WOOLWICH COUNCIL ARE GNAWING THEIR LIMBS OFF

Yes today's posting will focus on Sandy Shantz and Corrupt Practices under Section 90 & more of the MEA (Municpal Elections Act). That said last evening Woolwich Council put on display their anger and resentment towards the Woolwich Observer. Wow Mark Bauman especially really dosen't like his bad behaviour and bad decisions discussed in our now only local newspaper. That and the cartoons really are hard on him and Sandy.

Section 89 once more states: " A person is guilty of an offence if he or she, (h) furnishes false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information". Well frankly and bluntly put that seems to me to be a no brainer. Sandy submitted a new Financial Statement-Auditor's Report to MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) on July 2/15. It was a single, stapled together and hand numbered thirty page package. Problem is it was misleading in that the contained Auditor's Report from Mr. Tim Adams MAC LLP did not apply to the thirty pages which included receipts, invoices and a Financial Spreadsheet produced by Sandy. It only applied to her new eight page Financial Statement dated March 23/15.

Then of course there is the not small matter that her second set of Financials (March 23/15) was still filled with errors and omissions many of which she had been publicly advised of. My June 16/15 Application for a Compliance Audit sent to her and to MECAC included specifics regarding multiple expenses that she had omitted in her original Financials and in her second set.

Thus the furnishing of false or misleading information to a person whom this Act authorizes to obtain information means both me, MECAC and the Woolwich Clerk. Whether this includes Superior Court I do not know. What I do know is that she furnished them with tons of false and misleading information. See my post of August 31/15 for the details.

From the preceding I have to believe that Sandy did knowingly furnish false and misleading information. This would also include her convenient errors on both the Contribution (income) side as well as on the Expense side of her original February 2/15 financial Statement submitted to the Clerk, Val Hummel. They effectively lowered both Income and Expenses below the $10,000 threshold either of which would have triggered a mandatory Auditor's report. Her continued errors and omissions throughout four Financial Statements may not all be due to intent. Despite 31 years of alleged bookeeping experience the mayor has shown a real knack for numerical errors.

Therefore it is my informed opinion that the Mayor has violated both Section 89 and 90 of the MEA. That is knowingly (Section 90) furnishing false or misleading information (Section 89) to a person authorized to obtain information (me, MECAC & the Clerk). These conditions are defined by Section 90 as Corrupt Practices.

Sections 91 and 94 go into the various penalties for persons convicted of Corrupt Practices including imprisonment. They are obviously intended to encourage compliance with the MEA and to discourage intentional lying or coverups both in the original filings and most importantly afterwards when authorized persons are examining the candidate's compliance. Sandy seriously it's time to think very hard about your options right now. There may still be time for you to avoid what I grant to date has been a reluctant to act, judicial system, taking action.