Thursday, September 6, 2018


Just a few factual errors in today's Woolwich Observer article titled "Ending on a high note". The Observer reporter claims that Mark failed to follow "new" provisions in the province's Municipal Act. No offence to the reporter but clearly right off the bat he's just writing what Mark tells him, otherwise he would know that the provision insisting that ALL candidates MUST file an expense report was not new. Secondly it's not the Municipal Act of Ontario it is the Municipal Elections Act (MEA). Those are two entirely different and separate pieces of legislation.

Secondly Mark was not "tied up in legal wranglings" at the Superior Court of Justice. Nor was I " to take me (Mark) to court
and cause a lot of grief." There were no legal wranglings because Mark and his lawyer as well as the Township did not advise the citizen (me) who informed the Municipal Clerk of the infraction, that it had gone to court. The proceedings took ten minutes maximum as the Township supported Mark's reinstatement and no one else was given the opportunity to oppose it. It was Mark himself who took it to court, not I.

"It was a huge expense for the taxpayer...", "it was a huge waste of time and effort - court time." Right, ten minutes of court time. Blame the taxpayers' expenses on the Municipal Clerk, Val Hummel. She is the one who failed to enforce the MEA by not insisting that Mark follow the black and white provincial law that explicitly states that ALL candidates, including acclaimed candidates MUST file expense reports (ie. Financial Statements). Acclaimed candidates can still have expenses for example by spending thousands of dollars on campaign signs,advertising etc. Therefore they like every other candidate MUST file Financial Statements. That is and has been the law for a very long time. Having the Municipal Clerk run interference for a candidate who fails to observe the law by telling a citizen, in front of a witness, that a) yes Mark's Financial Statement is on line and then b) telling the citizen that oh his Financial Statement is on her desk should be punishable by law as well but somehow Woolwich, Mark and their supporters overlooked that.

"And it was basically for not putting an "X" on box when I handed in my expense report." What kind of crap is this Mark? You didn't hand in any expense report until I called you on it. And Woolwich Township were so stupid they let you do this at least twice before that. And I'm the bad guy here?

Some of us refer to Mark as Mr. Flip Flop. I believe that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. In other words he tailors his comments to the audience in front of him. If it's the Chamber of Commerce etc. then Chemtura/Lanxess are the salt of the earth. In a private setting with environmentalists then he states that they need to do so much more.

This is the same Mark Bauman who once inaccurately advised Woolwich Council publicly that he was proud to have now kicked me off of CPAC twice. Trouble is that was the first time he did it (2011). Later on in 2013 he voted against me being reinstated when CPAC went to Council unanimously recommending that I be reinstated. And Mark whines in this Observer article that someone who disliked him, took him to court and caused him a lot of grief. Poor baby. You're lucky I didn't kick you in the eggshells, you sniveling piece of crap.

No comments:

Post a Comment