WOOLWICH COUNCIL'S BEHAVIOUR IS PUBLICLY BITING THEM IN THE ASS

While the below Editorial from the Record is not 100% accurate, it's close enough. The entire Council knowingly allowed Mark and Sandy to dishonestly and maliciously appease Chemtura Canada and the corrupt Ministry of the Environment by falsely blaming CPAC for their manufactured crisis. Do you think I should have one ounce of sympathy for that pack of incompetents? Should I shrug my shoulders and say "Oh what's more deception and dishonesty by half our Council?




Jul 27, 2015 |


The Record's view: A wake-up call for Woolwich
Waterloo Region Record
By Editorial

Whatever is in the water in Woolwich? Half of the current six-member township council — Mayor Sandy Shantz, and councillors Mark Bauman and Scott Hahn — have made mistakes involving the filing of election expenses. And now they are gasping for air in a sea of embarrassment.

Shantz was removed from the office of mayor on July 8, after she failed to properly file her Oct. 27 election expenses. She has acknowledged violating the act by failing to get an audit, accepting a donation above the limit and incorrectly reporting her election income.

Last week, Justice David Broad agreed to allow Shantz to submit corrected documents and return to office.

Meanwhile, Coun. Scott Hahn is awaiting the result of an audit after he didn't file expenses correctly. The first-time councillor has admitted he didn't claim costs for signs and brochures that family members paid for. They told him the materials were free. The investigation could lead to serious penalties under the Municipal Elections Act.

As for Bauman, he didn't file an expense report at all because he was acclaimed and, therefore, didn't have any campaign expenses. His mistake was complicated by the fact that the township clerk's office failed in its duty to issue a warning ahead of the filing deadline. But under the law, even acclaimed candidates must file. Bauman was removed from office briefly and reinstated by the court.

There are some who call this exercise in accountability a tempest in a teapot. The law is too severe and draconian, they say. Indeed, the Municipal Elections Act is under review, so there are opportunities to correct those concerns. But for now, it is the law, it is there to ensure that elections are fair, and it most certainly needs to be obeyed.

Why is Woolwich particularly troubled by these violations? The answer lies in the fact that its politics are more stormy than its bucolic landscape suggests. Two of the three politicians were targeted by a citizen activist, Alan Marshall, who is unhappy with the way Shantz and Bauman handled an advisory committee concerned with pollution of the township's groundwater. Like many activists, Marshall provokes strong feelings in the people he encounters. He isn't finished, either: he has also asked police to investigate what he says were violations of the law by the township clerk and municipal election audit committee.

But love him or loathe him, Marshall's questions have uncovered multiple infractions of the rules. The resulting embarrassment can be a wake-up call, like a splash of cold water on a sleepy face. And in that sense, Marshall has performed a service to his neighbours.



Council were informed in writing by myself as to there being consequences for their behaviour. I and others have unlike them, honestly presented the truth about three of them and their blatant election expense screwups. Is their public exposure, humiliation and embarassment unintentional? Hell no at least on my part it isn't. Can it be remedied? By honest people of good will it can. Council however will likely continue to deflect, distract and obfuscate; thrashing wildly about blaming the messengers instead of themselves.