WOOLWICH COUNCIL & STAFF CORRUPTION

Well it's official that Woolwich are corrupt as in riddled with errors. I only asked the Ombudsman to investigate a few particularily egregious cases regarding council's use and abuse of in camera meetings and boy did we hit a home run. I have said here before that Council liars love in camera meetings because there they can allow their imaginations/obfuscations to run wild. At an in camera meeting they can lie to their colleagues for improper purposes and their colleagues aren't legally allowed to tattletale on them. It's a liars paradise.

The other improper purpose of in camera meetings is to allow Council to practice dirty tricks and deeds outside the scrutiny of the public. For example Council wished to find a way around the embarassing situation of having only eight Applications by last November 30th, the new CPAC application deadline. Five CPAC members had reapplied, myself plus two more applicants allegedly unknown to Council (horse manure!). This was discussed improperly and illegally at the January 13/15 in camera meeting according to the Ombudsman's Report located on page 238-253 of the Council package for this Tuesday evening 6 pm.. Furthermore this in camera meeting allowed Mark and Sandy to state false allegations about myself and CPAC members to the rest of Council. Not only is the very early date of January 13 interesting but the Ombudsman has advised us that Council were discussing (false) "performance" issues which I suggest that the polluter (Chemtura) and their corrupt regulator(M.O.E.C.C.) were spewing forth to their fellow travellors.

Other nasty issues by Council include further backddor and backroom disparaging of Woolwich volunteers. This included the January 20/15 in camera meeting discussing volunteer recreation associations. Once again embarassing information to the Township Staff and or Council members can be hidden from the public including personal opinions aka gossip blaming volunteers for Staff and Council mistakes.

The Ombudsman has properly brought Council and senior Staff's (Clerk and CAO) ongoing multiple errors and illegalities (Ombudsman's word) to light. While yet again Council and Staff are using words such as "inadvertent" and "oversight" and the Ombudsman has not categorically dismissed their excuses; I can and do. They have a long history of not only breaking their own Procedural By-Laws, Committee Terms of Reference, Elections Act and Municipal Act procedures and processes but also of using in camera meetings for improper, devious purposes. This Council and Township are not behaving in the public interest but in their own.

MECAC ARE A CORRUPT POLITICALLY APPOINTED (REGIONAL) SMOKESCREEN

The Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee or MECAC for short are mandated by the Municipal Elections Act 1996 (MEA). My experience here in Elmira and Waterloo Region is that even in the unlikely scenario that one political body actually want an honest, independent, quasi judicial body; nobody else does. Most likely however the way that senior governments (province) sell greater accountability and transparency to the lower tiers, namely regional and municipal, is by privately advising them of the key loopholes in the legislation. The simplest is to make sure that all appointees (or at least most) are fellow travellors politically. MECAC's behaviour here in Elmira on July 2/15 was blatantly obvious. They had been given their marching orders ahead of time.

Or in the alternative they'd been "briefed" privately. This was Todd Cowan's trick several years back when he lied to his own Council about me and this Blog in order to have Council remove me from CPAC. It takes a special kind of filth to behave in such a fashion and when it comes to deception and lying the only competition to politicians are lawyers.

How does this bode for Councillor Scott Hahn? The Audit by Froese Inc. should be released imminently if our Township Clerk does her public duty. Unfortunately she too has shown tendencies to back Staff and Council at the public's expense. Then MECAC are scheduled to be in Council Chambers on August 27/15 10 am. to decide whether or not to send Scott Hahn to the courts for prosecution under the MEA. Make no doubt Scott's Financial Statement was horribly bad. The MEA is clear on what are grounds for prosecution.

MECAC will receive the real deal forensic Audit not the five minute rubber stamped approval that Sandy and other Mayors and many Regional Councillors all received. Those "Audits" are no more than a formality and a nod to the Election Act (MEA). They essentially advise astute readers exactly of that if read carefully including the Limitations and Qualified Opinion sections.

