31 YEARS AS A BOOKEEPER - PLEASE!

I am the recipient of a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Waterloo in 1974. While my courses were primarily Economics with a smidgen of Statistics there was also one whole Accounting course. Basically just about enough to understand Debits and Credits, double entry bookeeping etc.. That said allegedly Mayor Shantz by her own claims has 31 years of bookeeping experience in her husband's firm. Sorry but I don't think I believe that based upon her outstanding (in left field) efforts with four different Financial Statements. Is it possible that Sandy simply has drawn a salary from her husband's firm as a form of income splitting all those years while raising a family, working part time as a Trustee and later Councillor?

Back on August 22/15 I again free of charge gave Sandy more advice; this time on her latest two Financial Statements, both dated August 6 (submitted to the Clerk on August 20/15). Sandy had been given thirty days after her July 23/15 Superior Court date to provide her amended Financial Statement-Auditor's Report. Most of us and probably Justice David Broad expected her to simply, refile her March 23/June 16, 2015 Financial Statement-Auditor's Report. Then Sandy was given until the end of September to file her Supplementary Financial Statement-Auditor's Report which was to include additional expenses incurred after January 1/15 such as Audits and legal expenses. Instead she filed it simultaneously with her once again significantly different third amended Financial Statement. It also had the August 6/15 date on both Sandy's Statement and on the Auditor's Report. Why not wait until the end of September? Ahhh!

Sandy may be incompetent but she's cunning. I listed here in the Advocate on August 3, 8:34 am. ten different errors and omissions in her second set of Statements presented to MECAC (July 2) and Superior Court (July 23). Many of them have now been added to her August 6 Financial Statements. That is neither an accident nor a sudden outburst of integrity. Sandy knew that I was ready and willing to take her for a second go to MECAC if she again attempted to omit the complete expenses as she did in her February 2 and March 23/June 16 (second) Financials.

So Sandy incorporated my work again into her third and fourth set of Financials. Now could she be waiting for my entire list of her latest bookeeping errors and omissions? Is she planning on carefully assessing them first and then before the last deadline given her by Justice Broad to incorporate them and refile her Supplementary Statement?

I gave her some hints on August 22nd. This next hint is one she doesn't dare incorporate. Her entire errors and omissions right from the start (February 2/15) were all about avoiding an Audit based upon both her Expenses and Contributions exceeding the $10,000 threshold. That bird has long since flown (three times). She now knows there is literally nothing to fear from an ordinary Audit by her personal accountant. A real honest to goodness forensic audit however is another kettle of fish entirely. While a forensic/Compliance Audit would pick up on her latest numerous minor errors and omissions it would also examine her Contributions: read DONORS. What else is left that could explain her reluctance to include all her receipts, invoices and lists of donors?

If Chemtura Canada gave her two $750 donations from two different employees and she so listed them in Table 1 that would be legal. If Chemtura Inc. gave her $1500 that would not be. That said Sandy knows what kind of an outcry there would have been from CPAC if they had seen such donations this past winter and spring when Sandy and Mark were attacking and smearing CPAC for the purpose of dissolving them and bringing Chemtura back to the table. Sandy originally had $1,658 in donations each allegedly below $100 each. That figure oddly increased in her two most recent Statements to $1,713. Regardless maybe she had 16 donors giving $100 each plus one or two more smaller contributers OR maybe she buried two $750 donations into this account, improperly. Is this what has been her motivation to play fast and loose with the rules concerning both MECAC and Superior Court? Does she know that her integrity/credibility would have been grossly comprimised if she had admitted to major donations from Chemtura Canada whether legal or otherwise while promising them that she would disband public participation via CPAC?