AGAIN " THE PROBLEMS WEREN'T SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH"

"A review and forensic audit found that while the councillor's paperwork was inadequate the problems weren't significant enough to pass the file over to the provincial court for legal action.". Or at least so says last week's Woolwich Observer.

I am now going to quote from the MECAC Minutes of the August 27, 2015 public meeting in which MECAC voted five versus one to not send Mr. Hahn on to the courts. I will also include two quotes taken from my notes of the meeting. They do not conflict with the Minutes but I believe add some clarity.


Kevin Bambrick page 4-5

"He reported that the Committee's decision to proceed with an audit request should have prompted Mr. Hahn to get all financial statements in order. The audit report details apparent contraventions on page 12 relating to the amended financial statements." "He noted that as with the original statement, there was a failure to provide proper direction to persons authorized to incur expenses on his behalf for the campaign. Mr Bambrick requested that this matter be referred to a prosecuting attorney for further consideration.".


Larry Aberle page 5

"Mr. Aberle stated that he felt there was no deceit intended, and the result would not have changed had the proper financial reports been filed." "The related companies that may have violated the act are now passed any time period under which they could have been charged.".


Thomas Jutzi page 5

"...there is no evidence that the candidate committed the more serious offences under the Act." "The candidate gained no advantage in filing incomplete financial statements. Mr Jutzi commented that in his opinion it was an inadvertent error in judgement, in failing to learn the rules of the MEA.". "It was not intended to coverup any of the more serious contraventions....". "Mr. Jutzi expressed that he is convinced the candidate did not knowingly commit these offenses.".

My personal notes taken during the meeting have the following quote by Mr. Jutzi namely: "paper trail may have been done after the fact.".


Murray Stoddart page 6

"Mr. Stoddart reported the committee is left to consider if this was done with intent and was an advantage gained in the election. He commented that in both cases the answer is no. He noted that while the courts would find that Mr. Hahn had contravened the Act, he expressed that the Courts would certainly not apply the penalties meant for different situations.".

My personal notes indicate that Mr. Stoddart also stated that he gave no weight to the excuses of family and their receipts as there was a complete lack of verifiable documentation. The Courts would find Scott guilty if it went there.



Grace Sudden page 6

"Mrs. Sudden said while this cannot be condoned, there is no reason to push this any further. She stressed the role of processes in educating people, and using it as an opportunity to get wiser about the importance of understanding of what's involved when someone runs for office. She noted that it is a necessity for any community to have good people run for office. She expressed appreciation that candidate's were willing to put themselves forward.".



Bob Williams page 6

"He noted that prospects for convictions on similar cases is very low. The Courts have not been willing to impose sanctions on cases with even more egregious violations. Mr. Williams commented that the errors made did not affect the outcome of the election. He reported that nothing would be served by taking it to a Court that is probably going to throw it out anyway and the Committee has gone as far as it should go.".



Chair Carl Zehr page 6

"He noted there were apparent technical contraventions of the Act. In similar cases where there were contraventions, the Courts did not take any punitive action against the candidate, particularly in cases where candidates actions were particularly more egregious. Mr. Zehr reported that he doesn't believe there was an intent to cover up the errors made, it was simply ignorance of the Act.". "He expressed his reluctance to take the matter any further because the conclusions would be the same as the majority of the Committee has expressed.".




Some points from myself: Yes the politically appointed MECAC downplayed the significance of Scott Hahn's contraventions of the Act (MEA). They also threw in a whole other litany of excuses totally irrelevant to the appropriate criteria to determine whether to send the case on to the courts. Finally multiple MECAC members seem to believe that they are not just political appointees but judges. They (MECAC) have pre-determined what the judge's verdict would be if Scott Hahn were tried on multiple MEA charges. Some of MECAC's excuses might possibly speak to the penalty portion of a judge's decision after conviction. Otherwise they are mostly irrelevant to their mandated responsibilties.