THE CROWN & THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT (MEA) TOMORROW, 9 am. PROV. OFFENCES COURT

I've been avoiding speculating on the outcome of mayor Shantz's sojourn to the courts. Looking at the resources and interest involved in former mayor Todd Cowan's case would almost make me believe that they indeed are concerned even with relatively low dollar matters. On the other hand both Councils and the Waterloo Regional Police got involved quickly and pushed for an investigation. This of course differs dramatically from the situation of Woolwich Council leaping to the sitting mayor's defence and aid right from the beginning.

Perhaps there are some similarities. Both persons involved did not expect any kind of real scrutiny or accountability. Maybe there was a relaxed attitude towards minor transgressions with expenses in particular. In the current mayor's case especially no one has remotely suggested she pocketed or took money directly. The really big nagging matter for me is the possibility she knowingly fudged both her expenses and donations in order not to have to pay for an audit. That scenario would put her on a par with Todd Cowan regarding penny wise and pound foolish.

Todd fudged $3,000 in expenses and lost a $100,000 job, his career and his reputation. Sandy if she knowingly stickhandled her Financial Statement to avoid paying approximately $1,300 to her accountant; has now in hindsight paid $4,000 in accounting fees, probable legal fees and has another court date. I've been avoiding believing that she would be so dumb as to break the law intentionally for the sake of $1,300. I've felt that a forensic audit might unearth something a little more outrageous. In hindsight maybe it was nothing more than the original accounting fee she wanted to skip. The alternative of course and her claim is that the forms and legislation are just too hard for her to figure out. Campaign expenses are just so difficult apparently.

Her 31 years of bookeeping experience and her multiple election campaigns and resultant Financial Statements make me skeptical. When faced with scrutiny she raced for her lawyer. Her offense was severe enough according to the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) to require her immediate forfeiture of office. She broke the law (MEA) quite blatantly. Simply admitting to it doesn't expunge the offense. Whether the courts determine that her costs since are an adequate penalty I do not know. What I do know is that if the MEA as a provincial law has any teeth or respect, we will soon learn. I view tomorrow morning as a sort of acid test of the MEA. Is the law for real or isn't it? To date it has been the latter.