I don't know if WAtoday has among its readers a Nobel Prize winner, like the one who apparently called talkback radio on Wednesday to defend Perth Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi.
To be honest, I don't care. What I do care about is what the readers of this site think. And right now what they are saying - overwhelmingly so - is that Ms Scaffidi's position has become completely untenable.
More than 90 per cent of the 2200 voters in a WAtoday poll think Ms Scaffidi should resign. Our poll isn't scientific and I'd be foolish to suggest 2200 people was some exceptionally large sample size (even if it is close to 40 per cent of the total vote in October's City of Perth mayoral race).
But the figures should also, at the very least, dispel Ms Scaffidi's assertion this week that there had been no loss of public confidence in her or her office.
This isn't 90-plus per cent who are sitting somewhere on the fence. These are people who are saying she needs to go. Now.
Both Ms Scaffidi and an editorial in The West Australian got one thing right on Thursday: that various probes into her undeclared travel and gifts has taken longer than anyone would have liked (it's now more than seven months since the CCC first deemed she had "failed in her duties").
Of course, Ms Scaffidi could hardly have helped the speed of matters when, for reasons unclear, she declined an invitation in February to talk to the Department of Local Government officials investigating her travel regime.
On Thursday Ms Scaffidi, speaking after James Limnios broke ranks and went public about his loss of confidence in her, expressed disappointment "as a lord mayor should be able to rely on the deputy that is appointed by the council vote."
That's funny, because I would have thought that the one thing a deputy mayor (or any councillor) should be relied upon for is to do what's right by the ratepayers they represent.
But this is the way things always seem to be with Ms Scaffidi.
Nothing is ever her fault. Somebody is always out to get her. The travel bucks flow her way but the buck itself never appears to stop with her.
Challenged about her own travel declaration failures, she points the finger at those around her and says "well they were doing it too". Non-disclosure is blamed on lack of administrative support, "manifestly inadequate systems" and "paperwork errors".
All this from an official who has been dealing with serious questions about her travel practices since at least 2009. Does anyone seriously believe Mr Scaffidi is headed for an appointment with the State Administrative Tribunal because she forgot to tick a few boxes?
Let me put it another way. If you or I did something more than 100 times over eight years - oh for the opportunity for that kind of jet-setting - and stuffed up administratively on more than 40 of those occasions (despite our obligations remaining exactly the same throughout), at what point do you suppose our employers might question our competence? Or how much we were really trying to get things right? Or if there was something more sinister at play?
Councillor Limnios hit the nail on the head on Thursday when he said the Hawaiian Property-sponsored Broome Cup and $50,000 BHP-funded Beijing Olympics trips were still the most concerning regarding Ms Scaffidi, because they involved organisations the council was doing business with.
He didn't explain why he signed a document endorsing Ms Scaffidi's "integrity" days after the CCC's October adverse findings in relation to those trips. But that's a question for another time.
Ms Scaffidi's biggest supporters like to highlight the "tireless work" she does in promoting Perth. In her own response to the local government investigation of her travel regime, she cited "her dedication to her role as Lord Mayor of the City and contribution to the changing economic, social and cultural landscape of Perth."
Why then, despite repeated assurances that Ms Scaffidi submits reports from all her trips, do media organisations like this one hear only the sound of crickets when we ask to see such documents (let alone tangible evidence of the benefits of this travel)?
And since when did doing some good become a free pass to repeatedly fail to carry out one's simple statutory requirements? With public office comes great power, great responsibility and, surely, an equally great obligation to avoid situations that cast doubt on the integrity of your elected position.
The West got something else right on Thursday when it said "not many public figures can be slapped with a Corruption and Crime Commission report against them and survive."
Truth is, not many would have the audacity to try...as more than 90 per cent of readers are already telling us.
