Wednesday, September 16, 2015


Below is the transcript of my Delegation to Council last evening. I sent both it as well as the referenced Ontario Bar Association article to the Woolwich Observer, K-W Record and CKCO-TV hours prior to the meeting. As Council behaved like grownups last evening I may well send them the same this morning. The key to housebreaking dogs and councils is persistence and patience.


Good evening . I’m here this evening to discuss issues and concerns with both the Municipal Elections Act 1996 (MEA) and with a politically appointed group designated to enforce that legislation. That group are known as MECAC which stands for Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee.

The Ontario Bar Association produced a document in July 2013 describing various elements of the Municipal Elections Act. On page 3 it states “A member of the public with an honest belief in a contravention can be reasonably confident that those with more expertise, the committee and the auditor, will pursue the matter. The threshold for granting an audit is low, and the committee has minimal discretion where the application demonstrates reasonable grounds. The applicant is not required to make a prima facie case but to demonstrate that she/he has “an objective belief based on compelling and credible information which raises the “reasonable probability of a breach of a statute.”.

Again on page 6 we are once more advised that “the threshold for requiring an audit must remain low.”.

Case law also supports this concept. In Wendy Gunn v. Katherine Bateman-Olmstead we are advised that Section 81.(1) of the MEA “ is a threshold requirement only. Once it is plain to a municipal council that there are reasonable grounds for the belief “that a candidate has contravened a provision of this Act relating to election campaign finances” under section 81.(1) then the result is “ a compliance audit of the candidate’s election campaign finances””. Furthermore “the audit is intended to be comprehensive , even if the trigger is but a single apparent contravention.”.

Many of the contraventions brought to MECAC’s attention by myself including a fourty page package of evidence were admitted to by the candidate on July 2, 2015 here in these chambers. Despite this MECAC improperly and I believe illegally refused to order a Compliance Audit.

It is my belief that MECAC are supposed to be operating under the rules of the host municipality, in this case Woolwich Township. I am aware that under Woolwich’s Procedural By-Laws there are rules regarding conflicts of interest both for councillor’s as well as for members of committees of council. I would suggest that just because those rules are selective and clearly unenforced in some circumstances, is no reason not to enforce them in regards to MECAC. Having a MECAC member with a long and loyal history of service to Mercedes Corporation, making decisions in regards to a Council member with ties also to Mercedes is a blatant conflict of interest. Less obvious perhaps would be two former Regional Councillors on MECAC also making decisions regarding a current municipal and Regional councilor.

Whether these conflicts of interest explain MECAC’s two poor decisions I do not know. What I do know is that two of their three decisions were beyond the pale and most likely illegal. There is a sports saying referring to “winning ugly”. I suggest that here in Woolwich a more accurate saying would be “winning illegally”.

Alan Marshall Woolwich Township resident and elector


  1. How did they respond?

    Also, why did you have to make insulting comments like "housebreak dogs and council" - you had a legitimate post but had to start off with an obnoxious, insulting post. These are PEOPLE and PROFESSIONALS that you are describing and a little respect for the process is needed. Try being professional for a change. You want them to respect and hear you and treat you with dignity but then you disrespect them here. You can't have it both ways. You want to act like a loose cannon and a jerk, then people will wave their hands at you and write you off. Take your pick.

    1. Indeed the title is inflammatory. Did it on purpose to remind myself and others how corrupt certain members of this Council are. Conflicts of interest, walking out on a Delegation, illegal behaviour simply can not be tolerated by us. As said by the commenter below councillors work for us not the other way around. There must be consequences for grossly misbehaving councillors. That said they were actually much better behaved last nite. Maybe they are getting the message.

    2. CORRECTION to the 8:24 commenter, Mr. Marshall can have it BOTH ways IF he wants to. He is a free person. I despise the limp wristed liberal type who beg for you to give them power then they lord it over you. I see thru partisan politics, it is always the same puppetmasters behind the curtain. So as per the KW Record the new courthouse at 85 Weber Street will cost us some 766 million and the Upgrades just completed at the Courthouse at 20 Weber will cost us 21 million and I cannot even remember how much the courthouse with the dog poo statue at 85 Weber Street ornament cost us. This goes double for the New Regional government headquarters and all the fancy new police stations...(Billions of our tax dollars have been spent) one would expect that the average citizen would get excellent service...So newsflash to the 8:34 commenter, If you are happy with how governments operate, then you must be an insider and or a fool. No apologies expected or given!

    3. MAYORS PROGRESS REPORT see article in KW Record with headline "Rural waste stations to close at year’s end at Ayr, Crosshill, Elmira and New Dundee"

  2. These PEOPLE work for us, we do not work for them so they must show respect or else face the consequences. In addition since they are PROESSIONALS they must act like that all the time! The average citizens are JUST STARTING to realize how they have been manipulated and they have a right to be very angry!

  3. They do not want a genuine audit and this is precisely why we really need one!