Friday, August 14, 2015

COUNCILLOR SCOTT HAHN: IS IT TOO EARLY TO USE THE FRA.. WORD?



Make no mistake the word "Fraud" does not appear in the Auditor's thirteen pages of text. Nor has it been determined to be so by MECAC or the courts. That said after multiple readings of the Forensic Audit released by Froese Forensic partners I can say this: Scott Hahn is in a world of hurt caused by the stupidity, arrogance and sense of entitlement of both himself and his family.

A few months back I understood that as a 26 year old first time electoral candidate he had minimal experience in anything including the Municipal Elections Act 1996. That he was so incredibly naive to think that he didn't have to record literally thousands of dollars of Contributions and Expenses towards his election campaign was frankly ridiculous. All that being said, technically MECAC could have thrown the book at him for his failure to properly disclose by the March 27/15 deadline. That they clearly are political appointees whose bias is in favour of the status quo has been amply demonstrated by their bending nay rupturing of their mandate, rules and the law by accepting four time candidate Sandy Shantz's revised Financial Statement and minimal accountant's audit back on July 2/15. They did this allegedly at the time with only ten minutes to read her thirty page submission.

The timing has probably destroyed Councillor Hahn's political career and his reputation. If he had known that MECAC were essentially creampuffs looking to protect political reputations not destroy them; he could have done what he initially did which was to throw himself upon everyone's mercy and relied on his age and inexperience. Instead every appearance and evidence to date is that he and his family have engaged in a coverup. Call it a coverup or call it by the more legal name, regardless Scott has crossed a line. Misrepresentation and deceit are the nicest words I can use after rereading his Forensic Audit. Again Froese Partners may be bound by some linguistic terminology whereas I am not.

In a nutshell Scott claimed that three of his family members split the cost of his election signs rather than his father's company Tri-Mach picking up the whole tab ($1751.50). Well yes it would have been a contravention for Tri-Mach to contribute more than the $750 maximum, the exact same way Mayor Shantz accepted a corporate overdonation; nevertheless in the scheme of things that is not in my mind a criminal act. The problem is that the Forensic Auditor has made it very plain that the expected corporate financial records can not be found. Remember this is Scott's father's company. No electronic records backing this up. No petty cash records showing the alleged $1750.51 cash repayment from Scott's father, mother and live at home sister, who's only income is from babysitting. Oh also the three alleged donors had no corresponding bank withdrawals of cash to back up their story.

Then we have the $962.76 cost of the Brochures produced by KKP or Kwik Kopy Print. This company is owned by Scott's in laws. For me if Scott isn't already sunk this produced "Invoice" by Scott to MECAC is damning. Froese Partners have examined it and interviewed KKP. It turns out that Scott did not produce a real Invoice for MECAC's enlightenment. KKP have advised the Forensic Auditors that it was a "Sample Invoice". Are you kidding me? Best case for Scott is that this is determined to be an illegal corporate overdonation by KKP. Worst case fraud and in between, simple misrepresentation.

Prior to the election and shortly afterwards I thought that Scott was the real deal, despite his inexperience. Two incidents later of him verbally abusing Dr. Dan Holt and then screaming at a woman at this week's Council meeting have not endeared me to him. That he clearly believes that honest mistakes are O.K. is one thing. My opinion regarding his claims and produced documentation was skeptical at the time. I believe the Auditor's inability to find backup documentation is fatal to Scott's credibility. To date the evidence points to him and his family misrepresnting the facts in order to get him off Election Act charges. It is likely that the courts will be very harsh if they believe that Scott and his family have intentionally misrepresnted the facts including producing documents that at best can not be verified.

Scott's only hope is that MECAC throw away all pretense of honesty and non bias at the upcoming August 27/15 10 am. meeting in Council Chambers. It is very sad when our democratic institutions require constant public vigilance for them to do their legally mandated duty. The only clear and obvious decision MECAC need to make on the 27th is that Councillor Hahn needs his election expenses and very sketchy Financial Statements and more examined by the courts. If Scott's behaviour is not sent for judicial examination then you may as well throw out the Municipal Elections Act (MEA). Clearly it is but one more pretend piece of legislation allegedly protecting the integrity of our political system.

