throwing around untrue stats such as the city "wins 40% of the cases" is what I was referring too. When you have no idea what goes on inside OMB it's best not to throw random numbers around.
From my perspective, citing a number such as 40% would be taken as being a reasonable approximation, not intended to be a precise measure. Would you have preferred a statistic, no matter what the basis in which it had been derived, to be for example: '...wins 38.49% of the cases'?. If so, to be 'accurate' would you not have to state the period of time that the measure was taken over? Such as 38.49% of the cases, measured over a three / four / five year period? And of course, to be completely accurate, the specific timing of the period in which the rate was derived should also be specified - eg. the four year period from xx day, yyy month, zzzz year, to ....
Speaking of untrue stats - the times one can see in news reports quotes such as: He fell from a height of 22.86 meters... I am sure that, when reading that, with an affinity for exactitude, one would assume the height of the fall had been precisely measured. I, on the other had, would assume that someone had provided an estimate of the fall being 75 feet - an approximation - which the reporter, remembering that we are now a metric country, got out the calculator, and turned an approximate height of 75 feet into a number with an implied four digit level of precision, 23.86 meters.
So - I have no problem at all with a number of 'wins' being in the order of 40% of the cases contested at the OMB - whether by an agreed settlement, or an outright decision by the OMB officer who conducted the hearings.
And again, with respect to I42's level of knowledge regarding what goes on in the OMB - I only agree with the comment above - calling him naive is hilariously moronic.
