurants were nearly all local mom and pop operations. People didn't eat out much. RRs had to run their own commisaries and do the cooking on the train. Now, people eat out quite a bit. There are large national chains that encompass many brands that have unified product distribution supply chains. For example, Darden owns Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Longhorn, Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Season's 52. OSI owns Outback, Carrabba's, Bonefish Grill, Flemings and Roys. Brinker owns Chilli's, Maggiano's and Macaroni Grill. Each of these have more expertise than Amtrak at food and beverage service. Why not let them bid on it?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
And what has not been discussed or noted is the recent change in Inspector Generals. Therein the real story and slant may lie.
henry6 dakotafred: Henry: What does it take to get this through your head? It doesn't matter WHO cites the INSPECTOR GENERAL's report. The issue is the Inspector General's report ITSELF. Just as we would expect anyone opposed to Israel to cite a Palestinian source, so you can expect anyone opposed to Amtrak to bring up the Inspector General's report. Obviously, NARP isn't going to do it -- but that somebody opposed to Amtrak did so is not a disqualification in itself. C'mon! Dakotafred: What does it take to get this through your head? It does matter the source of information. I am appalled, though I shouldn't be, at the casual and off handed way people accept information from any source. Yes, the information may be correct because some have gone right to the Inspector's General Report and linked by the writer and The Caller. However, how many accessed the Instpector's report through nortmal Amtrak venues? A few maybe. If Trains Magazine and either Fraily or Phillips gave us that report I'd feel comfortable knowing the source and the reason for reporting. If WSJ or Time Magazine reported, I'd fee comfortable with the report knowing the source and the reason for reporting. But if the Backwoods Bugle and Jane Doe reported, or any other publication or entity and unknown reporter it makes me question the source and reason. Off the page, it amazes me how often American will get information without questioning the source or the validity or point of view of the source. How many swallow Fox News reports and editorial slant without hesitation but quickly jump all over any other source at the same time. The same thing here. Is this what you want to hear and believe about Amtrak? Do you know who the reporter is? Is she as qualified to write on the subject as Fred Frailey or Don Phillips? Is The Caller as good a source of information as Trains or Modern Railroads or the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post? Is it a Simmons Boardman publication or a Slimey Backroom publication? Nobody here seems to care as long as it slams Amtrak!
dakotafred: Henry: What does it take to get this through your head? It doesn't matter WHO cites the INSPECTOR GENERAL's report. The issue is the Inspector General's report ITSELF. Just as we would expect anyone opposed to Israel to cite a Palestinian source, so you can expect anyone opposed to Amtrak to bring up the Inspector General's report. Obviously, NARP isn't going to do it -- but that somebody opposed to Amtrak did so is not a disqualification in itself. C'mon!
Henry: What does it take to get this through your head?
It doesn't matter WHO cites the INSPECTOR GENERAL's report. The issue is the Inspector General's report ITSELF.
Just as we would expect anyone opposed to Israel to cite a Palestinian source, so you can expect anyone opposed to Amtrak to bring up the Inspector General's report. Obviously, NARP isn't going to do it -- but that somebody opposed to Amtrak did so is not a disqualification in itself.
C'mon!
Dakotafred: What does it take to get this through your head? It does matter the source of information. I am appalled, though I shouldn't be, at the casual and off handed way people accept information from any source. Yes, the information may be correct because some have gone right to the Inspector's General Report and linked by the writer and The Caller. However, how many accessed the Instpector's report through nortmal Amtrak venues? A few maybe. If Trains Magazine and either Fraily or Phillips gave us that report I'd feel comfortable knowing the source and the reason for reporting. If WSJ or Time Magazine reported, I'd fee comfortable with the report knowing the source and the reason for reporting. But if the Backwoods Bugle and Jane Doe reported, or any other publication or entity and unknown reporter it makes me question the source and reason.
Off the page, it amazes me how often American will get information without questioning the source or the validity or point of view of the source. How many swallow Fox News reports and editorial slant without hesitation but quickly jump all over any other source at the same time. The same thing here. Is this what you want to hear and believe about Amtrak? Do you know who the reporter is? Is she as qualified to write on the subject as Fred Frailey or Don Phillips? Is The Caller as good a source of information as Trains or Modern Railroads or the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post? Is it a Simmons Boardman publication or a Slimey Backroom publication? Nobody here seems to care as long as it slams Amtrak!
The "news"article itself was worthless except for providing info about where it got the facts it cherry-picked. At least it had that. TV news is almost completely worthless. All you ever get is a distilled, interpreted summary of what happened in a few simple sentences. No cake. All icing. Chocolate or Vanilla. You get to chose, but it's still all just icing.