The Audit will find Scott in gross non compliance with the Act. Similarily a forensic Audit of Sandy Shantz would find the same thing. In order to save Sandy will Scott be thrown to the wolves? Will MECAC make an example of him in order to hide their coverup of Sandy? Or are they all so arrogant and confident in the buddy system that everybody gets off; Scott free so to speak?

WOOLWICH COUNCIL MEETING THIS TUESDAY 6 PM.

This coming Tuesdy August 11 we have Committee of the Whole at 6 PM.. I believe that Vivienne Delaney, Ron Campbell and Graham Chevreau of CPAC will all be speaking as Delegates albeit on various matters. Yours truly is also booked for a little tete a tete with our esteemed Council.

Recently the Ontario M.O.E. have been requesting information from Graham and CPAC regarding their recent sediment testing in Canagagigue Creek. This has been highly ignorant of them under all the circumstances. First off the disrespectful bastards should be making their inquiries through Chair Dr. Dan Holt. They aren't so they can go kiss themselves. Secondly they were invited (again) to attend CPAC two weeks ago when Graham made his presentation regarding the sediment testing done for CPAC. The M.O.E. failed to attend (again). Thirdly they and Chemtura lied like the dogs they are at the April 9/15 pretend "stakeholders" meeting about Dr. Dan, myself and CPAC. Did I already suggest that they could go kiss themselves?

Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried an article by Paige Desmond titled "Audit of Woolwich councillor's expenses nears end". There will be yet another meeting in Council Chambers on August 27 at 10 am. I personally will attend and see if those idiots can even look me in the eye after their violation of the Elections Act on July 2/15 in Council Chambers. They illegally accepted Mayor Shantz's last minute second set of Financial Statements and Auditor's Report. I expect the Auditor's report to be damning in regards to Scott Hahn's ridiculous filed Financial Statement. It will be interesting to see if MECAC does the right thing and send it on to the courts for prosecution or whether the subverted MECAC will ride to yet another politicians's rescue.

Woolwich Council and Staff are grossly inept and incompetent in oh so many ways. Let me add but one more way. Most municipal councils including past Woolwich Councils post the schedule of Council meetings for the entire year. Currently on the Township's website we have the fascinating knowledge that Council's last meeting was June 25/15. Seriously that's it folks. Not even this coming Tuesday's Council meeting is posted on-line. Are these folks complete space cadets? We pay them above private industry rates, load them with benefits at our cost and they can't even keep up to date on imminent Council meetings. CAO Dave Brenneman is ultimately responsible for all the staff but I guess he's too busy lately defending all the indefensible behaviours of council members. That and writing ridiculous and dishonest Resolutions disbanding committees of council are obviously distracting him.

WOOLWICH COUNCIL'S BEHAVIOUR IS PUBLICLY BITING THEM IN THE ASS

While the below Editorial from the Record is not 100% accurate, it's close enough. The entire Council knowingly allowed Mark and Sandy to dishonestly and maliciously appease Chemtura Canada and the corrupt Ministry of the Environment by falsely blaming CPAC for their manufactured crisis. Do you think I should have one ounce of sympathy for that pack of incompetents? Should I shrug my shoulders and say "Oh what's more deception and dishonesty by half our Council?




Jul 27, 2015 |


The Record's view: A wake-up call for Woolwich
Waterloo Region Record
By Editorial

Whatever is in the water in Woolwich? Half of the current six-member township council — Mayor Sandy Shantz, and councillors Mark Bauman and Scott Hahn — have made mistakes involving the filing of election expenses. And now they are gasping for air in a sea of embarrassment.

Shantz was removed from the office of mayor on July 8, after she failed to properly file her Oct. 27 election expenses. She has acknowledged violating the act by failing to get an audit, accepting a donation above the limit and incorrectly reporting her election income.

Last week, Justice David Broad agreed to allow Shantz to submit corrected documents and return to office.

