SCOTT HAHN & MECAP - MORE THAN ONE ISSUE?

Today's hearing before the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) lasted an hour and a quarter. The seven member committee consists of some names from past Regional and municipal councils including Carl Zehr, Grace Sudden and possibly Larry Aberle unless I have him mixed up with a different Aberle. The others included Murray Stoddart, Robert Williams, Mr. Jutzi and a Kevin possibly Brombick?

Delegates included Mayor Sandy Shantz who informed us as to what a swell fellow Scott Hahn is. To the contrary were Dr. Dan Holt, Richard Clausi and Lisa MacDonald. Mayor Shantz's comments spoke to Scott's character including his hard work on Council. The other three spoke to the facts regarding the clear and obvious violation of the Elections Act via the incomplete election expenses report that Scott filed.

The hearing will be reconvened in a week after the committee have had an in camera meeting with the township's lawyer. I believe that that is totally inappropriate for two reasons namely it's in camera and secondly it is the Township's lawyer. Those optics both stink and look bad. This is ridiculous in that it is a private citizen who has brought forth the complaint yet he and the public will be excluded from evidence being given to the Audit Committee. The facts of the matter are not in dispute as Scott has quite forthrightly admitted that he did not include the costs or donaters of his brochures and signs. The next step should have been the Audit Committee sending this matter to an auditor to determine if there was a contravention of the law. This has already been admitted to. After this point I see things getting difficult.

The vote to defer the decision whether to bring in an auditor was six to one. The one got it right in that this hearing is not about Scott's character or whether or not he intentionally is trying to hide donations to his campaign. Today's hearing was to determine whether the Committee had sufficient evidence to advance the complaint to an auditor who would make the formal decision whether the Act had been violated or not. If the auditor said yes then the Audit Committee would decide whether or not to forward the file on in order to commence a legal proceeding.

I listened very carefully to Scott's testimony. I found him honest and forthcoming. I did not hear any waffling or excuse making. He goofed, he knows it and he admits it. For me the major thing left is to see the invoices proving that his parents and in laws paid for his brochures and signs. If those are produced FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE then the auditor's decision obviously finding the admitted contraventions will precede the Audit Committee decision whether or not to commence a legal proceeding. If Scott continues on what I so far see as an honest course he will likely come through this unscathed.