14 comments:

  1. I bet that the $1751.50 receipt is sitting in the Hahn family Corporate file and is actually in the Tri-Mach Corp. T-1 tax return filed with CRA so this donation to Hahn Jr. can be claimed as a business expense. The way I see it the Hahn family appear to be the victims of the same system they so naively support. It would be far better to just admit the truth and be transparent so we could work together and build each other up in a good way. However it is up to the powers that be whether they want to have peace or do some more fighting first. They may be the leaders but they will never force people like me to be their followers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is Canada where people are innocent until proven guilty. You're saying fraud meanwhile the repost said there was no evidence. Until there is I still fully support Scott. Good for Scott verbally abusing dumb Dan Holt. The guy lost to a 26 year old with no experience, just shows everyone's on the same page where anything is better than dumb Holt. Time to pull off your tin hat Alan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm glad council removed you from CPAC. Next step is to remove you from the town. You and you delinquent team have a vendetta again council because you couldn't running your mouth on your shitty blog and got booted from the CPAC. Now you're trying to spin every single step into a conspiracy to get them removed. Maybe if you would have just done your job in the first place none of this would have happened. Quit wasting tax payers money.
    Council removes Marshall from CPAC


    Elmira environmentalist Alan Marshall has been removed from the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee — again.

    The move was made at the May 10 council meeting, the day after several newly appointed CPAC members met with township staff, along with mayor Todd Cowan and councillor Julie-Anne Herteis.

    Marshall, along with other CPAC members, were interested in speeding up the process to hold the first formal CPAC meeting.The meeting was held after a series of emails over the course of the weekend between Marshall and his fellow CPAC members — Ron Campbell, Vivienne Delaney, Lynn Hare, Dr. Dan Holt, David Marks — along with CPAC chairman, councillor Herteis, on the same topic.

    The meeting resulted in a proposed CPAC meeting date of June 8, at which time committee members would get an orientation. No date for the first formal CPAC meeting has been set — nearly eight months after the last meeting was held.

    After the meeting, Marshall had used his blog, www.elmiraadvocateblogspot.com, to criticize the lack of progress. He followed this up with registering as a delegation at the May 10 meeting.At the meeting, Marshall told councillors that he felt it was vitally important for CPAC to meet soon, so that new members could be appointed to the Responsible Care verification team, which is expected to meet in June.
    Council removes Marshall from CPAC


    Elmira environmentalist Alan Marshall has been removed from the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee — again.

    The move was made at the May 10 council meeting, the day after several newly appointed CPAC members met with township staff, along with mayor Todd Cowan and councillor Julie-Anne Herteis.

    Marshall, along with other CPAC members, were interested in speeding up the process to hold the first formal CPAC meeting.The meeting was held after a series of emails over the course of the weekend between Marshall and his fellow CPAC members — Ron Campbell, Vivienne Delaney, Lynn Hare, Dr. Dan Holt, David Marks — along with CPAC chairman, councillor Herteis, on the same topic.

    The meeting resulted in a proposed CPAC meeting date of June 8, at which time committee members would get an orientation. No date for the first formal CPAC meeting has been set — nearly eight months after the last meeting was held.

    After the meeting, Marshall had used his blog, www.elmiraadvocateblogspot.com, to criticize the lack of progress. He followed this up with registering as a delegation at the May 10 meeting.At the meeting, Marshall told councillors that he felt it was vitally important for CPAC to meet soon, so that new members could be appointed to the Responsible Care verification team, which is expected to meet in June.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What repost? What lack of evidence? Read the Auditor's Report on the Woolwich website! As far as Dr. Dan being beaten by a 26 year old without experience you forgot to add the 26 year old claimed he'd spent less than everybody else when except for Ruby he spent more than everybody else. It didn't work for Ruby but it sure did for Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TO Anonymous at 10:10 am. I'm assuming your double posting was an honest mistake. Mayor at the time Todd Cowan lied in camera (closed session) to his Council falsely claiming that I had agreed to shutting down the Elmira Advocate if I was appointed to CPAC. He and Dave Breeneman had tried that tactic beforehand and I bluntly refused. I found this out from a former Council member present at that meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Everybody is attacking Scott from benefitting from his family's printing business and the extra campaign benefits but nobody ever mentions the benefits that Merlihan has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) from being a member of the family that runs the Observer? His face is in there every week. Why do you pick on some and not others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Merlihan AND the newspaper is being watched (They all are) !

