PERHAPS A SECOND CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Today's Woolwich Observer has a small news item at the top of page 5 titled Hahn case adjourned again. It correctly advises that Councillor Scott Hahn's Municipal Elections Act charges have been adjourned until January 25/17. It further states that the conflict prosecutor Michael Carnegie advised the court that he needs time to review the evidence against Hahn. That is also accurate as the conflict of interest prosecutor had not done so between the September 26/16 court date in which local prosecutor Alex Andres announced the appointing of a new prosecutor and this past Monday's court appearance.

I can advise that prosecutor Michael Carnegie is now actively reviewing the case and evidence in regards to Councillor Hahn's contraventions of the Act. I can also suggest that while the Observer's statement that MECAC "...found the transgressions did not warrant passing the case on to the court." is correct; it is not remotely complete. The Observer have a copy of the Forensic Audit and their failure to point out to the public the specific multiple contraventions of the law by Scott Hahn as well as the serious concerns expressed by the Auditors in regards to the truthfulness or not of Scott Hahn's alleged contributors and family members, is in my opinion a dereliction of their public duty.

While I am the first to acknowledge that overall, Councillor and Observer co-owner Pat Merlihan is one of the better and in my opinion more forthright Woolwich Councillors, nevertheless I have to ask the question. Is his presence on Council and his co-ownership of the Observer affecting the impartiality of the Observer on the Scott Hahn issue? Is this a conflict of interest?