MARK BAUMAN DID NOT REPRESENT COUNCIL NOR CPAC AT APRIL 9 MEETING

Quoting from last Saturday's Woolwich Observer "According to the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Bauman immediately forfeited his seat when he failed to file a report by the March 27 deadline. Despite being acclaimed to the seat he's held since 2000, he was still required to submit an election expense report under changes to the Municipal Election Act approved prior to the 2010 vote." Furthermore ministry spokesperson Yanni Dagonas stated "It's automatic. The act is clear. There is no mechanism by which council needs to act".

This raises some questions. Did Woolwich Township commit an offence by not formally removing Mark Bauman from office? Secondly are they knowingly committing an offence by not formally reinstating him via some oath of office or other mechanism after Judge Campbell gave his O.K.? Thirdly and this interests me greatly: Are all of Mark Bauman's votes, actions and decisions from March 27 until Thursday May 28 out the window? The answer seems pretty clear to me. He wasn't a Woolwich Councillor during that time frame. Hence the notorious April 9/15 "meeting minutes" of Mayor Shantz's pretend stakeholders' meeting were attended by an imposter, namely one Mark Bauman. He was there as either Council's CPAC representative or as a Council member or both when in fact he was neither. He was simply one more member of the unwashed masses ie. the public.

As it was this meeting attended by seventeen individuals representing various levels of government and various agencies had only Dwighte Este of Chemtura and Mark Bauman with current CPAC knowledge. All the rest were at best pretend stakeholders and some of those with personal axes to grind. The meeting was nothing more than a "bitch" session to allow Mayor Shantz written ammunition to wield against CPAC in her restructuring of CPAC to Chemtura's specifications.