WHY I BELIEVE ELECTION ACT CHARGES ARE NECESSARY FOR MAYOR SHANTZ

My August 3/15 posting here in the Advocate is titled "More New Expense Contraventions By Sandy Revealed". It is neither the sheer number of them nor the size or significance of each one that has led me to my conclusion in the title above. It is based upon very careful study of precedents (case law), the Municipal Election Act (MEA), Sandy's behaviour in stickhandling around MECAC, her lack of forthrightness with Superior Court, the apparent results of her errors and omissions and finally based upon all the preceding, her intent.

I will be very clear here. Intent is a difficult, dangerous and slippery slope. Therefore I up front advise my readers that while the evidence is powerful it is still circumstantial regarding intent. I am giving my honest opinion based upon my analysis and understanding of the facts now known. It is not impossible that a real forensic audit could sink her entirely nor is it impossible that a forensic audit might actually put her in a better light. There is however zero chance that an honest forensic audit could remotely clear her of all wrongdoing. Above and beyond her admissions to date, are all the other already detailed contraventions.

Sandy has admitted that she miscalculated her total Contributions (income) on her Financial Statement by approximately $2,600 thus when corrected it put her above the $10,000 threshold requiring an Audit. On July 2/15 she provided to MECAC the typical quickie audit that all other candidates in the municipal election provided. These candidates included mayors and councillors although primarily regional councillor candidates. All of their audits satisfy the MEA however I repeat they are quickie, 5 minute wonders whose Qualifications and Limitations listed make the exercise essentially a farce.

She sold her "inadvertence" and "honest mistake" defence to MECAC and Superior Court simply by her saying so. Neither party looked carefully at her Financials nor even pretended to do so. I have looked carefully. Her expenses are also thousands of dollars underrepresented. To date this is unproven although I have listed them here on Aug. 3/15. Not only has she failed to list a number of expenses such as campaign kickoff events and meet the candidate events; as well her invoice from cousin Larry for a campaign website does not support his and her interpretation that the twelve You Tube Videos are included.

For me the Ah Ha! moment came when I finally deciphered her Financial Spreadsheet she provided to MECAC. This is a home made document not one done by her bank or any other independent institution. She had appropriately listed her Thank You/Appreciation Public Notices in the Observer and Independent as campaign expenses ($322.05 + $305.10= $627.15). Those expenses elevated her already understated expenses from $9,475.89 to $10,103.04 which alone would have triggered an Audit even without her Contributions (income) being above the $10,000 threshold. Then incredibly she deucted those Thank You/Appreciation Notices from her expense column claiming (wrongly) justification from pages 25 & 26 of the MEC Guide. Oh My God but that is blatant and plain ridiculous! This is a person with 31 years of bookeeping experience?

If Sandy had only messed up her Contribution (income) side I could buy it. If she had only messed up her Expense side by omitting one or two expenses to stay under the $10,000 threshold, maybe. Instead what I see and interpret is a blatant attempt to fudge her expenses on a number of items AND even to the point of deducting $627.15 in Thank You/Appreciation expenses already properly included.

Neither MECAC nor Superior Court permitted myself to have time to study Sandy's ambush material on July 2/15 and then be allowed to present all the evidence to them and argue that Sandy's manifold errors were not "inadvertent" or "honest mistakes". My opinion and interpretation is that they were done intentionally and illegally in order to avoid an Audit which among other things would have added another approximately $750 or more to her expense side. Even so it begs the question...Is this all about vanity and being embarassed by how much she outspent her three opponents combined OR is there still more I haven't discovered? Either a courtroom and or a Forensic Audit are desperately required. Otherwise just throw out the Municipal Elections Act as it is just a scam being pulled on the public.

Of course as suggested yesterday a resignation by Mayor Shantz would abort things and she could avoid further embarassing accountability.