The Compliance
Audit Committee reconvened on October 23 to consider two matters according to
the legislation.
“In accordance
with Section 81(14), the Compliance Audit Committee may consider the following:
(a) if the
report concludes that the candidate appears to have contravened a provision of
this Act relating to election campaign finances, commence a legal proceeding
against the candidate for the apparent contravention;
(b) if the report
concludes that the candidate does not appear to have contravened a provision of
this Act relating to election campaign finances, make a finding as to whether
there were reasonable grounds for the application. 2009, c. 33,
Sched. 21, s. 8 (44).”
That is what I
expected to happen, but it didn’t. To my surprised solicitor Jack Siegel acting
for McLean the applicant, challenged the competence and the completeness of the
audit and the engagement letter. Grant Thornton LLP is a well qualified firm
and when questioned by my solicitor confirmed they have conducted other
Compliance Audits. This was not a new exercise or area of expertise for them. Their
audit was complete and aside from some minor compliance issues that I noted in
my last article and were noted in the Grant Thornton Audit Report, it mirrored
the audit that had been conducted by Smith Lassaline from Barrie.
Even though my
solicitor Renatta Austin, a close associate of well know lawyer Peter
Rosenthal, repeated a number of times that the only purpose of the October 23rd
meeting was to consider the matters above, the committee seemed swayed and questioned
the Grant Thornton LLP Letter of Engagement and the Compliance Audit Report itself.
The Committee has asked for a new firm by issuing an RFP and also requesting a
forensic audit, which is not required by legislation. Just so you know, you are
paying for these audits, as it is a Township responsibility. The Committee will
reconvene within 20 days and appoint another auditor. If you are counting, that
will be three audits of my election expenses. Remember, I am still well under
my spending limit by close to 25% after two audits.
What is my
thinking on the matter? I believe certain parties intend to cause me financial
harm by various legal delay tactics. They are hoping I will roll over and play
dead and in frustration resign as Mayor. That is not going to happen. I and my
team worked far too hard to allow Springwater to finally be governed by people
with them first in mind. I do not respond well to intimidation and have seen this
type of clever legal maneuvering many times in my career. With the support of
many in Springwater, I will be around when this nonsense is over and hopefully
some others will be held accountable for this ill-conceived attempt at
attacking my character and reputation, causing unnecessary stress on my wife
and family along with my pocket book. A number of people who are appalled at
this three ring circus are asking how they can help. I am thinking about that. This
is all about democracy, not my election expenses. Most of the electorate chose
me to be your Mayor and I plan to honour that trust.
In closing,
I thank the many supporters that attended the committee meeting on October 23 and
have phoned me with their words of support. It is much appreciated.
