Wednesday, January 3, 2018


Also I'm setting the record straight here. In various media over two and a a half years ago it was stated that I asked/demanded/insisted upon the removal of Mark Bauman from his position as the elected (O.K. acclaimed) councillor for Woolwich Township (St. Jacobs). Other people saying it so doesn't make it so. I would like to see some quote or written words from myself that expressly said that I initially advised the Woolwich Clerk that he had to be removed from office. My recollection is that I pointed out that he had broken the Municipal Elections Act (1996). End of story.

One reason that I did not pursue the Mark Bauman violations rigorously is that I too realized, after the fact, that he had been acclaimed and presumably had no expenses to declare. And yes that is correct, violations as in plural. More on this later.

Nevertheless this story does have some disturbing factors. How many citizens know that Mr. Bauman went to Superior Court to be reinstated (despite the Township Council & Clerk never formally giving him the boot) without the formal complainant (myself) even being advised as to the court date, time or name of court? That's right he went to court asking a judge to give him a break, claiming an honest mistake, without another party being present to at least give both sides of the story. Oh yes, allegedly Woolwich Township were the Respondent to his Application to Superior Court. They however, as best buddies, advised the Judge that they had no position which means they did not oppose his Application. I and Woolwich Township citizens were ignored and back doored. If advised I would have attended on time and given the judge other facts that would have I hope at least given the judge pause. He would not have so naively, publicly declared afterwards how easy a decision it was to reinstate Mr. Bauman. Of course it was an easy decision. The only evidence entered was self-serving and uncontested.

Here is what I would have advised Justice Grant Campbell of the Ontario Superior Court. Firstly the Woolwich Township Clerk, Val Hummel, was in multiple violation of the Ontario Municipal Elections Act. She had NOT, allegedly by her admission, informed Mr. Bauman prior to the filing deadline that he needed to fill out a Form 4, Financial Statement and give it to her. Secondly, contrary to the law, she had not removed Mr. Bauman from office either before or after this or any citizen advised her in writing that he had failed to file his Election financial statements with her. Thirdly that Woolwich Council were also in violation of the law by not insisting that Mr. Bauman be removed from office immediately as demanded by the Municipal Election Act. This automatic penalty I belatedly became aware of. Fourthly that the Woolwich Clerk produced a number of factual fictions for my consumption when I, with a witness present, first advised her of Mr. Bauman's serious violation of the Elections Act.

I am not certain as to whether or not I have posted these factual fictions here previously. For the moment I am not naming the witness present at my request during my conversation with the Clerk . This is because I no longer know their reliability. It was a Woolwich councillor who since has indicated some animosity towards me. The first nonsense out of the Clerk's mouth was that indeed Mr. Bauman's Financial Statements were on-line in the Woolwich Township website. Wow, anything to get out of a spot apparently. They were not on the Township's website whereas the others (less Todd Cowan) were and I made that clear to her. She then claimed that oh she was simply late posting them on-line and Mark's Financial Statements were actually on her desk. That was an easy subterfuge to circumvent and I demanded to see it immediately as was all citizens' right. Literally fifteen minutes went by while she allegedly went looking for it. In fact I believe that she was likely conferring with CAO Dave Brenneman wondering what the hell to do. She came back and advised my witness and myself that as Mark Bauman had been Acclaimed (again) that it was a Woolwich "tradition" not to require him to file a Financial Statement. WOW! These good folks apparently believe that Woolwich "traditions" trump provincial legislation. Astounding!

The final item I would have presented to Justice Campbell was the Waterloo Region Record's Editorial dated May 26, 2015 and titled "Unenforced laws are useless laws". This was prior to Mr. Bauman's essentially secret sojourn down to our hallowed halls of justice in Kitchener. The Record pointed out that the law, while imperfect, was very clear. Mr. Bauman had forfeited his office due to either his negligence or due to his refusal to file Financial Statements. They also pointed out that Woolwich officials (Clerk), Woolwich politicians and even the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs all refused to obey and enforce the Elections Act. This flouting the law with impunity means that Woolwich Township believe that they can pick and choose which laws they obey and enforce. These are the people in charge here in Woolwich Township. They are not the best, the brightest or apparently even the most honest.

Getting back to Mark's failure to file after the 2014 election (ie. violations plural). This was not a one off. The very same thing was done after the 2000, 2003 and 2006 elections. He did not file Financial Statements after being Acclaimed and Woolwich Clerks, staff and politicians knew it. The law was blatantly broken over and over again before I spotted it.

No comments:

Post a Comment