Why we hold our elected officials to a higher standard

As upsetting as it would be for a newly elected city councillor to deal with a newspaper article detailing his past trial and acquittal for fraud, that doesn’t make the story “trash journalism.”

Stephen Wright, who will sit as a Northcrest ward councillor for the first time on Monday night, should know that his conduct, past and present, will now be held to a higher standard.

Wright has described his position as a “sacred trust.” The news media will use its resources to inform people of anything that might cast doubt on his trustworthiness.

It has been 10 years since the incidents that led to Wright being charged with fraud over $5,000, six years since he was acquitted. But the passage of time doesn’t erase his actions.

The facts are contained in the decision of Ontario Superior Court Justice Jennifer Blishen and chronicled in an Examiner article published Nov. 27.

Wright was charged after the OPP found 13 people believed to have given him just over $5,000 in donations for an organization that fought for taxpayers’ rights.

Wright’s problem was that he failed to make it clear which organization he represented.

From 2004 to 2008 Wright was a star canvasser for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF).

But in 2008 he registered his own lobby group, Advocates for Ontario Taxpayers. While still working for CTF he began canvassing former donors on behalf of his own company.

He also hired a bookkeeper, a field agent and a parttime office administrator.

Those 13 donors testified they wrote cheques to Wright under the impression that his new company was affiliated with CTF.

At that point the legal implications get somewhat muddy.

First, the OPP had a math problem. What they believed were $5,117 in donations that led to the charge of fraud over $5,000 turned out to total $4,917. Faced with that error, Justice Blishen ruled she could not find Wright guilty as charged.

If that were the end of Justice Blishen’s finding it might be said that Wright walked away on a technicality.

However, she gave further reasons for acquitting him.

Wright had registered his company and hired staff. Justice Blishen was convinced he legitimately intended to use the money he collected to lobby for tax reform.

She also found that he didn’t intentionally mislead donors while canvassing.

That’s the strength of the criminal justice system. It recognizes that the bar for proof of conviction of a crime is set high, reflecting the seriousness of the impact of conviction.

But the judge did find Wright failed to properly explain himself. He might have been “negligent,” but not criminal.

And she had harsher words regarding his handling of donations.

The money went into an AOT business account, but Wright then transferred some of it to his own account and used if for personal expenses.

The judge found that Wright’s “unacceptable, sloppy bookkeeping” raised suspicion about his motivation.

Suspicious, but not criminal. Still, it's not the endorsement a political candidate would be looking for.

Wright now has four years to convince voters he is trustworthy. They will have the record of both his past behaviour and present performance to go on.

He would be wise to explain his side of that past behaviour, rather than dismissing the facts as “trash journalism.”