MORE ON SCOTT HAHN'S FORENSIC AUDIT

Allegedly Mr. Hahn's problems/contraventions of the Act (MEA) were not significant enough to pass on to the courts according to our local paper last Thursday. Allegedly this was the conclusion of both MECAC and the August 11, 2015 Forensic Audit. I dispute the accuracy of those allegations.

from the Forensic Audit:
page 11

3.28 The brochures being designed, created and printed with no invoices or paperwork and no money changing hands does not demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act. The sample invoice dated September 8, 2014 addressed to Dale and Laci Martin is consistent with a greater knowledge of the Municipal Elections Act and its requirements to value contributions in kind at an amount consistent with what would be charged to the general public and for a contributor to not exceed $750 in contributions to any one candidate.

3.30 We understand that no actual invoice was created for the 3,000 brochures and concluded that the sample invoice was created when an invoice or paperwork was requested by Scott Hahn in April or May 2015. Scott Hahn says that he was not aware of the available documentation for the brochures until he asked for information from his in-laws. The sample invoice provided by his in-laws is consistent with the Amended Financial Statement.

3.31 We are unable to conclude whether Scott Hahn believes, or ought to believe, that the contribution was in effect from KKP Waterloo and not the individuals to whom the sample invoice was addressed.

.......................................................................



My takeaways are as follows. Note the date on the "sample" invoice in paragraph 3.28 namely September 8, 2014 way before the election in late October. Then note paragraph 3.30 in which Froese Forensic Partners states that they conclude that the sample invoice was created in April or May 2015 months after the election was over and AFTER a Compliance Audit was requested by Dr. Dan Holt.

Paragraph 3.31 is similar to Froese's paragraph 3.22 in regards to the election signs that were allegedly paid for by Scott's parents and sister. Froese are saying that they do not know if Scott Hahn even ought to believe that his father-in-law and sister in law donated the brochures to his campaign. In other words that scenario is essentially unbelieveable. In fact it is after the fact impossible as JoAnne Martin (mother-in-law) has stated that no money changed hands. Therefore the claim that Mr. Hahn's father-in-law and sister-in-law paid for his brochures and thus there was not an exceedance of the $750 maximum contribution is false.