after reading Naga City's accomplishment/ annual/ state of the city reports from 1988 to 2005 (with 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 96 onwards absent), here's what i have to say:
1. Revenue is NOT income. so the 192M something reported city income in 1996, purportedly to be a nine-fold increase since 1988 is a sham! the real income (Total Revenue-Total Expenditures) is only 20M. that's a nine-fold over-the-top lie!
2. Don't trust statistical interpretation. go to the tables and actual figures. the manner of reporting rehashes old data from many years back (i.e., 2000 report citing 1993 stats) and without any mention of the reference year!
3. With so many employees doing nothing in their offices but sit all day, how come reporting still comes in templates? demographic and socioeconomic profiling uses the same paragraphs way back in 1993. example: 'such a young population means a productive generation to follow...' hay gasgas na gasgas na ito...
4. the tone of reporting reflects the administration in place. the lackluster template style reporting showed during mayor del castillo's reign; upbeat and optimistic under robredo (to the point of OA --- see the 1996 accomplishment report) and the boring almost anemic reporting under the roco administration.
5. reports like these should be entrusted to technical writers who could do justice to the data and the current situation. no to spin doctors and jazzy writers (e.g., the city government quarterbacked by upao) who gloss around the obvious and give off nothing new.