The Amtrak IG report was interesting, though.
I agree with everyone.
Henry6, I see your point about how the report is being used. All you have to do is read some of the other reports on the publication to see which way they lean, and politicians and real people who are out to slam the government will use it to their advantage, just as every few years there's a story about a mail carrier dumping mail rather than delivering it, and people use it to justify scrapping the whole system.
On the other hand, as sam1, dakotafred and others have pointed out, the report appears to be a legitimate report commissioned by Amtrak itself. It points out valid concerns and suggests ways to try to correct the problems. It does point out, though, that these problems are not unique to Amtrak, but exist throughout the food service industry. That, of course, won't stop some from slamming Amtrak.
On the third hand, I had the same thought as DMUinCT expressed: start another government group to watch this one?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Most Federal and many state agencies have an Inspector General's office or an equivalent. Police departments usually call it the Internal Affairs Division. The office has no particular ax to grind except to keep everybody honest. What happens after a report is published is beyond the control of the IG. So if Fox "News" or Rep. Mica or whoever wants to use this report for their own purposes, that's their business, not that of the initial publisher of the report.
dakotafred Henry: What does it take to get this through your head? It doesn't matter WHO cites the INSPECTOR GENERAL's report. The issue is the Inspector General's report ITSELF. Just as we would expect anyone opposed to Israel to cite a Palestinian source, so you can expect anyone opposed to Amtrak to bring up the Inspector General's report. Obviously, NARP isn't going to do it -- but that somebody opposed to Amtrak did so is not a disqualification in itself. C'mon!
nyc#25 When passenger trains were operated by the private sector the dining services always lost money. The one exception was the New Haven and that was because they had very high alcohol sales in the New York commuter zone. I'm sure the dopes that condemn Amtrak for losing money on food are totally clueless of the history of railroad dining.
A forensic audit is also done by humans as well.
Are they lying too?
At some point there has to be truth fr there to be a lie..otherwise both are meaningless by themselves.
Given the way that some have approached the discussion the only way one would be able to see whether or not those figures that are mentioned are, in fact, lies would be to examine the books themselves..and see that the books were, themselves, cooked...and on and on...
One can go a little too far with that picture in mind.....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
I wonder if some of the measures being recommended are actually in progress or if the report is just gathering dust. For example, many airlines only accept credit cards for in cabin purchases. The report recommends Amtrak try this through a pilot program. Has anyone observed such a program actually being implemented?
Don U. TCA 73-5735
The point is that it does matter. Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc all have their bent and we are often told to believe Fox while others call it Faux. So here again, I accept the Amtrak information but I want to know who the reporter and the platform is. If it were from any of the above networks or from the NYT or WSJ, I would know the source and the point of view and reason for presentation. But I don't know Besse nor The Call. To me the call means I have to go down the hall to relieve myself.
henry6 But who is this writer and what is this publication or group? I accept the information as correct as quoating from Amtrak's Inspector General's reports. But what is their reason for being concerned? Are they anti Amtrak, anti Obama, anti government operation of Amtrak, pro highway lobby, pro Obama or pro Santorum or who? I accept he information as correct but question its completeness and why they are presenting it. Who is Besse and what is The Caller, who is behind them, paying her salary and publishing the material. The picture is incomplete. If it were Trains Magazine, we can accept. If it were the Wall Street Journal, we'd know their point of view, likewise for say, the New York Times, or Road and Driver or Bus and Truck magazines. So who is Besse and who is behind The Caller?
But who is this writer and what is this publication or group? I accept the information as correct as quoating from Amtrak's Inspector General's reports. But what is their reason for being concerned? Are they anti Amtrak, anti Obama, anti government operation of Amtrak, pro highway lobby, pro Obama or pro Santorum or who? I accept he information as correct but question its completeness and why they are presenting it. Who is Besse and what is The Caller, who is behind them, paying her salary and publishing the material. The picture is incomplete. If it were Trains Magazine, we can accept. If it were the Wall Street Journal, we'd know their point of view, likewise for say, the New York Times, or Road and Driver or Bus and Truck magazines. So who is Besse and who is behind The Caller?
It does not matter. The report is a primary source document. As pointed out below, anyone has access to the Inspector General's reports. By the same token, anyone has access to the General Accountability Office (GAO) reports.
On occasion I have read articles in the New York Times that drew what I believed was an erroneous conclusion. When I checked with the GAO, as an example, sure enough I was right. The reporter had skewed the data to reflect his or her biases.
Henry-
The Amtrak Office of Inspector General has a website. All their reports are published.
http://www.amtrakoig.gov/
The docs match.
The office is the internal auditors for Amtrak - a part of Amtrak itself.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.