Monday, July 27, 2015
MAYOR SHANTZ STICKHANDLES OUTSIDE COURT BETTER THAN HER LAWYER DID IN COURT
Or.... is her lawyer looking over his shoulder at either the Law Society or perhaps even future criminal charges? Is he distancing himself from a sinking ship? Funny how when given the opportunity by Justice Broad to rebut my "smoking gun" March 23/15 testimony; Mr. James Bennett did nothing but mumble semi-incoherently about a non-existent June 19, 2015 date. He may have been thinking about the June 16/15 date on the accountant's report but he clearly was disconcerted.
Our Mayor has advised us in both the Waterloo Region Record ("Shantz back as Woolwich's mayor") and in the Elmira Independent ("Court ruling reinstates Woolwich mayor") that it was her accountant's fault. He "...used the wrong date" as per the Record and as she stated in the Independent "...it was a clerical error..." from the accountant's office. Now this could be an opportunity to laugh out loud at the mayor's neverending excuses ie. the accountant did it.
Instead I will share some of my research with my readers. I have been involved in phone conversations with two professional chartered accountants since approximately July 4, 2015. They advise me that standard accounting practice is to date an audit on the date that the client "accepts" the audit. This usually means that the client either meets her accountant in his office or elsewhere at which time she reads it and signs for it. The accountant's secretary/clerk types up and dates both the audit and in this case the eight page Financial Statement using the acceptance date in this case of June 16/15.
June 16/15 is the very date that I had given Woolwich Clerk Val Hummel my Application for a Compliance Audit. For Sandy to "accept" and sign for her audit on June 16/15 clearly indicates it was already done ahead of time. Yes the accountant 's clerk did not change the existing March 23/15 date on Sandy's Financial Statement. That date was on that document courtesy of Sandy from way back in March prior to the filing deadline of March 27/15. If the clerk hadn't missed changing SANDY'S DATE (March 23/16) to the acceptance date of June 16/15 I would not have stated in Superior Court last Thursday that "...the mayor knowingly submitted false information.". I would not have said in court "she covered it up.".
Sandy accepted and signed for her audit on June 16/15. What a shocker for her when I, the day after she presented it at the July 2/15 MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee), noticed the March 23/15 date on her Financial Statement. Now this is interesting. Her accountant offerred to replace his two page audit and her returned eight page Financial Statement with new ones all dated June 16/15. He made this offer in very early July but with a condition. For him to replace them he required the original copies given to seven MECAC members plus one Alan Marshall back, first.
This is why Sandy is now pretending that her March 23/15 Financial Statement is her accountant's fault. She hasn't requested either myself or presumably MECAC to return our copies to her so that she can get her new, adjusted, career and integrity saving June 16/15 dated copy. The reason may be that she didn't want to tip off MECAC about the significance of the March 23/15 date on their copies. It could also be that she was assurred by her lawyer that I'd never get the chance to spill the beans in Superior Court.
Last but not least, Sandy has bragged about her 31 years of bookeeping experience with her husband's firm. Do you think that just maybe Sandy had full confidence when she sent off her revised March 23/15 Financial Statement to her accountant that the incriminating date would never again see the light of day? Once again all of this can be proven absolutely (or not) by a full blown forensic audit. Odd how Sandy has done her best to avoid that action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Exactly, had Sandy Shantz allowed the audit then all would come to light. If no wrong doing then no cost to her. She had two opportunities to do this and save herself legal fees. What is hiding behind all the financial closed doors? Good job Mr. Marshall! This blog keeps us informed of the true statements delivered at council and true statement to the paper.
ReplyDeleteI find the level of hatred on this site to be shocking and it makes me want to leave Elmira. I really think that Sandy is a good mayor. Really, yes she made a mistake regarding finances but I highly doubt that she is hiding some massive conspiracy regarding those who funded her campaign.
