NEWS RELEASE
PETER POLITIS, MAYOR OF COCHRANE
*************************
On October 6, 2015 The Audit Firm of FJL CPA’s out of Timmins, Ontario, and Auditor Mr. Paul Rokeby issued their election finance compliance report, which was received on October 15, 2015.
The report indicated that, “As a result of performing the above audit procedures, we found no exceptions.”
The audit was a result of Ms. Maggie Hermiston’s 159 page complaint suggesting that my election expenses were in contravention of the Municipal Elections Act and that as a result, my seat as Mayor should be forfeited.
Clearly, an independent Auditor authorized under the Public Accounting Act, disagreed and cleared my election expense claim as being in complete compliance of the rules.
Today the Election Finance Compliance Committee for Timmins and Cochrane officially accepted the Auditors Report, effectively closing the matter with respect to the complaint process identified in the Elections Act of Ontario.
While happy to have been completely vindicated, I am disappointed in the Committee’s conclusion that there were grounds for the complaint in the first.
Unfortunately what this does, is prevents the duly elected representatives of the public purse, the Cochrane Town Council, an opportunity to recover the cost of the audit from the complainant, Ms. Maggie Hermiston.
If I can politely suggest, the Committee is the vehicle to ensure that everyone out there with an axe to grind doesn’t have access to the public purse to do so.
[EDITED]
At the same time, an independent auditor has determined NO contraventions were found through (Maggie Hermiston's) complaint, logically inferring her claim was baseless.
If we suggest that a claim can be paid for by the public purse but not have to have any finding of contravention, then I politely ask, what or why is the provision in the Act for in the first place?
It’s my sense that the message sent by a finding that there somehow were grounds for this complaint, that an auditor said had no merits, would open the flood gates for everyone with an axe to grind to use the public purse to do so.
As Section 81 Sub 15 lays out, the duly elected representatives of the public purse in Cochrane, its Town Council, cannot exercise its right to seek the remediation outlined in the Act unless the Committee determines the complaint had no grounds.
Now that we’ve gone below the “surface” that the committee relied upon to allow the complaint to go to an Auditor, it’s my view that we now know without question there are no grounds and it was my hope that the committee would have provided the duly elected community representatives of the local public purse (Council), the opportunity to exercise the democratic process in determining for itself if there was merit in seeking a remedy on behalf of the public purse or not.
During the process, I maintained focus on the job at hand and the important items of guiding the Town’s affairs along with council and continuing to do the people’s business, while relying on the process to bring this distraction to the proper conclusion.
I want to thank the Committee for their commitment and contribution to the process.
All in all, the process worked and the world makes a little more sense again.
*************************