Meanwhile, Coun. Scott Hahn is awaiting the result of an audit after he didn't file expenses correctly. The first-time councillor has admitted he didn't claim costs for signs and brochures that family members paid for. They told him the materials were free. The investigation could lead to serious penalties under the Municipal Elections Act.

As for Bauman, he didn't file an expense report at all because he was acclaimed and, therefore, didn't have any campaign expenses. His mistake was complicated by the fact that the township clerk's office failed in its duty to issue a warning ahead of the filing deadline. But under the law, even acclaimed candidates must file. Bauman was removed from office briefly and reinstated by the court.

There are some who call this exercise in accountability a tempest in a teapot. The law is too severe and draconian, they say. Indeed, the Municipal Elections Act is under review, so there are opportunities to correct those concerns. But for now, it is the law, it is there to ensure that elections are fair, and it most certainly needs to be obeyed.

Why is Woolwich particularly troubled by these violations? The answer lies in the fact that its politics are more stormy than its bucolic landscape suggests. Two of the three politicians were targeted by a citizen activist, Alan Marshall, who is unhappy with the way Shantz and Bauman handled an advisory committee concerned with pollution of the township's groundwater. Like many activists, Marshall provokes strong feelings in the people he encounters. He isn't finished, either: he has also asked police to investigate what he says were violations of the law by the township clerk and municipal election audit committee.

But love him or loathe him, Marshall's questions have uncovered multiple infractions of the rules. The resulting embarrassment can be a wake-up call, like a splash of cold water on a sleepy face. And in that sense, Marshall has performed a service to his neighbours.



Council were informed in writing by myself as to there being consequences for their behaviour. I and others have unlike them, honestly presented the truth about three of them and their blatant election expense screwups. Is their public exposure, humiliation and embarassment unintentional? Hell no at least on my part it isn't. Can it be remedied? By honest people of good will it can. Council however will likely continue to deflect, distract and obfuscate; thrashing wildly about blaming the messengers instead of themselves.

CHEMTURA'S FIRE, SANDY'S ELECTION EXPENSES, TROLLS & MORE

O.K. yesterday was an interesting day. In over five years I've never had either the number of hits, views and comments as I did yesterday. I've maintained quite a steady batch of readers with some fluctuations up and down depending on the environmental issue of the day. Certainly this last month I've wandered into politics with the election expense scandals here in Woolwich. I deleted numerous comments yesterday especially the late ones after I'd advised that enough was enough. A couple of too clever by half commenters decided to hijack things with their neverending round and round philosophizing.

There was a small fire at Chemtura a week ago Sunday early in the morning. What is interesting is Chemtura's response or better yet non response to the community group (CPAC) appointed by the last Council to interact with Chemtura environmentally. This is in line with Chemtura's behaviour aided and abetted by our new Woolwich Council since last November. Unfortunately it is only a matter of time until Chemtura have another big one. It's not if it's when.

Indeed in my listing yesterday of both new and old election expense contraventions I left out one still unknown area. This is but one of many glaring weaknesses in the Municpal Elections Act 1996 (MEA). Donations of $100 or less are all lumped together without identification. In Mayor Shantz's case this allegedly is a minimum of seventeen anonymous donors each at $100 or less with a grand total of $1658. The obvious problem is that for example two embarassing $750 donations could be hidden in this large group quite easily and remain anonymous at least until a forensic Audit took place. Whether or not our Mayor is capable of such a "mistake" I leave up to you.

Including the campaign videos (12 of them) I listed eleven different contraventions yesterday although I made clear that number 10 (Brian Shantz) was speculative. Number twelve above ($1658 <$100) is also in the speculative category. Nevertheless what is the motivation for all these contraventions? Is it solely to save approximately $750 on the cost of the quickie audit Sandy finally produced on July 2/15? Are the multiple failures to post legitimate and legally mandated expenses due to embarassment at how much she overspent her three opponents combined campaign expenses? Is she actually hiding corporate or other embarassing donors illegally from the public's view? These questions will only possibly be answered truthfully if and when a full blown forensic audit takes place.