ReplyDeleteYou have been quite blunt in your posts that you aren't really concerned with the financial end of things (i.e. mistakes) and are instead trying to pay her back (along with Mark) for dissolving the CPAC. You are going to shocking lengths to try to hamper her ability to run our community.... why so much hatred? It's kind of scary... Aren't you worried about getting sued at some point? You've made some pretty egregious accusations with no evidence to back them up.
Can you not appreciate your own role in things? Although you seem to pride yourself on speaking your mind, can you truly not sit back and look at your conduct over the past decade or more (even the past 4 years) and wonder if perhaps you were a bit out of line at times? Can you honestly say that you worked with MOE and Chemtura to resolve issues in a reasonable way? If somebody disagrees with you, you come onto this blog and slander or smear them. If they try to defend themselves, you simply delete their posts. In fact, I'm pretty sure this one will be deleted because you won't like what I've said. This way, only people who support you show up on this blog. Seems pretty one-sided doesn't it?
Why not try to have a mature, adult discussion with people? All of the people that you routinely smear and accuse of monkey business on this site have tried to work with you over the years but you just keep halting the process. And now, when they finally have kicked you off of the CPAC to try to restart the process with MOE and Chemtura, you have embarked on this colossal witch hunt to punish them. These are not rational activities. These are not the actions of somebody who cares for this community. How can you expect anyone in Woolwich to take you seriously ever again?
So many questions and so much ignorance all rolled into one. I'll answer a few of those questions. Your last sentence/question. Answer: because as usual I do my homework and while the Mayor first pled innocence and perfection in her expenses now admits to numerous serious contraventions. Secondly you claim I have no evidence to back up my "egregious accusations". Horse manure now man up and state which accusations and I'll state the evidence again.
ReplyDeleteThirdly "working with" Chemtura and the M.O.E.. to resolve issues? Wow where have you been for years because obviously you're much too important to waste your time at CPAC meetings over the last four or twenty-four years. You can't work with professional liars constantly protected by the local (& provincial) power structure.
Fourthly I have both supporters and detracters on this site. They only get deleted when they refuse to discuss or address the issues that are the subject of the posts. Fifthly again where were you when Sandy and Mark were lying this winter and spring in Council. You weren't either at CPAC or Council yet you are some kind of knowledgable expert. Ha you get all your information spoon fed to you by an untruthful third party. Step up and do your own research first hand and with an open mind. You might actually learn what's going on in Woolwich Township.
Gee, John QPublic, you sound a lot like 'FTR' who commented with blatant ad hominem arguments below this editorial.
ReplyDeleteI find it thoroughly amusing how nobody can pursue an injustice in politics without being criticized for having some kind of ulterior motive, as if that somehow detracts from the facts being presented. So, I guess nobody should bother holding our elected officials accountable unless they themselves are the epitome of high standards? I think The Simpsons put it best when they joked that an innocuous event in fourth grade elementary school somehow stays on one's permanent record of credit history.
You are right JohnQPublic about the hatred. I HATE public servants that look after themselves and their friends at the expense of rest of the public. I hate the fact that so much of the taxpayers money is wasted by Woolwich. I hate the fact that public funds are allocated to so many pet projects that benefit only a few. I hate the fact that certain lobbyist's get preferential treatment. I hate the double standard that is rampant in Woolwich where these so called "public servants" help their favorites while the average taxpayer gets mostly opposition and ill will. I hate the fact that genuine public servants should be humble and transparent but they are not. I hate the self-preservation that always becomes apparent when an average taxpayer challenges the status quo. And last but not least, I hate the fact that so many taxpayers have NOT got a clue what is really going on YET!
ReplyDeleteSorry John QPublic but I and others like me are sticking up for ourselves. (I am not a typical political blogger) and you can say anything you want in support of others, it does not make me any less angry. People like me want our "public servants" to act like it and not just become "officials" consolidating power for their own self-will and self-satisfaction etc. etc. You have the right to your opinion JohnQPublic, but Truth is I am just ONE serious angry taxpayer!