Wait a sec: how can two unelected representatives call for an Audit and then have that put before Council for a vote? I mean, isn't that supposed to be the exclusive domain of the elected representatives?

Newspapers call for all sorts of stuff all the time -- newspapers, we should always always remember, were invented for just such partisan aggitation and pushing the agendas of those who own the printing press, so it's no more surprising to see that sort of stuff in their editorials than it is to see a paper posting an editorial call for abolishing the Indian Act vainly veiling a subtext call for renegging aboriginal rights; editorials are anachronistic persuasion pulpits, soapboxes in print, you expect all sorts of ranting because that was their purpose, and in modern times they've set themselves up needing to find fresh rants daily, which makes their constancy even more amusing, but that is another story for another thread :)

I don't mind someone shouting I WANT AN AUDIT into the grand canyon, but it is a tad worrisome if our elected representatives take their directives from such press, rather than from the electorate.

Besides, aren't audits expensive? Without real due cause for concern, the sort that would interest the OPP, to have an audit seems to me a step on the irresponsible side -- and if someone is selling Willie by the pound, then the process for punishment is simply to unelect them next time 'round the polls.

Which, IIRC, is what happened.

Ah, but you see, in that Hamilton case, right there, reasonable and probable grounds, the sort that would, as I said, interest the OPP. Hmmm ... 'illegal donations to the mayor's campaign' ...

Justice Timothy Culver has ordered a compliance audit of mayor Larry Di Ianni's 2003 election campaign finances. The decision released this afternoon also slams Hamilton city council for "a failure or refusal to meaningfully exercise jurisdiction" when Dundas bookseller Joanna Chapman asked them to order the audit last July. Chapman had identified more than two dozen apparently illegal donations to Di Ianni's campaign when she examined the mayor's March 2004 filing, which led her to ask for the audit. Justice Culver agrees with Chapman that "all of the over-contributions were easily identifiable in the filing". He goes on to note that Di Ianni "swore a declaration confirming that the schedules, which revealed this overcontribution, were true and correct [and] had a statutory obligation . to ensure the accuracy of the record." Consequently, Culver concludes that Chapman "had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the candidate was aware of the over-contributions and had not returned the funds as soon as possible, a contravention of the [Municipal Elections] Act."
[ Judge orders audit of mayor's campaign finances ]

"contravention of the Act" -- that seems a completely alternate reality to what's being bantered about in our local case. If there are grounds for the action, then hey, so be it ... but let's see the allegations put out into the light where there will be some accountability put on the accusers too!

Ok, I misunderstood the first time, I thought this was about some mismanagement of municipal money and that's why I was so confused about council taking up orders from editorials. It's not about fiscal policy at all, it is rather a stab at scoring some Point of Order in the Elections Act, an attempt to annul the whole show by alleging that Gwen's campaign had omitted some significant anomalies.

There are details posted today in the Sun Times website, and before you ask, no, they aren't claiming she got Developer money twice for the same property ...

"... Noble refers to Gilbert's alleged rental of office space ... He also alleges Gilbert "understated" her mailing expenses and did not declare the true cost of brochures.

Close alleges Gilbert did not properly disclose a number of her election expenses including in kind contributions. ... Close specifically refers to the Gilbert campaign headquarters in Hepworth ... it should have been declared ... but it does not appear in the Gilbert campaign's audited declaration, he says. ... At "fair market value" including all expenses, that expense would have been about $4,000, he claims.

Close also points to a half-page advertisement dealing with a "smear campaign" that appeared in the weekly Wiarton Echo newspaper during the campaign. The ad did not disclose who paid for it....
[ Losing candidates ask for audit ]

Damn, I missed the smear campaign, too pre-occupied with what was happening here on the SBP I suppose. But wow ... A grand a month for that little way-side brick shack in Hepworth??!! OMG I had no idea! Gwen, listen, next time just rent one of those lakeshore shops here in downtown Sauble Beach; same price, but the view is way better ... and the neighbourhood cafe coffee is way better too.

Here is the big picture. While a few John Close loyalists were trying to make it look like there was support for his campaign by peppering the boulevards in Wiarton with signs the real campaign support was coming from ordinary folks helping out any way they could and directing their help to the Gwen Gilbert campaign. Much of it was just the community throwing in behind the idea that Gwen Gilbert for mayor was a sensible idea. She struck a chord and the help poured out. How do you quantify that in the record? You don't because you cannot put a value on it.

Another example of unattributed support was the huge "No Pipeline" sign in Hepworth. This was paid for by a private individual who is also a welcome member on this site. It wasn't part of Gwen's campaign but it just happened to dovetail right in, in just the same way as people offered their property to put signs of support. You cannot place a value on that it is pro bono and priceless at the same time.

Meanwhile if you will recall Close was busy explaining to the press how to get a four figure reward if you could catch someone removing a Close sign from public property.

What has happened here is that Close and Noble have protested the amount of real public support that Gwen Gilbert received. No one is fooled. This is just another feint in a continuing campaign against Mayor Gilbert coming from the Wiarton BIA, the shadow council and the 5 individuals on Council who would like to get revenge against the real grass roots community that supports Mayor Gilbert. They do not care what it will cost us in expenses or opportunity cost. They just want to set the stage for election 2010.

That opportunity cost could mean lost time in getting though the real business of Council and the Town.