MORE NEW EXPENSE CONTRAVENTIONS BY SANDY REVEALED

Is this a record in the sheer number of "errors" any one politician can make in their Financial Statements? Is Sandy the dumbest 31 year bookeeping veteran on the planet? Or... did she do it intentionally?

Why am I revealing here in this venue Mayor Shantz's errors, mistakes, contraventions and screwups? Yes I've already admitted as per this morning's commenter (Saturday's post however) and elsewhere that it is at least partly due to Sandy's dishonest assault upon and dissolution of CPAC. More specifically I'm revealing all the blatant, obvious attempts to deceive as well as the just plain dumb ones because to date all the other "appropriate" forums are comprimised. Where are the responsible "authorities" pray tell? MECAC illegally accepted her three month late, still error riddled Statements. Superior Court Judge D. Broad doesn't understand the significance of the March 23/15 date on Sandy's revised Financials. The Waterloo Regional Police jumped on former mayor Todd Cowan at Woolwich Council's request but have even refused accepting witness contact information from me regarding Sandy's election expenses because Council are still supporting her.

To date Sandy has ADMITTED :

1) failing to file a mandated Audit by March 27/15

2) accepting a corporate overdonation

3) accepting a donation from Councillor Larry Shantz's Web D Zine Inc. attributed to Larry's Stair Travel Inc.

Note that to date 3) while "explained" is still peculiar and very odd.


UNADMITTED by Sandy are:

4) "Revenue from fund-raising events not deemed a contribution"

5) "Meetings hosted"

6) "Cost of fund-raising events/activities"

7) "Voting day party/appreciation notices" - Sandy did the first, bagged the second

8) Table 1 (Donations) & Table 4 "Separate supplementary attachments" are missing

9) March 23/15 knowingly under oath allowing a false Financial Statement to stand

10) Oh boy this is a really serious one and to date speculative: Allegedly hubby Brian Shantz donated the maximum amount ($750) from his corporation Evenholme Investments. What is weird is that as her hubby, Brian can donate as much as he wants and yet allegedly on her Financial Statement he has donated zero. His only donation ($750) was through Evenholme. Could Evenholme be being used as a proxy illegally for a donor who wishes to remain anonymous? If so my guess would be Chemtura or employees.

Numbers 4, 5, 6 & 7 are the newest provable expense irregularities. Included in Sandy's 30 page last minute submission to MECAC on July 2/15 was her homemade Financial Spreadsheet (pg. 13). The last entry (related to 7) appreciation notices) dated December 22/15 is breathtakingly and extraordinarily stupid and incompetent (at best for Sandy). She has removed two already posted expense items totalling $627.15. She has referenced and included MEC guide pgs. 25 & 26 as her justification. Unfortunately her included reference relates to mayoral campaign expense limits which is totally irrelevant to her deducting from her expenses.

I am sure that this illegal deduction ( 7) ) which reduces her total expenses admitted to date from $10,103.04 (above the audit threshold) to only $9,275.39 (below the audit threshold) is purely coincidence.

4), 5) & 6) relate to Sandy's totally as yet unadmitted and unacknowledged September 16/15 kick-off event as well as her October 8/15 Sip n Bite and October 9/15 Bonnie Lou's restaurant events. There is evidence based upon the dates of her admitted bank deposits that she raked in donations at the first one. Also she has not expensed any of these three events and I am skeptical that commercial restaurants would not charge her for either table space or a meeting room during their supper rush hour. If they donated both space, time and refreshments then that should have shown up in her donations but did not. Also Sandy very nicely indicated for MECAC on her "MEC guide pgs. 25 & 26" not only the previously mentioned justification (wrongly) for deducting $627.15 but also her justification (wrongly) for not including the "Cost of holding a fund-raising function". Thank you Sandy!