      Delete
    2. Pat M. works for the residences of Woolwich. He shows compassion for the residents that other staff and council members do not even think about.

      You should do your homework before you start trying to make problems for one of the few honest hardworking politician

      Why are you attempting to throw dirt on this man?

      Give credit to him. He deserves praise! .

      Delete
    3. Ok, I attend council regularly and Pat Merlihan is the only one advocating for the people. Murray Martin throws delegates under the bus, Mark Bauman (aka Mayor Bauman) as he initiates all the questions negative and Larry Shantz( brother in law and cousin of Sandy and Mark) yep we all know discredit all the good comments made by Pat. Scott oh then there is precious nieve Scoot Hahn who agrees with every corrupt comment our current Mayor makes.
      Then the circle starts all over again. Before you write about our council, go to a meeting, go for it and see for yourself before you bash Alan or any other public paying taxpayer! I suggest the forensic audit goes direct to court or give it to a justice of the peace and let them analyze it as to the intentions. This Blog is wonderful.
      If you don't agree with Cpac or this blog then do what Chemtura said: drink the water! As its all stuck to the plume! As on ctv news.

      Delete
  7. I removed the 10:54 and 10:58 am.Anonymous comments. Aside from being rude and longwinded they appeared to be from the same individual who has already had a lot to say. While I don't normally discourage Anonymous comments the problem can be one Anonymous commenter going on and on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Merlihan? The article in the Observer says that the WMC does not need the full time employee. Really? He says it does not pay for itself. Really? That position, which used to be temporary contract, brings in most of the revenue for the WMC. Having to fill the spot every 2 years is not economical.

    The WMC is a place & service for the community. If it should have to pay for itself to be viable, we should maybe close all the parks too. What revenue do they bring in? What costs are they to the community?

    I guess my point is, what is considered services to the community, and warrants each to be revenue self-sufficient?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The public is asking for a Splash/Ice pad which could cost $40,000 extra in maintenance. Why spend the money there, when the WMC is a lot more important to the community? Not that I'm against the Splash/Ice Pad, but if I have to choose between that & the WMC & the services they provide the community.... I have to choose the WMC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this your "way " of telling Pat M he had better watch his back or you will start maligning him too? Why else would you be doing this. This a blog by Alan not a public general newspaper.

      Delete
  10. Of course he has to watch his back. He works for us, we do not work for him! Another anonymous taxpayer here to say that ALL those that serve us including Pat M. will be watched very carefully from now on and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The only thing that really matters about anything is the truth. On a side note, if we are in a good democracy then all decisions that cost the taxpayers money should benefit all the taxpayers and NOT just a minority. (especially NOT a very small minority) All special interests like splash pads and the like should be 100% self funded. As a taxpayer I am actually insulted every time a request like this is made because normally when someone does not have the funds to do something they very respectfully request to borrow the money needed and provide security and documents to back up their repayment plan. As a politician you should just imagine if a referendum was held with all taxpayers voting, would the result be yes or no? and if you are not sure do your own extensive survey or hold a darn referendum. At the very least do not succumb to corruption. However if you cared enough to read my whole response I will admit that Pat M. has real business experience AND since he ran on ensuring fiscal responsibility in Woolwich Twp. , I will not turn against him unless he fails to do this. His involvement with our only local newspaper is not a secret so all we have to do is make sure they stick to the truth as well and do their job.

    ReplyDelete