PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS OR PROFESSIONAL CRYBABIES?

Here is the bottom line. Either Mark and Sandy are crooks or they are incompetent. We entrust these people to spend our tax dollars wisely usually after reading staff reports recommending this project or that one. Now it turns out that neither one of them allegedly are capable enough to figure out the Form 4 Financial Statement. You'll notice that I didn't include Scott Hahn as being either a crook or incompetent. It was his very first time seeing a Form 4 plus he's working and has a young family. Mark and Sandy have each had multiple kicks at the election can and Mark's best defence is "It had never got caught that I was actually supposed to file a report that said I didn't have any expenses.". Gosh darn yes Mark that is actually what you were supposed to do. It took me all of five minutes to figure that out when I couldn't find your expenses on line and when the Clerk misled me and said that yes you had filed but it just wasn't on-line with all the rest.

The Form 4 itself specifically says that all candidates must file a Financial Statement. The 2014 Candidates Guide to Municipal Elections also says that all candidates must file, whether winning or losing and as well candidates who have no expenses or income must also file. It's all there in black and white. The Woolwich Township Clerk on her second attempt advised me that it was a "Woolwich tradition" not to require a Financial Statement from Mark Bauman when he was acclaimed to office. Apparently in her wee mind (and Mark's) Woolwich traditions trump provincial laws.

In last Thursday's Waterloo Region Record story Sandy Shantz claimed that the rules were vague and that her mistakes were inadvertent. Funny how every "mistake" both for income and expenses decreased her totals. Even more amazing how those "mistakes" magically reduced both her income and expenses each below $10,000 so that she could avoid filing an audit. She had never filed an audit before and therefore could be forgiven for not knowing that a regular self hired audit, unlike a forensic audit, would not potentially find undeclared expenses or look into her bank accounts looking for undeclared donations etc..

The rules are vague, claims Sandy. Hell yes they are. Afterall what could campaign expenses entail? Well how about every penny you spent on getting yourself elected. Income is such a vague concept. Does this include for example cash donations from admirers who prefer to remain anonymous. Hell yes it does! All donations and income raised to get yourself elected are donations or income. Things like victory parties, appreciation/thank you notices in newspapers and most especially live bands at your victory party are all specifically stated in the Municipal Election Act as expenses. Despite alleged incompetent advice from provincial bureaucrats all you had to do Sandy was read the Form 4 and or the 2014 Candidates Guide as I did. I didn't find it vague at all.

Finally Sandy says that the proposed changes to the Elections Act do not address what is considered a related company. They don't need to as it's already very clear as to what are related companies. Again it took me less than five minutes to figure out that you had a corporate overdonation. Your comment about "vexatious" claims by citizens is pure self entitlement and arrogance. You screwed up royally, broke the law and got caught. All the rest is just whining. The story in last Thursday's K-W Record was titled "Mixed feelings over changes to election act".