So is Woolwich Township being run by an incompetent twit or a 31 year bookeeping veteran who knows her way around expense reports? Maybe there's a third option? Possibly I still haven't found all her contraventions and maybe I've even forgotten some and failed to list them this morning. Happy bookeeping Sandy.

DANG! I knew I'd forgotten some things! Sandy's twelve campaign You-Tube videos. This relates back
to 3) . Larry claims in his June 18/15 letter to MECAC that they are included in his October 21/14 $1500
invoice to Sandy. Unfortunately that is NOT what his October invoice says.

SANDY'S CARTOON, "ALARMING" LEVELS OF DDT, JUSTICE BROAD'S REASONS

Thank you Woolwich Observer and cartoonist Arnold. As a non artist and quasi writer I'm the first to appreciate that a picture, especially a humuorous one, is worth a thousand words. Yesterday's Observer has a cartoon showing Sandy replacing CPAC on a blackboard with RAC and TAG. The caption reads "Despite shuffling some chairs, Woolwich is no closer to a solution for ongoing issues identified at the Chemtura site." The second panel of the cartoon shows the Canagagigue Creek with a three legged heron, a two headed duck, dead fish and another fish walking on legs on the creekbank. The cartoonist has succinctly captured the inherent dishonesty and intellectual thinness of Sandy's dissolving of CPAC a month ago. She did it to appease Chemtura not to help the environment even remotely.

The Observer carry the following front page story titled "Elevated DDT levels found in Canagagigue". While the story is excellent due to Steve Kannon interviewing Graham Chevreau of CPAC nevertheless it continues a disturbing trend of the Observer being missing in action for major Woolwich events. They have not attended public CPAC meetings I would estimate in a decade including this last one on July 23/15 in which Graham presented his report and the MBN Environmental sampling results of creek sediments.

Finally while getting the link to put here for the Observer's DDT story I noticed that Steve has an on-line story also on last week's Superior Court decision by Justice D. Broad. Again Steve was sadly missing in action for that Application by Sandy for reinstatement. The K-W Record, CTV News and the Independent were all there in person.

Steve mentions that Justice Broad referred to Sandy's breach as "trivial". Apparently that "trivial" breach required 134 pages of Affidavits, Factums and case law from Sandy's lawyer to explain. Those 134 pages were filled with self serving horse manure and falsehoods. They falsely claimed good faith, inadvertence and honest mistakes. No mention of Sandy's 31 years of bookeeping experience she brags about. No mention of all the expenses she has even yet not admitted to in her to date TWO Financial Statements with a third on the way. No mention of her gamesmanship with "trial by ambush" at MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee). No mention of her gamesmanship in getting a short notice (four days) Application before Superior Court just like Mark Bauman. Remember I received that Notice formally on the Monday three days before the Court hearing. Even if I'd had a lawyer I could not possibly have filed and served all the parties with them then having four days notice as required.

Then the Judge does himself an amazing disservice by admitting he does not understand the March 23/15 barely legible date on Sandy's second Financial Statement. He claims that he doesn't understand its significance even though he thinks I'm speaking to Sandy's lack of good faith regarding knowingly filing a false Financial Statement. Wow maybe the Judge knows the law but he is an idiot regarding simple dates. Sandy put the March 23/15 date on the Financial Statement she sent to Tim Adams of MAC LLP because that's exactly when she sent it. She knew before the March 27/15 filing deadline that her financials were grossly in error. Sandy's lawyer had no meaningful response when Justice Broad invited him to rebut my argument regarding March 23/15 as I posted here a few days back.

The coverup continues and to date includes Woolwich Council, Clerk, MECAC and dare I even think Superior Court. Maybe the judge can use the incompetent defence of Sandy versus being tarred as part of a coverup. Apparently throwing an unpopular Mayor to the wolves for double expensing is O.K. whereas Sandy is "good" people. She represents what the powers to be view as a marketable commodity that can fool enough people with her appearance and usually soft words. Watch how quickly they abandon her when her election expense issues reach an unfavourable tipping point.