The law is supposed to be consistent
IN READING THE TWO articles on Scott Hahn and Todd Cowan in the Observer (July 21, 2016) I was struck by the similarities and inconsistencies when it comes to the way people view these two elected officials.
Todd Cowan was in trouble for $2,840.09 (his $2,700 double reimbursement, which he paid back, plus the $140.09 for lunches he shouldn’t have billed to the township).
Scott Hahn is in trouble for the difference between his actual campaign expenses and what he filed on his expense report after being elected. Hahn listed $3,072.66 as actual expenses after the Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) hearing began trying to correct the $258.40 amount he officially filed at first. This makes a difference of $2,814.26 between what Hahn originally filed and what he later filed as a correction. That is only a difference of $25.83 between the money involved for Cowan and Hahn.
Yet, there are many differences in how people are viewing these two violations of trust by elected officials. In an article in the Observer, Judge Michael Epstein said, “(T)he public is interested in seeing Cowan give something back to the community, that he be held accountable for what he did, and that it be recognized by the court that what he did was wrong. General deterrence and denunciation are clearly the most important factor.” Todd Cowan has paid dearly for being, as defense attorney Thomas Brock stated in the same article, “…a man with poor organization.”
The cartoon, pointing only to Cowan, in the July 21 issue points out that there are additional expenses for the taxpayers for all this mess. The caption reads, “Although former Woolwich mayor Todd Cowan made restitution and paid a small victim surcharge fee, taxpayers are on the hook for a whole lot more.” I would submit that Scott Hahn has cost the taxpayers a significant amount as well. He, Hahn, filed either a dishonest or sloppy expense form after the last election.
When he filed that form he was an elected official, putting his case on equal footing with that of Todd Cowan. The difference is that when confronted with evidence produced by the official forensic audit that Hahn had “… ‘contravened multiple provisions of the Municipal Elections Act’ in filing his election expense report” the members of MECAC “…decided Hahn’s contraventions weren’t significant enough to warrant referring the case to the courts for legal action. Instead, the majority of members agreed the councillor hadn’t been hiding anything, but that he had been ignorant of the rules, guilty of nothing more than poor paperwork after the election.”
Isn’t that exactly what happened to Todd Cowan? He was guilty of poor paperwork and admitted as much. Yet, he was taken to court and after several months and thousands of dollars, both his and the taxpayers, was found not guilty of willful fraud. Maybe Scott Hahn will be found not guilty of anything other than being “ignorant of the rules,” but the process needs to be pursued, MECAC was blatantly wrong in not sending the Hahn case to the courts.
Being an elected official for the township means that Hahn cannot continue in thinking that he doesn’t have to follow the election law. If he didn’t know what was expected then I worry that: 1) he didn’t bother to find out the proper, legal way to fill out the form; or 2) he didn’t understand the law, which means he was unable to follow it because it was too complicated for him. As a councillor, he is expected to consider bylaws, ordinances, budgets, and other complicated issues.
The issues are honesty, integrity, intent, and a violation of trust by those who represent citizens in their capacity as elected officials in both cases. Don’t the same rules apply to Hahn?
The law, all laws, are supposedly written and passed by elected officials for the “good of all citizens”… or in the best interest of citizens. Why then is prosecuting a person for breaking the law “not in the public interest”? Violating the law is violating the law. Breaking the law is not in the best interest of the citizens. To say, as members of MECAC said, “oh, it is not significant enough” is just wrong. If it is an insignificant law then by all means eliminate or change the law. While it is in effect, though, shouldn’t it be followed?
It is disturbing to now hear blame for the expenditure of tax dollars being dumped on a private citizen, Alan Marshall in this case, for requesting that the law of the land be followed. Do we do that when a person reports his property has been stolen? Do we blame the victim of a crime for being a victim? In these cases we are all the victims of these, albeit minor, crimes so why is it that Mr. Marshall is himself victimized by public criticism for wanting the law to be enforced. Why the outrage against Mr. Cowan