WOOLWICH ELECTION EXPENSE SCANDAL - WATERGATE REVISITED ?

The biggest scandals and downfalls of public figures often result from relatively minor transgressions being grossly mishandled. When those in positions of authority, courtesy of the voters, forget that they are there on the sufferance and ongoing confidence of those same citizens; then strategical blunders on a massive scale can occur. It appears that the first choice of political leaders is to deny, deflect, distract and attack. Then comes the coverup. It is much too easy for those in the public eye to misuse that ready access to the media. Everybody wants to interview them. It is so easy to get their message out that they can be careless with the truth.

Watergate was a third rate burglary of an office building. They stole some paperwork for Pete's sake. And it toppled a Presidency. In our Woolwich Watergate we have a previously unknown rookie Councillor apparently with a well off family willing to finance his campaign. He accepted a significant amount of money and when it came time to report his election expenses he seriously screwed them up to the tune of thousands of dollars. I do not know if he received advice that nobody cared, nobody will catch on or not.

Councillor Bauman has admitted that he improperly failed to file election expense reports four times! The rules/law that ALL candidates MUST file is in the Municipal Elections Act, it is in the Candidates Guide to Municipal Elections (2010 & 2014 at the least), it is on the front page of the Financial Statement Form 4 and finally in a package given to all candidates including Mark, it is spelled out. So after as the legislation demands he was declared in default and forfeited his office what does he do? He sneaks into Superior Court on the quiet so as not to warn either electors or the Complainant/Applicant namely myself. Woolwich Council pretend to be the Respondent versus his now being the Applicant to the Court, asking to restore his seat on Council. Council ordered their lawyer not to oppose the Application. In other words don't inform me, don't produce any evidence contrary to Mark's pleadings. I had evidence that should have been heard by the Judge. It was not, to the shame and disgrace of Woolwich Council, Staff and Mark Bauman. He sneaked his Council seat back instead of permitting all evidence to be given to Judge Campbell.

Former mayor Shantz's behaviour is in my opinion the worst of the lot. She held the mayor's Chair for over three months after being in Default. When she, Staff and Council were so advised in writing including quoting the exact Sections and sub sections of the Municipal Elections act 1996, they went into coverup mode. They dug in their heels and refused to do their legally mandated duty to rectify the matter. That as much as her major election expense errors is why I am in discussions with the Waterloo Regional Police. She should have resigned immediately if the Woolwich Clerk refused to pull the trigger and issue her a Default Notice. Council should have stepped up and demanded that both the Mayor and the Clerk follow both the honourable and legal path. They did not. And now they have indicated that they are on the same legal path as they did for Mark Bauman. That said there is a glimmer of hope. I have received a tantalizing hint of honesty from an appropriate source. We shall see.