There are numerous questions generated by the dozens of campaign financial statements filed last week by councillors and other candidates in last fall’s municipal election. But answers will have to be pursued by individual voters because no official oversight of the statements is required under provincial law. And in Hamilton you can’t even compare the 2014 campaign spending to earlier elections.
Elections manager Tony Fallis has told CATCH that “the 2010 financial statements have been destroyed as per the Municipal Elections Act”. Section 88 of the Act orders destruction of ballots within 120 days and says the city clerk “may destroy any other documents and materials related to the election” but then says this section “does not apply” to financial statements “which the clerk shall retain until the members of the council …elected at the next regular election have taken office.”
But Hamilton’s interpretation of the legislation isn’t the same as other municipalities such as Toronto where all financial statements from both the 2006 and 2010 elections are still on the city’s website.
The 2014 campaign financial statements raise a number of significant questions. Newbie Stoney Creek councillor Doug Conley failed to provide any sources for his campaign funds; addresses of most donors listed on Brad Clark’s return are not provided despite the legal requirement to do so; some donors are listed as individuals but with corporate addresses; and at least one corporate donor company doesn’t appear to exist at all.
A particularly curious feature of the 2014 statements is the use of very expensive “voting day party / appreciation notices” apparently to avoid the legal requirement to donate fundraising surpluses to the city.
Before the election campaign, candidates are told the maximum amount they are allowed to spend – based on the number of voters in their ward (or the city for mayoralty candidates). If a candidate collects more than that amount, she “must pay the surplus over to the clerk” where “it becomes the property of the municipality” or is used for specific post-election expenses such as a recount or compliance audit.
However, the rules exempt some expenditures from the election spending limits including “expenses related to parties and other expressions of appreciation after the close of voting”. Five long-time councillors and at least one newbie each report spending over $2000 on this item, with Tom Jackson devoting nearly as much to it as he spent getting re-elected.
Jackson’s prescribed spending limit was $29,078.80 but he collected donations of $63,580 before pouring $24,172.29 into his election-day party and appreciations. Along with other exempt items, that “thank you” cut Jackson’s surplus to just $449.68, which he paid to the clerk.
Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson also raised far more than he was allowed to spend, and used $12,129.74 for his election party and voter appreciation activities. That cut his surplus to $76.04 although Ferguson’s financial statements don’t show that being paid to the city – something that could cost him his seat.
Sam Merulla dropped $6,220 on his voter appreciation efforts, and Maria Pearson devoted nearly $4,700 to hers, each eliminating their surplus and requirement to pay anything to the city.
Chad Collins and Matthew Green both spent a little over $2000 on this item. By comparison, Mayor Eisenberger devoted only $646 to his victory party and Aidan Johnson spent nothing at all. That was also the case for losing mayoralty candidate Brian McHattie, while Brad Clark allocated just $573. Other winning candidates reported from $300 to slightly over $1200 in this post-election spending category.
Provincial rules don’t require any explanation of how these monies were spent, and none of the elected councillors except Brenda Johnson volunteer the information in their filed statements. Johnson provides a detailed breakdown of payees and amounts for all her election expenditures.
CBC Hamilton reported that when they asked Jackson he explained that he gave out gift cards to 110 volunteers – an average of over $200 each. Ferguson refused to explain his spending.
“I don’t need to,” he said. “This is not public money. It’s money I spent for my campaign. I’m grateful for the support I got. I’m equally grateful for my volunteers.”
Residents have only 90 days to challenge any aspects of the statements to a compliance audit committee composed for four citizens. And no government official or court will examine the filed statements without a resident filing a complaint.